Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "Joe Rogan on Why he changed his stance on the Moon landing conspiracy" video.

  1. Actually we have been to the moon, landing men there 6 times from 1969 to 1972.
    4
  2. Exactly! Spot on! But lets see how long it takes before someone arrives here shouting "compartmentalization!" :-D
    2
  3. More difficult to protect the film, but far from impossible, hence even Ed White took a film camera out into space during the first American spacewalk in 1965 (look at the photos of Ed White's spacewalk). Also, during the 60s the USA and USSR landed several unmanned spacecraft on the moon with even LESS computing power, and in 1970 and 1972 and 1976 the USSR landed spacecraft that collected a tiny amount of moon dust and then returned that dust back to Earth for analysis, again with LESS computing power. The calculations needed to send a spacecraft to the moon, and then land and take-off and return to Earth, doesn't change just because we stuff people inside, the calculations are exactly the same :-) So if there was enough computing power to send all those unmanned spacecraft to the moon and back with LESS computing power than the Apollo missions, then clearly there was more than enough computer power available for the Apollo missions.
    2
  4. Nope. Next? :-)
    2
  5. The lunar rovers were used during Apollo 15, 16 and 17, where in the footage of the rovers driving out to new locations to investigate there are no tracks ahead of them. But on the return journey, or when going to a location off from the route they took before, the astronauts followed the rover tracks to ensure they were on the right path. That way they avoided getting lost, hence your claim is false.
    2
  6. You said "On top of that the release of doctored footage to be passed as space stuff certainly didn't help. So basically NASA shot themselves in the foot by releasing doctored footage without enough evidence saying otherwise" Actually the problem is people blindly believing conspiracy theorists who claim footage is doctored/fake, where the 'theorists' know they can get away with it because most people won't/can't/don't take the time to CHECK conspiracy claims for themselves. The point being, NONE of the footage is doctored! I'm pleased you accept the fact that men landed on the moon, but if you allow conspiracy theorists to convince you that there's some truth to the conspiracy being claimed (such as fake footage), then it's only a matter of time before you'll be convinced by other claims and therefore you may eventually become convinced that there's just too much evidence for the conspiracy not to be true. Many people have come to believing certain conspiracy theories that way, starting with one or two claims that they believe to be true and it grows from there :-|
    2
  7. That's not a reason my friend :-)
    2
  8. The film is NOT lost, we have ALL the film! Hence you are falling for the classic conspiracy theorist trick where they twist information into something it's not. Because Apollo 11 was the first mission NASA couldn't guarantee that the live TV broadcast to the world would work, so they recorded their own BACKUP of the moonwalk broadcast just in case. If the world couldn't watch the moon landing live, then NASA would have processed their BACKUP copy and send the footage out to TV studios worldwide for them to broadcast to their audiences. But the live TV broadcast DID work, it was successful, where millions of people watched Neil and Buzz on the moon live, and so NASA's BACKUP copy wasn't needed. That is why NASA's backup was lost, because as far as NASA were concerned TV studios around the world already had the footage and so the tapes with their backup could be reused (as magnetic tapes often were). It's only decades later when some realized that NASA's backup copy would have been a clearer version of the moonwalk that they realized they should have kept it, but by then it was too late. So all that was lost is a clearer BACKUP copy of the SAME Apollo 11 moonwalk footage that we've ALL seen. Nothing else was lost, and nothing was lost from Apollo 12, or Apollo 13 (failed mission), or Apollo 14 or Apollo 15 or Apollo 16 or Apollo 17. Simply search YouTube for "Apollo EVA" and you'll find hour after hour after hour of footage recorded on the moon during the Apollo missions. Therefore your claim that "the film has been lost and their is no proof of its existence" is completely wrong, where you got it wrong because you believed the conspiracy theorists who twisted the facts :-|
    2
  9.  @Andrew-n2z4d  - There's nothing to explain when you've offered no examples to support your claim. So please go ahead and present ONE example to support your claim. YT doesn't like links in replies, so if necessary NAME a video here on YT that you feel best demonstrates what you're saying here. Thanks in advance :-)
    2
  10.  @davidvalensi8616  - You cried ""the Appollo hoax believers" are not a tiny minority" Yet again you fail to read what I've typed, I said and I quote; "...since only a very tiny minority of Apollo hoax believers are flat Earth believers" So which part of me saying that out of all the Apollo hoax believers only a tiny minority of them believe the Earth is flat did you not understand?
