Comments by "TheFlat EarthTruth" (@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth) on "JRE Clips" channel.

  1. "am I missing something?",,,,Yes, quite a lot. You wrote that " the earth spins 1000 mph"....This is incorrect, nothing "spins" in mph. mph are units of linear velocity and angular velocity and tangential linear velocity are not the same thing. The correct angular velocity of the Earth is 0.000072921159 radians per second. Take care.
    8
  2. There is no Earth based telescope that has the resolution to be able to detect objects as small as the Apollo equipment left on the lunar surface. Read the Wikipedia Page on "Angular Resolution" or any of the many websites and videos on "The Rayleigh Criterion" to understand why this is so. Any objects that we can detect on distant planets present a much larger angular size than the Apollo equipment. However you may be interested to know that satellites in lunar orbit from 5 different countries have detected the Apollo landing sites and equipment on the lunar surface. Take care.
    4
  3. Just for the record. The Dutch petrified wood never had anything to do with NASA, the Apollo astronauts or the US government. The family of a former Dutch Prime Minister presented what they claimed to be a lunar sample to a Dutch Art museum and received a sizable tax write off in return. The first geologist to view the sample immediately realised that it was not of lunar origin. This clearly demonstrates that competent geologists will easily know the difference between material of terrestrial and lunar origin. Over 400 samples of lunar rock and soil are released every year for research by The Lunar Sample Laboratory at the Johnson Space Centre, Houston. To date thousands of scientists of various fields have examined lunar samples and verified their lunar origin. Thank you for raising this point so the facts can be made clear. Take care.
    3
  4. @ Thank you for your reply. "NASA admitted that training footage accidentally was added to the live broadcast".........Total and utter fiction. Whoever told you this has seriously mislead you! Neither was any original footage lost, every second from every camera from every mission is all available and easily sourced. Take care.
    3
  5. @ Thank you for your reply. I can not be clearer on this point. Absolutely no "training videos" of any sort were broadcast as "live" in 1969 and absolutely no one in NASA have ever claimed that this happened. " "somehow training video recordings made it into the broadcast in 1969.." You are clearly either very mixed up or have been mislead on this point. Please provide the original source for this claim so that we can critically examine it. Also the the Apollo 11 SSTV tapes were back up and never actually used or to the best of my knowledge ever actually played. Every single second from every single camera from every single mission is all in existence and easily sourced online. Take care.
    3
  6. I have looked it up. In the interview Aldrin laments the fact that there was no manned return since Apollo and puts forward some reasons why this is so. Cherry-picking short phrases while hiding the context is not actual evidence. Take care.
    3
  7. Do you mean the Apollo 11 post flight press conference where the 3 Apollo 11 astronauts spend close to an hour outlining their mission then take questions from reporters for about the same length of time. Where they repeatedly smile, laugh and crack jokes with the reporters? So have you ever actually watched it yourself or are you being spoon fed from a conspiracy peddler? Take care.
    3
  8. Could you remind us again why "getting passed the Van Allen belts is impossible"? Take care.
    3
  9. Assuming that you mean the filming of the lift-off of the Ascent Stage of the LM on the Apollo 17 mission. The RCA TV camera was mounted on the LRV. The rate of assent, the position of the camera, the communications delay and other details were all worked out in advance. The camera was operated remotely from Mission Control, Houston by Ed Fendell. Also the footage lasts less than 60 seconds, not many minutes as you seem to think. Take care.
    3
  10. So why don't you produce the evidence to back up your claim? Take care.
    3
  11.  @Alex-hr2df  Thank you for your reply. You made the claim. Now, like all moon-landing deniers, you are unable to back it up with actual evidence. Take care.