    2
  11.  @davidvalensi8616  - And here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions; Dr Van Allen quote 1: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week." In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year). If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks. Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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." In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either. So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks. But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know, far better to listen to conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, right? :-)
    2
  12.  @davidvalensi8616  - You said " one of their engineers Kelly Smith admitted it by accident while discussing something else. (Orion)." And right there you proved my point perfectly! The electrons of the Van Allen belt radiation are a problem for modern electronics, which packs a massive amount of incredibly tiny structures into its microprocessors. This makes them significantly more sensitive to the radiation compared to the crude electronics of the 70s and older, which didn't have that problem. The NASA Orion video with Kelly Smith that conspiracy theorists distorted only ever mentions the issue of radiation upon the electronics, it says NOTHING about the effect of radiation on people. The point being made was that people's lives will depend on the electronics WORKING, therefore they would not risk putting people into space inside Orion UNTIL they've tested it in space first. Here are the exact words from NASA's Kelly Smith in that video; Quote 1; "Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all of its systems, and there's only one way to know if we got it right, fly it in space. For Orion's first flight, no astronauts would be on board, the spacecraft is loaded with sensors to record and measure all aspects of the flight in every detail" Hence Kelly made it very clear that the focus is to test Orion in space FIRST to check all the systems before they put astronauts inside. Quote 2; "We will pass through the Van Allen Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, on-board computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back..." Notice that he's talking about the harm to ELECTRONICS only. Quote 2 continued; "...But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space" Again, Kelly makes it clear that they are testing the electronics. If the test proves the design has solved those radiation challenges, i.e. the electronics would not fail, THEN they will know Orion is safe to put astronauts inside on their way to the moon. And yet on December 5th 2014, just months after that NASA Orion video, Orion was sent through the region of the belts with the highest radiation TWICE and it aced that test. Therefore they are now confident in sending people through the belts inside Orion in the knowledge that the electronics will not fail. Interesting how NONE the hoax videos featuring that NASA video EVER mentioned the fact that Orion was tested in space inside the Van Allen belts SUCCESSFULLY just months later. Why do you think they never mentioned it? ;-)
    2
  13. ALL the footage is real my friend, none of it was recreated :-)
    2
  14. Actually there were 9 manned missions to the moon, with 6 of those missions landing men on the moon. So instead of resorting to making claims about others and argument from incredulity, perhaps you can state what you personally consider to be the strongest evidence that men didn't go to the moon, much less land on it. Just one piece of evidence please, the best one in your opinion, and lets discuss it :-)
    2
  15. As you've corrected spotted, Joe is right for the wrong reasons, where despite now acknowledging men landed on the moon he's still holding onto some of the hoax claims that he first believed years ago :-|
    2
  16. So by that logic, you must think we can't remember the technology to build supersonic passenger planes since there are none in service today, whereas Concorde first flew in 1969 (recognize that year? :-)).
    2
  17. Which doesn't change that fact that the USA sent men to the moon nine times from 1968 to 1972 :-)
    2
  18. ???
    2
  19.  @jackmack276  - You said "How about the fact they cannot replicate the trip. After the last launch it was reported it will be years before a manned mission is attempted." How about the fact that (thanks to the record breaking Saturn V rocket) there were NINE manned missions to the moon from 1968 to 1972, with SIX of those missions landing on the moon. So how many times did they need to repeat it before it would have been enough for you? And how about the fact that the USA has recently built and launched an even more powerful rocket called the SLS which took the Orion space capsule designed to carry FOUR astronauts to the moon, where upon returning to Earth it successfully landed in the sea just like the Apollo missions (look up the Artemis 1 mission), hence a successful test of the technology that the USA will use to send people back to the moon in a few years :-)
    2
  20. That wasn't Stanley Kubrick, that was an actor called Tom Mayk for the mockumentary "Shooting Stanley Kubrick". Clips from that mockumentary appeared on YT before release (probably accidently on purpose) and yet so many people fell for it even though Tom looks nothing like Stanley Kubrick :-|
    2
  21. Now look up Artemis 1 that took the Orion space capsule, designed to carry FOUR astronauts, to the moon and back to Earth on a 25 day mission to test all the systems in 2022. Now look up Artemis 2 that will again take Orion to the moon but this time with FOUR astronauts on board next year, but more likely 2026. Explain how that's an example of forgetting how to go to the moon please :-)
    2
  22. We also 'lost the technology' to send 100 passengers across the Atlantic at twice the speed of sound (Concorde). We also 'lost the technology' of a re-useable space plane to send astronauts into low Earth orbit and fly them back down to Earth (Space Shuttle). Lost technology simply means out of date and hence out of service.
    2
  23. But aren't you a flat Earth believer? If so, then what do you think of the popular flat Earth 'theorist' Eric Dubay?
    2
  24.  @jeffro-xj1  - Don't be idiotic please :-) If you think I'm wrong then you ONLY need to find ONE credible experienced space communication expert in the world over the last 50 years who says TV broadcasts from the moon were impossible back then, and explains why. So can you do that? Of course you can't, therefore you have no argument. Simply put, if it was impossible then there would be experts in the field throughout the world who would have known it's impossible and therefore would have said so years ago.
    2
  25. Not quite (NASA's LRO showed tracks made by astronauts), but your reasoning is spot on my friend :-) Chinese scientists publicly stated that they could see traces of the Apollo spacecraft on the moon in their photos of the lunar surface taken with their Chang'e 2 orbiter. So as you correctly said - Why would China lie? A very good question!
    2
  26. Nope, he simply realized he was wrong :-)
    2
  27.  @davidvalensi8616  - In other words you lack the maturity to admit when you're wrong :-| All you had to say was something like "Ok sorry, my bad because you didn't say Apollo hoax believers are a tiny minority, I misread your reply, but I still believe it was a hoax because..." and move on from there. Whenever I make such a mistake in a debate I immediately apologise and then continue with the points under discussion. Why can't you do the same? :-|
    2
  28. Nope. Next? :-)
    1
  29.  @SonOfKong33  - My point is, to this day no-one has EVER recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (remember, no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972). Even modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes! That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to advanced CGI, which again wasn't available back in the 60s/70s. Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way in terms of gravity, THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it is possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth. Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to fake the footage. Until then it remains a fact that the footage was filmed in an environment with no air and 1/6 gravity, and hence that environment was the moon :-)
    1
  30.  @ewa2z816  - If you post on a public forum then you must expect people to respond to the comments you posted. That's how it works. But if you can't take people questioning or challenging your claims, then don't post any. It's as simple as that :-) So again, are you a flat Earth believer?