    3
  12.  @Alex-hr2df  Thank you for your reply. I asked for evidence, unfortunately all that you have been able to do is make further unevidenced claims. These claims are the usual jaded offerings that have been debunked many, many times before. (1) "Shadows in images proving spot lights"...If there were multiple light sources as you claim then every single object would produce multiple shadows. However we do not observe this in any of the thousands of Apollo photographs. (2) “No crater of thrusters”. The Descent Stage rocket engine produced a thrust of just 3000lb on landing and this engine was cut some 2m above the surface. No “crater” could possible be expected in these conditions. (3) “No dust on the the (sic) pads”. Incorrect, dust is observed on the landing pads in some of the missions ( AS16-107-17442). That said, what exactly does basic Physics tell us should happen to dust disturbed and given momentum in a vacuum? (4) “Camera lens crosshairs hidden behind objects”. The crosshairs aren’t behind objects, they’re washed out, as occurs often for any thin object photographed against an overexposed bright background, especially after repeated analogue duplications of a photo. The apparently covered crosshairs are often visible in the original pictures. (5) “Illuminated dark side of the astronaut”. (Please identify this photograph). Does the lunar surface reflect light, yes or no? (6) “Ridiculous fuel capacity compared to distance”. Strange that none of the many thousands of highly qualified scientists and engineers involved in the Apollo Program and the many who have studied it over the decades see any difficulty here. Please provide your detailed calculations on this issue to include all your research, assumptions, published work etc. One has a choice, blindly regurgitate the usual conspiracy nonsense claims without providing any evidence to back them up or actually go and study some basic science. Take care.
    3
  13. "if they were there they would have brought back loads of samples that would have been massively analyzed". Are you having a laugh? They brought back over 380Kg of lunar rock and soil samples that have been analysed by scientists from all over the World for decades. Each year over 400 samples of lunar rock and soil are released for research by the Johnston Space Centre and to date many thousands of scientists of various disciples have analysed them and many thousands of scientific papers have been published. Do better research. Take care.
    3
  14. You didn't provide and evidence for your claim and those who make claims such as yours never do. Take care.
    3
  15. "would be sucked out by the vacuum of space"...A vacuum does not suck or exert a force in any way. Perhaps learn some basic Physics before commenting on these matters. Take care.
    3
  16. Would you please show us all your calculations, research and the published work to back up your claim or would you rather prefer to run or deflect? Take care.
    2
  17. I guess if you do not understand the basics about radiation and the Van Allen Belts then you can say anything that you want.
    2
  18. Can you please tell us where is this "studio" that has such low gravity, a single light source with a dark sky and zero atmospheric resistance. Take care.
    2
  19. 6 crewed moon landings, not 7. Apollo 7 was a crewed mission in Earth orbit, perhaps you are thinking of Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 which were the first manned trips to the moon. Take care.
    2
  20.  @AzemM-e5s  Thank you for your reply. An Oxidiser is a chemical that spontaneously produces Oxygen under certain conditions, often by being heated. I believe that the Apollo missions used a variety of oxidisers including Nitrogen Tetroxide and Hydrogen Peroxide. Take care.
    2
  21. So is your opinion backed up by any evidence, yes or no? Take care.
    2
  22. @ Again thank you for your reply. And again you seem in an inordinate rush to leave. That is not surprising as what you are spreading is misinformation. The Apollo 11 SSTV tapes were simply back-ups, were never intended as anything else and were never actually used. Furthermore your claim that ""somehow training video recordings made it into the broadcast in 1969" is completely non-factual and no one in NASA has ever made such a claim. You seem incredibly reluctant to provide the original source for this claim. Take care.
    2
  23. @ Thank you for your reply. Your claim that ""somehow training video recordings made it into the broadcast in 1969". This is completely non-factual and no one in NASA has ever made such a claim. You continually fail to provide the original source for this claim and continually seem to wish to want to run. So if you want to run, then off you go. Take care.
    2
  24. So if the Earth is flat as you claim then where exactly does the Sun go at night?
    2
  25. There is no telescope in existence that has the resolution ability to view the Apollo equipment from Earth. However, satellites in lunar orbit from 4 different countries have detected the various Apollo landing sites and equipment. Take care.
    2
  26. So when something working as planned and designed it makes you think it is fake....Interesting.
    2
  27. Totally incorrect. On the USS Hornet, when they arrived back they were clearly tired but quite joyful and full of smiles. Also in the Apollo 11 post flight press conference some 3 weeks later they were smiling, laughing and cracked jokes with reporters. Have you been fed by peddlers of conspiracy rather doing your own research? Take care.
    2
  28. Could you please provide some evidence for that claim because absolutely np one including Dr. James Van Allen agrees with it. Take care.
    2
  29. Anyone who thinks that "the space shuttle" had anything to do with the Apollo Program perhaps is not in the best position to comment on these matters. Take care.
    2
  30.  @1957rayboconfederatecitizen  If you want to be taken seriously as a reality denier you will have to use emojis. Take care.
    2
  31. "radiation walls"???? "cant do it now".......?????
    2
  32. So what technology specifically was missing during the Apollo Program?
    2
  33. "There wasn’t any tech out in space to track it".......The Apollo 11 flight (and previous and subsequent missions) and its communications were tracked by radio telescope teams in numerous countries (such as US, UK, Italy, Germany, Australia, not to mention the USSR) all the way to the moon and back. Even some amateurs managed to detect, record and verify the direction of the communications. Take care.
    2
  34. Moon landing deniers never provide any actual evidence for their claims.....will you be the first?
    2
  35. The Apollo astronauts wished to take correctly exposed photographs of the bright, daytime lunar surface. Starlight, which is very dim, will not register under such conditions. If the camera settings/exposure time was increased so as to detect starlight then everything else in the photograph would be greatly overexposed and just appear as a mass of glare. Take care.
    2
  36. The Van Allen Belt's are not the insurmountable obstacle that some moon landing deniers seem to think. "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." Dr. James A. Van Allen.
    2
  37. Strange that Dr. James Van Allen, who advised NASA during the Apollo Program, did not agree with such claims. No does any physicist that I know. Take care.
    2
  38. You 100% have produced zero evidence to back up your claim. Take care.
    2
  39.  @anthonycurran362  Thank you for your reply. It is most interesting to note that when asked for evidence to back up their claims the vast majority of moon-landing deniers never produce any. For the few that do attempt, their "evidence" invariably turns out to be either misunderstanding, misinterpretation, cherry-picked comments with context hidden or simply downright lies. Either way zero actual evidence ever is produced. Take care.
    2
  40. ""like a microwave dinner"......The Van Allen Belts (Plural) do not contain microwave radiation or electromagnetic radiation of any sort. There is absolutely no evidence that short term exposure in the conditions of the Apollo flights would have caused the effects that you claim. Take care.
    2
  41. "need several feet of concrete or the equivalent to go through the Van Allen". Totally incorrect. The Van Allen Belts mainly consist of Alpha and Beta particles. Alpha is stopped by a sheet of paper and Beta by a thin sheet of aluminium. Of more concern would be the Hydrogen nuclei in the inner belt but the Apollo astronauts spent very little time in this region of space. Also you must remember that not only the hull of the spacecraft acted as shielding but everything that the craft contained such as fuel, equipment, fittings etc. Please stick to facts. Take care.
    2
  42. So if you completely ignore the dozens of scientific experiments carried out during the Apollo missions and totally ignore all the Lunar Surface Experiments then you can say that there was no science involved.....Is that your point? Take care.
    2
  43.  @yassassin6425  It appears that he was so overwhelmed by your answer that he forgot to say thanks!
    2
  44. Because the Apollo equipment is simply too small to be seen from Earth. There is no Earth based telescope with the resolution to be able to detect the equipment. Take care.
    2
  45. And the evidence to back up your claim is?
    2
  46. They did go back, and travelling to space is far more common now then in 1960's, what are you talking about?
    2
  47. Kubrick's family have repeatedly rebuked the outlandish fantasy that he had something to do with faking the Apollo Landings and have expressed their disgust at those who spread these lies. His daughter Vivian has asked conspiracy theorists (she refers to them as "malicious cranks") to stop using her fathers name in this way and said that what they say is "is manifestly a grotesque lie". Her open letter to moon landing deniers is easily found online. Please think about this and respect the family's wishes. Take care.
    2
  48. (1) "people say that it can still be seen with a telescope"......No one who understands basic optics has ever said that. There is no telescope in existence that has the resolution ability to view the Apollo equipment from Earth. However, satellites in lunar orbit from 4 different countries have detected the various Apollo landing sites and equipment. Take care.
    2
  49. Serious question, do you really believe what you have written, yes or no? Take care.
    2
  50. I feel sorry for gullible people like you who swallow such lies. Take care.
    2
  51. Only idiots make claims and can not back them up with evidence. So do you have any actual evidence to back up your claim or not? Take care.