    1
  31.  @ewa2z816  - Let me help you kid... this is a public forum and therefore ANYTHING you post here is public and therefore EVERYONE can reply to it regardless of who you're replying to. So grow yourself a backbone and get over it. Is that clear? I hope that helps :-)
    1
  32. I hope you're joking :-)
    1
  33.  @dodgybodger3124  - Hi, I can help you there :-) Srch YT for the video "Zoey interviews Buzz Aldrin" At 7:10 in that video; Little girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time ?" Buzz: "That's not an eight year old's question, that's MY question, I want to know. But I think I know, 'cause we didn't, go there and, and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going ... um... Money... ...is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's going to cost more money and other things need more money too, so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world...." A rather convoluted answer? Yes! Buzz saying they didn't go to the moon? No! Buzz saying we haven't been to the moon in such a long time? Yes! Watch the whole video if you have the time, where it's clear that Buzz says we (i.e. himself and other astronauts) did go to the moon :-)
    1
  34. Exactly JUSTBEATS, but remember, conspiracy theories never allow common sense and actual facts to spoil the story ;-)
    1
  35. The footage filmed from the LMs during landing shows the dust being blasted away as they approach the surface, but there's no air on the moon to slow down or trap the dust to create dust clouds, so the dust particles continue to travel away at great speed to land quite some distance from the LMs.
    1
  36. Which is not a problem for missions to the moon and beyond. Next? :-)
    1
  37. Nope, conspiracy theorists twist what NASA says and hence you are believing what the conspiracy theorists say.
    1
  38. So for supersonic passenger flights, do you say "But we don't have technology to fly passengers at supersonic speed? Its all BS!"? :-)
    1
  39. There's as much evidence that the moon landing were fake as there is evidence that the Earth is flat, and yet Apollo hoax believers and flat Earth believers are adamant that they are right and everyone else is wrong :-)
    1
  40. Do you believe men have gone into space?
    1
  41. ​ @mr.miller3432  - Why would that be a problem on the moon? :-) There's a number of ways we can look at this, where each proves men were on the moon, here's just one perspective: The perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage (where even the kicked up dust falls at the rate of the moon's gravity in uncut scenes lasting over a hour) is impossible to fake in a studio. If just ONE movie anywhere in the world had accurately replicated 1/6 gravity in a studio, then hoax theorists and hoax believers would have been ALL OVER IT by now, highlighting the scenes as solid proof that the Apollo footage can be faked on Earth. Clips from that movie would have appeared in countless hoax documentaries and hoax videos, and yet no such clip exists! Hence the fact it doesn't exist proves it's impossible to fake perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio. So all the surface footage was filmed in an environment with 1/6 gravity, and hence that environment was the moon.
    1
  42.  @mr.miller3432  - Hi, I know the scene you're speaking of my friend :-) From that scene, conspiracy theorists carefully selected what to show their audience and hence they mislead the viewers, where it's easy to be caught out if you don't check the claims yourself. Hence try looking at the following objectively to see if you come to the same conclusion as before: Here's the part of the footage that hoax believers don't show you, where we see the astronaut fall, and then calls out for help and the other astronaut goes back to help him up; www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocsV9hxMndk&t=130 To recap, we hear the astronaut on the ground say at 2:14 "Give me help!", then see the other astronaut run towards him to help, where he positions himself so that the astronaut on the ground uses his left hand to grab onto the right hand/arm of the astronaut standing up. Watch that clip several times to see what's happening, and listen to their exchanges which appear to be as follows; "There you go" "'kay just push... start pushing on my hand" "Give me your hand" "Ok, here we go" And so with help from the astronaut who went BACK to help him, he gets up in the 1/6 gravity of the moon (i.e. 1/6 his weight on Earth). Be honest now, after watching the full scene with the original audio several times and without the editing and comments from conspiracy theorists, can you now see that it's not what the conspiracy theorists claimed? :-|
    1
  43.  @mr.miller3432  - You said "Not to be asinine but that doesn't look like a natural sequence of events, 1/6 gravity or any amount of gravity for that matter." I'm not sure what you think you're seeing there that the world's experts for over 50 years have missed :-) The point I'm making is that if you look at ALL the hoax claims about that clip, they ALL claim the astronaut stood up ON HIS OWN and therefore claim he MUST have been assisted by a wire/cable to pull him up! Surely after watching and listening to that clip you can see that he was assisted by the other astronaut? And yes, it's impossible to keep 400k people quiet for nearly 60 years (from when the program started), no matter how much some want to claim compartmentalization (which they can never provide any details for).
    1
  44.  @mr.miller3432  - You said "Looking at the pictures of the landing module brings up some interesting questions on integrity of the epuipment used and nevermind the technology available at the time" Because like many, you assume that the outside of the LM represents the inside, without understanding that the outside consists of layers of kapton+mylar foil to reflect away the heat from the sun and mylar panels to also reflect heat and act as micrometeoroid shields. It didn't have to look pretty and it didn't need to be aerodynamic, it only needed to be fit for purpose. To highlight my point, would you question the integrity of the following satellites and rovers based upon the same criteria, i.e. how they appear on the outside? tinyurl.com/ybz92tpq Or can you see that the gold foil is there to protect the craft underneath from the heat of the sun, where the foil is crumpled up to a) Prevent hot spots forming, and b) To allow it to be flexible during launch and landing to avoid tears. I hope the above shows that things are not as black and white as conspiracy theorists make out. If you like, I can provide proof that the LM wasn't the flimsy craft that many assume based upon its outside appearance :-)