    1
  52. "If they went to moon, why didn't they go second time".....Has to be a low grade troll, nobody could really be that clueless.
    1
  53. You never gave any evidence to back up your claim.
    1
  54. And your evidence is?
    1
  55. You didn't provide any evidence for your claim and those who make claims such as yours never do. Take care.
    1
  56. Stanley Kubrick never said any such thing but the actor Tom Mayk sure said that in the 2015 mockumentary film Shooting Stanley Kubrick. Have we another who hasn't done their research?
    1
  57. Various Apollo landing sites have been imaged, photographed and identified by several lunar probes and satellites in lunar orbit. For example the Japanese SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings and matched the terrain to Apollo footage and the ISRO (India) Chandrayaan-2 orbiter captured an image of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage. The orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public in a presentation on September 3, 2021. China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, also spotted traces of Apollo landing sites. In addition NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has also captured sharp clear images of the Apollo 12, 14 and 17 landing sites. Take care.
    1
  58.  @BN-cp6fw  The measured lunar surface temperature range during the Apollo 11 time on surface was -23C to 7C. All the Apollo landings took place early in the lunar day when the temperatures were mid range. Take care.
    1
  59. And what evidence is that? Take care.
    1
  60. Stanley Kubrick had zero involvement in the Apollo Program and never claimed to have any. Buzz Aldrin is still alive. Take care.
    1
  61. So produce the credible and reliable evidence to back up your claim.
    1
  62. Research the term "chemical oxidiser" and you will have learnt something. Take care.
    1
  63. There is lower gravity on the moon, not zero gravity. Take care.
    1
  64. Please get your facts correct and speak the truth. Buzz Aldrin never said any such thing. Take care.
    1
  65.  @joseandrescazares6024  I was saying that what you said is non-factual and quite absurd. Do try to put a little basic research into your comments before falling for conspiracy nonsense. Take care.
    1
  66.  @chicas7569  No Apollo astronaut, Dr. Aldrin included, has ever even hinted at the Apollo Program being fake in any way. Please stay with the facts. Take care.
    1
  67.  @chicas7569  Again, your comment makes zero sense. What question, what interview, what answer, who gave this answer. Full details please. Take care.
    1
  68.  @bupahs  Run Rabbit Run..........
    1
  69. In 1969...really???
    1
  70. "we have been to the moon once but only once"....Are you just trolling or do you really not know that there were 9 manned missions to the moon with 6 successful manned landings? Take care.
    1
  71. Correct. Satellites in lunar orbit from 5 different countries have identified the various Apollo landing sites. Take care.
    1
  72. The flags oscillated when the Astronauts were moving them during assembly and supplying them with energy. A flag will oscillate very easily in a vacuum as there is no atmospheric resistance to remove energy from it. The flags only oscillated when the astronauts moved them or interacted with them in some way, otherwise they remained motionless. Take care.
    1
  73. "signal need 11 minutes to get to the moon".........???????????????????????????????????????????????????
    1
  74.  @kovacevicboban  The basic Speed = Distance/ Time calculation has been worked out for you by a previous commentator. The speed of the Unified S-Band signal used by the Apollo MSFN is 2.9979 x 10>8 m/s (the speed of light). The distance to the moon is 3.84 x 10>8 m/s giving a one way communications delay of about 1.25 seconds or a total of 2.5 seconds there and back. Take care.
    1
  75.  @sewerbat4634  Thank you for your reply. Take care.
    1
  76. So produce the evidence to back up your claim, what is stopping you??????
    1
  77. It was not a guess. The LRV was placed in a specific pre-agreed position, the rate of assent of the Ascent Stage of the LM was known in advance and the maths were not that hard to work out. The communications time delay and the reaction time of the electric motors were also known. All Ed had to do was move a rheostat at a predetermined rate beginning at a specific time in a predetermined countdown. Take care,
    1
  78. You didn't provide and evidence for your claim and those who make claims such as yours never do. Take care.
    1
  79. Didn't "drop", he pushed it that way with his hand. Check out the full original video and you will observe that the globe moves in all different directions as the astronauts push it around an at times it floats in thin air. Somehow I doubt if your conspiracy guru of choice allowed you to see that! Take care.
    1
  80. You didn't provide and evidence for your claim and those who make claims such as yours never do. Take care.
    1
  81. Dr. James Van Allen said otherwise.
    1
  82.  @yassassin6425  A very clear, concise and accurate debunk. Well done.
    1
  83. No Apollo astronaut has ever "admitted he never went" to the moon. Have you been fed short cherry-picked comments by a peddler of conspiracy who hid the context from you? Take care.
    1
  84. "we're spinning 1000 mph"................NOTHING spins in mph as mph are units of linear velocity. Linear tangential velocity and angular velocity are not the same thing. The correct angular velocity of the Earth is 0.000073 radians/sec. Take care.
    1
  85. Can you list the ways in which the technology needed for a manned lunar mission has advanced since the end of Apollo? Take care.
    1
  86. The particle radiation in the VAB's does not significantly interfere with Unified S-Band frequencies. Take care.
    1
  87. Please list what "technology did Not exist".
    1
  88. Satellites in lunar orbit from 5 different countries have identified and verified the various Apollo landing sites. Take care.
    1
  89.  @Alex-hr2df  Thank you for your reply in which you show a poor understanding of basic Physics, the Apollo Program and ever seem unaware of your own previous comments. Again, all you have done is repeated some of your unevidenced claims, ignored others and added a few more without, as is your custom, providing any evidence to back them up. Your comments continue to underline your very poor knowledge and lack of research on the topic. (1) “I never said multiple lights. Spotlight is a single light”….Incorrect. What you wrote was “Shadows in images proving spot lights". (2) “free fall from 2m would smash the hell out of the equipments and landing pads”….Incorrect. The Lunar Module was designed to drop the last 5ft. This was done to prevent the LM descent module engine from reflecting thrust back up into the engine bell and possibly causing catastrophic damage. (3) “being carried up until 2m above the surface MUST create a crater”…..The LM had landing pods, what do you think that they were for? (4) “Did you see NASA the takeoff video also? Why doesn't it show any dust blown-away or any crater being formed? Please don't tell me the thruster started 2m above the surface”…….Here you display your total ignorance of the Apollo Program. The Ascent Stage of the Lunar Module was a separate spacecraft with its own rocket engine and propellent supply. It used the Descent Stage as its launch pad. The thrust produced by the Ascent Stage rocket engine never impacted on the surface so a crater and dust disturbed was impossible. (5) “You believe dust should be scattered. This is wrong. Moon has a gravity, and with little-to-no air the dust should settle quickly on the pads without to move at all”….Again totally incorrect. With the absence of atmospheric resistance the dust particles will continue to move away and outwards from the LM following the basic rules of Physics. The engine engine thrust pushed most of the dust away before landing and the descent engine was turned off before the LM touched the surface. (6) “but it's clearly hand-spread”. Again a made up claim with absolutely aero evidence. You seem to have totally ignored your other unevidenced claims such as “Ridiculous fuel capacity compared to distance”. Strange that none of the many thousands of highly qualified scientists and engineers involved in the Apollo Program and the many who have studied it over the decades see any difficulty here. Please provide your detailed calculations on this issue to include all your research, assumptions, published work etc. Do not pretend that you know anything about basic Physics or the Apollo Program. You clearly do not. Take care.
    1
  90.  @nicholasmanolache9428  Thank you for your reply. Perhaps you should consider doing further research into the Apollo Program rather than writing absolute nonsense. Take care.
    1
  91. You may be interested to know that totally separate to the tiny Goodwill moonrock samples given out by the Nixon administration, NASA release over 400 samples of lunar rock and soil to international researchers each year. To date thousands of samples have been released and examined by thousands of scientists of one type or another globally resulting in many thousands of research papers being published. The lunar origin of these rocks is not in question. Take care.
    1
  92. Nice rant, pity no evidence to back it up. Take care.
    1
  93. Data from the European Space Agency shows that an extremely tenuous portion of the Earth's atmosphere stretches out to the moon. This does not change the distance from Earth to moon which is measured to be about 384,400km. Take care.
    1
  94. While your overall point is correct I have to point out that 180/6 = 30. Take care.
    1
  95. "120 degrees Celsius under the sun and -120 degrees in the shade". Please get your facts correct. The figures that you have quoted are the maximum and minimum lunar surface temperatures over the course of a lunar day/night cycle. Neither does the lunar surface temperature instantly change temperature from Sun to shade, that is simply physically impossible. Also what exactly do you mean by "no Apollo took a single photo of the universe".....How exactly is it possible to get all the Universe into a single photograph! Are you having a laugh? Take care.