    1
  45. How long after they returned from the moon did that press conference take place?
    1
  46.  @foxman1546  - Thanks, but that's my point my friend, because it was 3 WEEKS later. It's not as if that press conference happened a few days after they returned :-) Hence it was work for the astronauts who were not up on stage to entertain a crowd, but instead were there to provide a presentation which was then followed up by a question and answer session with experts. Many today who watch that press conference assume it was a celebration of the astronauts returning from the moon, where they assume it occurred hours or at most days after they returned, which is why some think the astronauts don't appear as happy or as relaxed as they should, and so they assume something is wrong. But look at Neil Armstrong and the other astronauts just one week after returning during quarantine on his birthday; Srch YT for the video; "Neil Armstrong's Birthday Celebrated During Apollo 11 Quarantine" They couldn't look happier, especially Neil. And srch YouTube for the video; "Bob Hope and Neil Armstrong" Notice Neil Armstrong in front of the troops in Vietnam, where again he couldn't look happier if he tried and is clearly relishing the moment. Therefore the idea that there is something wrong with the astronauts during the press conference is based upon false assumptions. I hope that helps :-)
    1
  47.  @foxman1546  - Hi, it's great you're not denying men landed on the moon, but my point is there's nothing I'm seeing in that press conference that suggests the astronauts were afraid to reveal something they shouldn't, whether that was not landing on the moon to some or not giving away something they found to others, or any other conspiracy theory. For me, evidence is key, and yet none of the conspiracy theories have presented evidence that holds up to scrutiny :-| But still, thanks your clarifying your position, much appreciated.
    1
  48.  @foxman1546  - The problem with your argument is that it gives people permission to make absolutely ANY claim they want without needing to present evidence to support it, all on the basis that we can't trust authorities :-| For example, there are those I've debated over the years who claim as FACT that men landed on the moon just not with the Apollo technology shown, instead the USA have secret technology that got them to Mars in hours and to the moon in minutes since the 1950s, and so Apollo was a |ie to cover up funding for other projects. No evidence, no details, just unsupported claims that they expect others to accept without question. So although we're free to believe alternative stories, without evidence to support them then "stories" is all that those alternatives will ever be :-|
    1
  49.  @foxman1546  - Again, without evidence then all you have is a story that you choose to believe, nothing more and nothing less. You said "but can you prove you're not a bot without meeting in person." Actually it is VERY easy to formulate specific questions that no bot can answer to a human level, and hence we can quickly determine if we're conversing with a human or an AI 'entity' :-) But going back to the moon landings, until solid evidence of the astronauts finding something on the moon that needed to be covered up is presented, then nothing of such magnitude was found on the moon.
    1
  50.  @foxman1546  - You said "When has any government agency been totally honest and disclosed all the facts?" Irrelevant my friend. Evidence is required for ANY claim being made, so if you have no evidence then your claim is unfounded. For example; Those who say men never landed on the moon have never presented any evidence that holds up to scrutiny, therefore their claim is unfounded. Those who say men travelled to the moon in minutes using secret tech have never presented any evidence that holds up to scrutiny, therefore their claim is unfounded. Those who say men never landed on the moon because the Earth is flat and hence space is fake have never presented any evidence that holds up to scrutiny, therefore their claim is unfounded. Those who say men landed on the moon and discovered something that has been kept secret ever since have never presented any evidence that holds up to scrutiny, therefore their claim is unfounded. And so on. That's my point. Therefore for all those who support any of the above and more, present evidence that holds up to close scrutiny and I'd happily look at the evidence.
    1
  51.  @foxman1546  - Wrong, when people make claims then they have to be able to support the claims they're making. Without evidence to support their claims, then their claims remain as nothing more than stories, and stories don't need to be taken seriously. For example, the two most common stories I've debated about astronauts keeping quiet about what they found on the moon is; a - Evidence of an ancient alien civilization on the moon that left structures all over the moon, some captured in the photographs. b - Aliens were there and eventually told us to stay away from the moon, hence Apollo 17 was the last mission. According to you, those who claim 'a' and those who claim 'b' don't have to present any evidence to support their stories, despite their stories contradicting each other. So which are you, story 'a' or story 'b'? Or do you have story 'c' to offer? :-)
    1
  52.  @foxman1546  - I never said you HAD to believe them, I said those who DO believe them have to present evidence to support them otherwise they will remain as nothing more than stories. By your own admission you have no evidence to support the claims you made, therefore all you have here is a story :-)
    1
  53.  @foxman1546  - From the beginning I merely said I disagreed with your opinion and I even presented videos of the behaviour of the astronauts that contradicts your argument. You then took it a step further by claiming the astronauts behaved in the way you said because you believe they were all under intense pressure to not reveal what they found. I merely pointed out that without evidence to support that claim then it's nothing more than your opinion. Hence we can all express an opinion about anything, but in the end, without evidence to support it then an opinion is all it would ever be :-|
    1
  54. No that's conspiracy theorists telling you want to think 🙂 The girl asked Buzz why haven't we gone BACK to the moon in such a long time, and Buzz said because we didn't go, i.e. didn't go BACK, which was the context of her question. For example, if Bob went to France decades ago and his friend asked him "So Bob, why haven't you gone back to France in such a long time?" and Bob said "Because I didn't go", would you take as an admission by Bob that's he's never been to France? Would anyone think Bob means he's never been to France? Or would you immediately understand that Bob was being rather flippant in saying "Because I didn't go" because he means "didn't go in such a long time" only?