    1
  96.  @Punhenen  Thank you for your reply. The Apollo astronauts took well over a hundred photographs of stars from the lunar surface while using the appropriate equipment and settings, the Carruthers Camera. It seems that your basic knowledge of the Apollo Program is as poor as your knowledge of basic Physics. Take care.
    1
  97.  @Punhenen  Serious question: Do you really think that your total ignorance of the Apollo Program actually counts as evidence? Why do you repeatedly make claims then when confronted with the facts glibly move on to making other unevidenced claims? For a start why did you quote the maximum and minimum lunar surface temperatures over the course of a lunar day/night cycle rather than the early lunar morning temperatures when the Apollo astronauts were on the lunar surface? Take carer.
    1
  98. Nope.
    1
  99. What movie?
    1
  100. The temperature of what exactly? The moon is in a vacuum. A vacuum basically does not have a temperature as it does not contain atoms/molecules/particles. The temperatures that you mention are close to the maximum and minimum of the lunar surface A large mass of matter can not change temperature virtually instantly as you seem to think. Heat transfer does not work like that. Take care.
    1
  101. Just for your information, there is no Earth based telescope that has the resolving power to detect the Apollo equipment on the lunar surface. However satellites in lunar orbit from 4 different countries have detected the various Apollo landing sites exactly where they are supposed to be. Take care.
    1
  102.  @JbayOplentay  Considering that the vast majority of telescopes are Earth based and that you did mention about "China or Russia....(pointing) telescopes at the lunar surface" it was far from a wild guess. Just for your information, satellites in lunar orbit from 4 different countries have detected various Apollo landing sites exactly where they are supposed to be. Take care.
    1
  103.  @JbayOplentay  Thank you for your reply. The location of such a telescope, however, is crucial. No Earth based instrument has the resolving power to do so. The only instruments so capable are the ones in the satellites in lunar orbit, which of course have detected the Apollo equipment. Take care.
    1
  104. In that case you must not have actually ever watched the film because in Fly me to the Moon the Apollo 11 mission actually happens. Take care.
    1
  105. Do you mean the Van Allen radiation belts, plural, as there is more than one of them? Can you please cite the evidence to back up your claim as I know of no evidence that even suggests what you claim. Take care.
    1
  106. Unfortunately (for you), the misunderstanding of religious texts does not trump over observable reality. Take care.
    1
  107. But siberel shows no evidence of any kind. He just makes unevidenced claims which are totally debunked by the very footage that he puts forward. Do not be so gullible. Take care.
    1
  108. "the lunar Rover"....Which one??
    1
  109. " the 8-year old asking Buz Aldren"...Perhaps someone who can not even get the mans name correct is not in the best position to make claims on these matters. Also please watch the full interview where he makes it very clear that he is answering her question and referring to a return to the moon. Take care.
    1
  110. The effects of radiation on the human body depends on a range of factors such as nature & type of the radiation, duration of exposure, any shielding materials etc. Take care.
    1
  111. What exactly did you expect the flags to do when the astronauts were moving them? Stay still??
    1
  112. " why no shots of the stars"......Please get you basic facts correct. They took dozens of photographs of stars from the lunar surface while using the appropriate equipment and settings. Take care.
    1
  113. " lunar daytime with surface temperature of 265 F" Please get your basic facts correct. The temperature that you quote is the maximum lunar surface temperature over the course of a lunar day/night cycle not the lunar surface temperature during any of the Apollo landings. Take care.
    1
  114. Serious question, why do you talk the stupid? Take care.
    1
  115.  @bitchutecomnomsmbs  You no answer question. Why stupid you talk? Take care.
    1
  116. Any actual evidence to go with that claim?
    1
  117. "proofs"......Are you having a laugh?
    1
  118. What do you mean by "minus 250"...C or F????? Either are below the minimum lunar surface temperature during lunar night and nowhere near the lunar surface temperatures encountered during any of the Apollo landings. Take care.
    1
  119. "touch the moon and immediately leave".................They went to the moon 9 times with 6 successful landings. "no exploration or anything".........Some 382kg of lunar rock and soil samples were returned to Earth, thousands of photographs were taken and hundreds of hours of film obtained. Numerous scientific experiments were deployed such as EASEP, ALSEP, both active and passive seismic experiments, temperature probes, several magnetometers, a Cold Cathode Ion Gauge was deployed to measure the density of neutral particles in order to determine the amount of gas present at the lunar surface, a mass spectrometer, solar wind, & cosmic ray detecting experiments, etc. "Makes zero sense"......Yes, if you don't know a single thing about what you are talking about then everything will make "zero sense". Take care.
    1
  120. Any actual evidence to go with your rant?
    1
  121. The sky on Earth is blue because of Rayleigh Scattering in the atmosphere so what you actually see is the blue sky in front of the night side of the moon. There are tens of thousands of professional astronomers and there have been literally millions of amateurs over the centuries. None have ever observed stars through the moon. Learn basic Physics. Take care.
    1
  122. So what would you expect the flags to do when the astronauts were moving them during assembly? Stay still? Especially in a vacuum where there is no atmospheric resistance to remove energy so a flag will oscillate very easily. Take care.
    1
  123. Do you have some actual evidence to back up your personal incredulity in relation to the Apollo Program? Take care.
    1
  124. Incorrect. The astronauts muscles still exert full force on the moon but the downward force is less than 17% of what it would be on Earth. This means getting up from the lunar surface is incredibly easy and requires much less effort than on Earth. Take care.
    1
  125. Nope, what you wrote is non-factual. Would you like to try again? Take care.
    1
  126.  @emmjay4447  Thank you for your reply, which, to be fair, is factually correct. While the lunar surface temperatures can vairy from a max of about 120C to a min of around -130C over the course of a lunar day/night cycle, these are the max and min surface temperatures not the surface temperatures encountered by the Apollo astronauts. Hope that this helps your understanding. Take care.
    1
  127.  @emmjay4447  Thank you for your reply. Would you like to outline where these " extreme temperature changes" occur and how you think that they would be a problem for an Apollo spacecraft. Also, do you have an understanding of what the term "temperature" means? Take care.
    1
  128.  @emmjay4447  So what exactly was at that temperature? Take care.
    1
  129.  @emmjay4447  No such temperatures were measure during the Apollo 11 mission. Take care.
    1
  130.  @emmjay4447  Thank you for your reply. So do you consider that Neil Armstrong is a reliable and accurate source of information at all times. Yes or No? Take care.
    1
  131.  @emmjay4447  Thank you for your reply which again does not contain any evidence of what you claim. It is you who seem to want to have it both ways....Do you accept what Armstrong says about the Apollo 11 mission or not? Also now you have gone on to make further unevidenced claims. So can you provide any actual evidence to back up your claims or not? Take care.
    1
  132.  @emmjay4447  Thank you for your comment. Now you are claiming that Neil Armstrong was on the moon which seems to undermine your position somewhat. Also you continue to make claims without even attempting to provide even a shred of evidence or in most cases any details about them. Why is that? Take care.
    1
  133.  @emmjay4447  Thank you for your reply. Your personal incredulity in relation to the footage of the lift of of the LM on the Apollo 17 mission is not evidence of anything. When you mention "rainbow sparkles" it is unfortunate that you were not curious enough to do any actual research on this issue. Otherwise you would have found that this effect was caused by the way the colour filters in the camera captured the ignition of the explosive bolts used to sever connections between the DS and AS of the LM. Again, I can not help but notice that you still have not provided any actual evidence to back up your claims. Take care.
    1
  134.  @emmjay4447  Thank you for your comment. Again deflection. Again zero evidence to back up your claim. Take care.
    1
  135.  @emmjay4447  Thanks for your reply. Take care.
    1
  136. So produce the evidence to back up your claim. Take care.
    1
  137. (1) "When the moon lander left the moon who was running the camera"......The RSA TV camera was mounted on the LRV and its tilt was controlled remotely by Ed Fendell at Mission Control, Houston. (2) "how did they get the film from the camera". A TV camera does not use film. The signal was transmitted to Earth. (3) "The vanallan belt is 20× the radiation of what a microwave puts out"...Incorrect. The Van Allen Belts do not contain microwave radiation or electromagnetic radiation of any type. Take care.