    1
  55. So by your logic, why haven't private companies setup hotels and entertainment resorts in low Earth orbit, given that people first went into space in the 60s. Also, are you saying the USSR were stupid? Think about it :-)
    1
  56.  @PhinneusPrune  - That's the problem with China (and the USSR before them) when it comes to sharing such information, because so much is kept secret to protect their technology and capabilities, so we only have their word for it. But as you correctly pointed out, there is absolutely no way under any circumstance (even in a parallel universe) that China would lie about seeing evidence of the Apollo craft on the moon. Hence we can know for certain that they captured that evidence with their spacecraft cameras :-)
    1
  57. Nope. Next? (Or should that be Nxyt? ;-)).
    1
  58. Different technology my friend, which used radio dishes pointed directly at each other to send and receive the signals, with the dishes here on Earth being larger than a house. That's why there isn't a single experienced space communication expert worldwide for over 50 years who believes the TV broadcast from the moon was impossible back then.
    1
  59.  russmartin4888  - And yet to this day, no-one has EVER recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (remember, no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972). Even modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes! That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to advanced CGI, which again wasn't available back in the 60s/70s. Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity, not appearance) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it is possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth. Such proof wouldn't mean the moon landings were a hoax, only that it is possible to fake the footage.
    1
  60. They did go, nine times in fact, and landing six times :-)
    1
  61.  @jeffro-xj1  - Try being a bit more humble yourself, and put your thinking cap on please. Take a subject that you consider yourself to be an expert in, or at the very least, very knowledgeable. If a group of people (who are not experts) start claiming that something is impossible in your area of expertise and yet you and countless experts on that subject know it is possible, then why would you and every expert say nothing about it? Why would you think it's up to you to prove that no other experts support their claim when the burden of proof is on the claimant? Why should anyone take the claims of non-experts over experts like yourself? Think about it :-|
    1
  62. But, you accept men landed on the moon?
    1
  63.  @jameslyons4919  - Agreed :-)
    1
  64. All the photographs and video and film footage is real.
    1
  65. Do you mean a crater under the Lunar Module (lander)? Are their craters under military helicopters after they land in a desert? :-)
    1
  66. Correct Brad :-)
    1
  67. Nope, men landed on the moon 6 times from 1969 to 1972.
    1
  68. ​ @servo6620  - I'll answer your point in two ways. 1) Men first reached the south pole in 1911/1912, but didn't return until 1956, 44 years later. Men first reached the lowest point in earth's ocean, the Mariana trench, in 1960, but didn't return until 2012, 52 years later. So why would 48 years to return to the moon seem so remarkable? :-) 2) To get people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in HISTORY, where they achieved that with the massively expensive Saturn V rocket. But to make it possible, Congress increased NASA's budget by several times what they receive today to allow them to build, maintain and launch rockets/craft like the Saturn V; Look at NASA's budget over the years and you'll see what made it possible and why it ended; upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg Once Congress knew the USSR couldn't get their 'moon rocket' to work and therefore couldn't send their cosmonauts to the moon, Congress withdrew ALL THE EXTRA FUNDING, and so NASA couldn't afford to build any more Saturn V rockets and Apollo missions 18 to 20 had to be cancelled, as were NASA's other plans, such as a moon base! Now look up NASA/Boeing's SLS rocket due to launch next year. By building upon existing technology and spreading the costs over many years, they have created a rocket that has the size and power of the Saturn V rocket, and hence the SLS rocket will take the Orion capsule around the moon and back to Earth on its debut launch. In 2023/2024, the SLS is again scheduled to take Orion around the moon and back to Earth, but this time with a crew of astronauts on board for a mission lasting 8 to 21 days. NASA originally planned to build a lander to take astronauts from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon in 2028, but the Trump administration are trying to bring that forward to 2024, but I feel it's more like to happen closer to NASA's original date unless there's competition from elsewhere. So the rocket is the KEY to getting people to the moon, and the USA will have that technology again once the SLS rocket launches next year.
    1
  69. But Concorde first flew in 1969, so shouldn't supersonic passenger flights be a piece of cake today? :-) Therefore it's not all about technology my friend, there are other factors involved such as cost and politics. Besides, look at Artemis 1 which recently took the Orion space capsule (designed to carry 4 astronauts) to the moon on a 25 day missions to test all the systems, ending with a successful return to Earth and landing in the ocean. Look up the plans for the manned Artemis 2 mission. Look up the progress of Space X's Starship rocket and their planned Human Landing System, or HLS.
    1
  70. Watch the YT video "Apollo 11 moon mission animated". It's only 4.5 minutes long but provides a good short visual summary of the mission.
    1
  71. It doesn't take much to know that men landed on the moon my friend :-|
    1
  72. So do you believe men have been in space?
    1
  73.  @vincestyles1030  - So in the 60s the USA/USSR sent men into space, could keep them alive in space for weeks and could send unmanned spacecraft to the moon with average size rockets. But you don't think they could get manned spacecraft to the moon by building the largest and the most powerful space traveling rockets in history, i.e. the Saturn V? Once we're able to get people into space and keep them alive for weeks and send spacecraft to the moon, what exactly is stopping us from getting people to the moon other than larger rockets?
    1
  74. ​ @vincestyles1030  - Please have a look at NASA's budget over the years and see if you can spot what made the moon landings possible and what brought those missions to an end; upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg So, did you spot it? :-) Have a look at that graph again and see if you can spot the second 'bump' for the International Space Station. The last time NASA's budget was as low as it is today was back in 1960, hence it takes longer to develop rockets large and powerful enough to get people to the moon, like NASA's massive SLS rocket due to launch next year (the rocket that will return people to the moon in 2024). Sadly, like yourself, too many people completely underestimate just how important budget is for making such missions possible, where you seem to think that if they could send men to the moon during the 60s/70s then NASA should be able to just design, build and launch a manned rocket to the moon today, regardless of the cost :-|
    1
  75. 'We' did. The Soviets were not stupid :-)
    1
  76. I think you may be mixing up what was shown BEFORE they had live TV footage from the moon. During the landing there are no TV cameras to film the landing, all that could be heard was the audio communication between the astronauts and mission control, and so some TV channels made simulations and animations to give their audiences something to watch as they listened, animations and simulations to explain what was happening. So for example, after Apollo 11 landed the astronauts rested, where around 6 hours later they deployed the Apollo TV camera and started to descend the ladder, and therefore THAT was the first actual Apollo footage from the moon that people at home could see.