    1
  138. The weren't on the dark side of the moon, they did not look terrified and why do you say "the" moon landing? Take care.
    1
  139. You never provided any evidence to back up your claim and you never will.
    1
  140. On the Apollo Program in total...closer to 400,000 in the US alone plus many thousands abroad in the tracking stations etc.
    1
  141. You correctly mention how dust kicked up on the lunar surface will behave differently compared to an equilivent situation on Earth. A perfect example of this is the "Rooster Tail" dust trails kicked up by Apollo 16's John Young during his "Grand Prix" in April 1972. This very situation has been analysed, studied and the published results are easily obtained online. "Ballistic motion of dust in the Lunar Roving Vehicle dust trails", Hsu, Hsiang-Wen, Horányi, Mihály, (University of Colorado), American Journal of Physics, Volume 80, Issue 5, pp. 452-456 (2012). They conclude that the lack of particles’ deceleration along the x-axis of their coordinate system, could only be the case if Apollo 16’s rover footage was filmed in a vacuum and low gravity environment. Enjoy reading, take care.
    1
  142. And do you have any actual evidence to back up your opinion? Take care.
    1
  143.  @IHOPROB  Thank you for your polite reply. Take care.
    1
  144. Funny, Dr. James Van Allen himself disagrees with that opinion. Take care.
    1
  145. So why do you not provide any evidence to back up your claim? What is stopping you??
    1
  146.  @JustinThorts  So your evidence really is lack of evidence. Interesting. Take care.
    1
  147.  @JustinThorts  Thank you for your reply. Those who make claims such as yours never seem to be able to produce any actual evidence to back them up. Take care.
    1
  148.  @JustinThorts  Again a reply. Again no evidence. Take care.
    1
  149.  @chicas7569  Thank you for your comment. Would you care to elaborate? Take care.
    1
  150. The various landing sites and Apollo equipment have been verified by satellites in lunar 0rbit from 5 different countries. Take care.
    1
  151. You didn't provide and evidence for your claim and those who make claims such as yours never do. Take care.
    1
  152. "the lunar module was never tested in real conditions"...Incorrect. The Lunar Module was tested down to 14km from the lunar surface by the crew of Apollo 10. Take care.
    1
  153. There are literally hundreds. The Japanese weather satellite Himawari 8 will give you a live photograph of the Earth ever 10 minutes. Take care.
    1
  154. So produce your evidence to back up your insinuation that the Earth is not spherical. Take care.
    1
  155. So you believe NASA and James Van Allen when they tell you that these belts exist but do not seem curious enough to research their opinions on how to pass through them?
    1
  156.  @majbach1968  Thank you for your reply. In some ways you are correct, may so called flat earthers and moon-landing deniers do not believe the nonsense that they spout but there are many who are simply scientifically illiterate and intellectually uncurious who will not do their own research. Take care.
    1
  157. Nope.
    1
  158. How about the fact that absolutely none of the moon rocks given to any other nation ever turned out to be fake. Do try to get your facts correct. The Dutch petrified wood never had anything to do with NASA, the Apollo astronauts or the US government. The family of a former Dutch Prime Minister presented what they claimed to be a lunar sample to a Dutch Art museum and received a sizable tax write off in return. The first geologist to view the sample immediately realised that it was not of lunar origin. This clearly demonstrates that competent geologists will easily know the difference between material of terrestrial and lunar origin. Over 400 samples of lunar rock and soil are released every year for research by The Lunar Sample Laboratory at the Johnson Space Centre, Houston. To date thousands of scientists of various fields have examined lunar samples and verified their lunar origin. Thank you for raising this point so the facts can be made clear. Take care.
    1
  159. erased what???????
    1
  160.  @alanrothwell117  Thank you for your reply. Can you provide the scientific evidence for this "firmament" and the full details of how you (a) Detected it and verified its existence, and (b) How you measured the distance and obtained the measurement of 400 miles. Take care.
    1
  161. Each LRV was taken to the moon folded up in Quadrant Bay 1 of the Lunar Module. There is footage easily sourced of the astronauts on Apollo 15 unpacking and deploying their LRV on the lunar surface. Take care.
    1