    1
  77. The USA sent men to the moon 9 times from 1968 to 1972, regardless of your opinion of Joe :-)
    1
  78. Assuming you're being serious, which flat Earth model do you believe please? :-)
    1
  79. After the record breaking Saturn V rocket was retired in the 70s, which rocket by any nation do you believe was large enough and powerful enough to get people to the moon and back?
    1
  80. Nope. Next? :-)
    1
  81. Before the Apollo missions, both the USA and USSR landed several craft on the surface of the moon using even less computing power than that available to the Apollo missions. In 1970, 1972 and 1976, the USSR landed sample return craft (that stood around 12 feet high and weighed about 6 tons) on the moon, called Luna 16, Luna 20 and Luna 24. Each craft collected a tiny sample of moon dust and then returned that sample back to Earth for analysis. Therefore the calculations required to travel to the moon, then land on the moon and then return to Earth doesn't change just because we stuff people inside the craft :-) The calculations are exactly the same. So if it was possible for unmanned craft to land on the moon (and for some to even return to Earth) using less computing power than Apollo, then it was more than possible for men to land on the moon using the superior computing power available to the Apollo missions. I hope that helps :-)
    1
  82.  @dodgybodger3124  - People accused of being part of a conspiracy are always claimed to be scared, or nervous, or |ying, or acting etc. It's standard for any conspiracy theory ;-) So alarm bell number 1 can be switched off. The only people who claim the Van Allen belts are impossible to go through and survive are conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves. I can quote Dr Van Allen's exact words about going through belts, where he says we'd need to remain inside the region of the belts with the highest radiation for ONE WEEK before it could kill us. So passing through in 2 hours is not a problem. So alarm bell number 2 can be switched off. And didn't NASA just build and launch the most powerful rocket in history, the SLS, which took the Orion spacecraft to the moon, a spacecraft designed to carry 4 astronauts, where after a 25 day mission to test everything the Orion spacecraft landed in the sea, just like the Apollo missions. That mission was called Artemis 1. So alarm bell number 3 can be switched off too ;-) But yes, thanks for polite response and hence making this a good discussion :-)
    1
  83. You said "Joe Rogan knows he can't say something specifically as fact on the moon landing or he will be censored or taken down completely." Joe spent YEARS claiming the moon landings were fake and yet he wasn't censored or taken down, therefore that alone proves your claim to be wrong. And regarding the broadcast back to Earth, you're using arguments from incredulity, hence you're saying that just because you don't know how something was done then it must be fake :-| Ask yourself why space communication experts from multiple nations (including those unfriendly towards the USA) all over the world for over 50 years see nothing wrong in broadcasting TV footage back to Earth back then. What exactly do you believe you've spotted that ALL the world's space communication experts have somehow missed? :-)
    1
  84.  @ewa2z816  - Likewise kid :-)
    1
  85. No, conspiracy theorists made you believe that. Try listening to what NASA actually says instead of listening to conspiracy theorists telling you what NASA is saying :-|
    1
  86.  @webstercat  - Interesting, because here's the problem with your statement; a - Everything that Eric Dubay claims has been debunked, where even YOU could debunk some of his flat Earth claims if you actually tried :-| b - Eric Dubay is a N@zi sympathizer, where he claims in one of his books that a certain German leader during WWII (who he admires!) was a man of peace badly misrepresented by historians and that the crimes carried out on his behalf during WWII never happened. So if you have a problem with N@zis, then why are you supporting Eric Dubay?
    1
  87.  @webstercat  - You support the claims made by the most popular flat Earth theorist, the guy who made flat Earth popular to a modern audience and yet also happens to be a Nazi supporter, and so I find the irony of you attacking NASA with "Nazis in charge" given Eric Dubay's beliefs to be amusing. That's my point :-)
    1
  88.  @webstercat  - You said "Flat earth can’t be debunked" Actually it can and it has been. But before going any further, can you say which version of a flat Earth you believe please? A brief summary in your own words would suffice. I ask because there are many versions to choose from, i.e. dome or no dome? Edge (finite plane) or no edge (infinite plane)? More land and seas beyond the ice wall? Pillars or no pillars? Gravity or no gravity? Globe sun and moon or flat sun and moon? Rahu and Ketu, or just the moon? etc. Once you say which flat Earth you mean, then your comments here will be in context of your flat Earth.
    1
  89. There was no hoax, and today's 'internet age' is full of your so-called 'internet sleuths' who believe the Earth is flat, therefore that's a poor argument from you :-)
    1
  90. But if you or anyone makes such a claim, then you'll need to back it up by saying when you think they did land for the first time and explain made it possible then if it wasn't possible back in 1969 :-)
    1
  91. Nope. Next? :-)
    1
  92. None of the original photos or videos or film footage from the moon was destroyed. Hence the photos and videos and film we see are the originals not fake. Simple :-)
    1
  93.  @matthiasamez  - You said "There is a reason why you chose a certain name and symbol" Correct, but only those with an overinflated opinion of themselves assume they just know without question how a certain name came about ;-) So come on, really? :-)
    1
  94. On Earth, grains of sand or dust blasted up by a helicopter would become trapped by the surrounding air to create large swirling dust clouds around the helicopter, where after landing the dust/sand in those clouds would eventually settle back down to cover objects and the ground. Search for the vid; HD footage of an IDF Helicopter landing and taking off in the desert (How far did the wheels sink into the sand btw?) In the vacuum of the moon, there's no air to trap the dust particles blasted by the LM's rocket engine, hence they fly away in straight lines at great speed, eventually landing a long distance away. Search for the vid; Apollo 16 Lunar Landing (realigned) Hence with no air to slow down the dust particles they cannot land and settle on the feet of the lander just a few meters away.
    1
  95.  @scottporter4871  - [Next replies shadow banned - So will return later to try again :-)]
    1
  96.  @matthiasamez  - You said "i have not deleted anything." Correct, and I edited my reply accordingly, but some of your replies are shadow banned in my notifier, but visible if I scroll down the comments and open the thread afresh. You said "You just keep attacking me instead of just having a dialogue like grown men." YOU are the person who started the attacks, in this thread and the other one claiming my name suggested I was a freemason and claiming I will be going to hell. Your words! You said "It's in the bible more than once you can read it for yourself" And as I said in the other thread that you're trying to avoid now, flat Earth is NOT a Christian belief. The Bible does not explicitly state the shape of the Earth.
    1
  97.  @matthiasamez  - The fact that you threw insults at me and now complain about being told you're childish effectively proves my point :-) Anyway, if you really believe the Earth is flat then you're not the Christian you think you are, instead you're just betraying your faith without even realizing it :-|
    1
  98. None of the Apollo hoax claims holds up to scrutiny, instead they all fall apart upon close examination without exception :-|
    1
  99. So you're saying the Russians were stupid back then? :-|
    1
  100. Which is obviously completely wrong, because if what you saw or read was correct then there would be countless videos on YT about that claim with many investigating that specific place in a desert here on Earth for further proof. Ask yourself why there's a complete lack of videos about that desert location and why no-one is investigating it further to add to the claimed evidence. Isn't that what people would do if the topography claim was true? :-)
    1
  101.  @Thomas-tt4gz  - No videos have been taken down in the way you're suggesting my friend, we've only lost videos if the uploaders deleted them, or deleted their channels, or because the videos or channels broke YT 's code of conduct, etc. Remember, we can ALL add videos to our playlists, and so if videos are taken down for no reason then not only would we see this in our playlists, but countless people would be naming and discussing the videos taken down, including those who created and/or uploaded the videos. Therefore if there was such a location then the Apollo hoax community worldwide on websites and channels and conferences and books etc would be talking about it. Hence I expect what you saw isn't something that the Apollo hoax community considers to be proven evidence, otherwise they would all be talking about it :-|
    1
  102.  @Thomas-tt4gz  - Since when can videos get taken down without the uploaders knowing about it, and without all those who had the videos on their playlists knowing about it, and without all those who referred to those videos during debates knowing about it and so on, much less get taken down at the same time from all the other video sites like Dailymotion and Vimeo, etc? The fact remains that if what you said held up as evidence then it would be one of the top Apollo hoax claims and hence be spoken about in videos and websites and books and documentaries and discussion forum and so on. None of that has happened, therefore since your topology evidence isn't even accepted by the Apollo hoax community worldwide, then you cannot expect others to take it seriously :-| But if you do find one source to the claimed topographical evidence that you're referring to here, then please feel free to present it here and I'll have a look at it.
    1
  103. The flat Earth believers here in the comments say that about ALL photographs and footage of the Earth from space too, but personal opinion is not evidence :-)
    1
  104. Increased computing power doesn't get people to the moon, but increased rocket power can. To get people to the moon requires building a rocket as large and as powerful as the Apollo Saturn V, or more. After the Saturn V was retired in the 70s no comparable rocket had been built by any nation until... the recent SLS rocket for the Artemis missions and the Starship rockets by Space X. Therefore people will return to the moon soon thanks to the return of such powerful rockets.
    1
  105. You are referring to the Apollo 11 press conference that took place 3 WEEKS after they returned from the moon, where they spent those 3 WEEKS in quarantine (did you know that?). Besides, the astronauts were up on stage to give a presentation and answer questions to an informed audience full of experts in their fields, they were not up on stage to entertain the crowd :-)
    1
  106.  @scruffex3736  - That was a press conference 3 WEEKS after returning from the moon where it began with the astronauts giving a 30 minute PRESENTATION to an informed audience, and then followed that up with a question and answer session with experts. That's work, not entertainment. If it was about entertainment then it would have been a VERY short presentation (if any) in front of an audience of reporters asking the astronauts dumb questions. The idea that everything should be about entertainment after returning from the moon is rather naïve, especially when there was more than enough opportunities later to 'entertain', including the astronauts tour of the USA and other nations!
    1
  107. Telescopes are limited by the resolving power of the lens or mirror, hence to see objects as small as the Apollo craft all the way from Earth would require a telescope with a mirror that is at least 100 meters in diameter (200+ meters to make out details). So the best option is to send a spacecraft with a telescopic camera in orbit around the moon to photograph the surface, and that is what we got with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which gave us great photos of the Apollo landing sites in 2009 and 2011.
    1
  108.  @ethangallagher1476  - Here's a quote you can find with a quick srch; "In fact the maps are detailed enough that Chinese scientists were able to detect traces of the Apollo landers, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China’s lunar exploration project." In other words, even China has photographed the remains of the Apollo landers on the surface of the moon, where surely they would be the first to say there's nothing on the moon if no trace of the Apollo landers could be seen in their photos? :-)
    1
  109.  @ethangallagher1476  - I hope that information helps, especially when China of all nations says they can see the Apollo landers on the moon in the photographs they took of the moon's surface from their orbiter (although unlike the USA, China doesn't make all their data public).
    1
  110. ​ @matthiasamez  - Seeing what you want to see is not evidence, hence making comments like "Viewing your x symbol you're probably one as well right?" is just idiotic and pointless :-| We can ALL spot and/or make up patterns if we try hard enough, but that's not evidence, neither is hearsay. In the video about the claims of space being fake, you made similar comments including the classic flat Earth believer claim of "CGI". So if you're a flat Earth believer then just say so please and argue your case from that perspective, i.e. from YOUR core belief that the Earth is flat and space is fake.
    1
  111.  @Apature-Science  - Hang on a moment, where did you come from in this thread? :-) My reply was to 'Life Is Yours'. Edit: I see now, your initial reply was hidden by YT, so 'Life Is Yours' would not have seen your reply or got a notification, just as I can't see it in my notification window. The thread starter used the classic conspiracy fallacy that if something hasn't been done in a long time then that means it was never done, which is why I applied his own logic to Concorde. And he used the ridiculous fallacy that technology can be forgotten, obviously from a lack of understanding of what Don Pettit actually meant by 'lost technology'. So again, my reply was not to you my friend :-)
    1
  112.  @Apature-Science  - No problem. All the best :-)
    1
  113. None of the official Apollo photos were fake my friend, but the other mission details you mentioned are sound :-)
    1
  114. It is not unusual for us not to return to difficult to reach locations. Men first reached the south pole in 1911/1912 but didn't return there until 1956, 44 YEARS later. Men first reached the lowest point in Earth's ocean, the Mariana Trench, in 1960 and didn't return until 2012, 52 YEARS later. So returning to the moon (thanks to the SLS rocket) in 2024 would be 52 years after Apollo 17.
    1
  115. Correct for certain types of radiation, where the intensity and duration of that radiation are the other key factors. But damaged is not the same as destroyed and yet conspiracy theorists always assume the latter :-|
    1
  116. He hasn't, but many men did during the Apollo missions.
    1
  117.  @DFord-rv3nz  - So instead of saying what you don't believe, please say what you do believe. Please give an example of an unmanned spacecraft that has gone beyond Earth's magnetosphere and explain why you know it happen. Please give an example of a manned mission into low Earth orbit and explain why you know it happened. That way your comments here will be in context of your knowledge and beliefs :-)
    1
  118.  @billykatsoulakis8258  - No problem my friend, I can see from your comments that you accept men landed on the moon, but conspiracy theorists take short clips from Apollo footage and twist what's happening, making the kind of claims that most people wouldn't have the time nor the patience nor the interest to debunk, and hence they put doubts into people's minds as a result :-| Over the years I've seen and debated practically every Apollo fake photo and footage claim, and found that none of those claims holds up to close scrutiny, instead they all fall apart upon close examination, including the most compelling claims. In other words, the problem isn't with some of the footage, it's with the claims made by conspiracy theorists :-|
    1
  119.  @billykatsoulakis8258  - The problem is, it' i impossible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth, therefore the only footage they could show would be footage taken on the moon :-|
    1
  120. That press conference was a presentation to an informed audience and took place 3 WEEKS after the astronauts returned from the moon, where they spent those 3 weeks in quarantine. They were not up on stage to entertain, they were up on stage to inform.
    1
  121. Every claim in "A Funny Thing..." has been debunked, where YOU could debunk some of the claims yourself if you actually tried :-|
    1
  122. The Earth rotates ONCE a day, that's HALF the rotational speed of the hour hand on a classic clock. So why would you expect to see the Earth rotating in the footage?
    1
  123. Nope. Next :-)
    1
  124. The moon landingS were real, but unfortunately too many people listen to conspiracy theorists :-|
    1
  125. Joe simply realized he was wrong. Nothing more and nothing less :-|
    1
  126.  @Jaceftp  - How was anyone stopped from talking about the moon landings? Explain please. And instead of resorting to insults, why not present what you personally consider to be the BEST evidence that the moon landings were fake. Just one hoax claim please, the best one, and lets discuss it. Lets see if your best hoax claim holds up to close scrutiny. I look forward to your selected claim :-)
    1
  127.  @Jaceftp  - You said "Im not going to attempt to educate you here son." I didn't ask you for cowardice behaviour, I asked you to have the backbone to choose the BEST evidence of a hoax from all the Apollo hoax claims available. I'm waiting :-)
    1
  128.  @Jaceftp  - You said "Heres why they faked it." So you're yet another flat Earth believer who trolls topics like this without saying the REAL reason behind your claims from the start. Typical. Therefore your claimed lost of respect for Joe has nothing to do with the moon landings, it's to do with the fact that Joe says the Earth is a globe and space is real and hence he laughs at your flat Earth beliefs :-)
    1
  129.  @Jaceftp  - So given that you're a flat Earth believer where you appear to see yourself as enlightened, can you say which version of a flat Earth you believe please? A brief summary in your own words would suffice. I ask because there are many versions to choose from, i.e. dome or no dome? Edge (finite plane) or no edge (infinite plane)? More land and seas beyond the ice wall? Pillars or no pillars? Gravity or no gravity? Globe sun and moon or flat sun and moon? Rahu and Ketu, or just the moon? etc. Once you say which flat Earth you mean, then your comments here will be in context of your flat Earth.
    1
  130.  @Jaceftp  - You said "Here is some fundamental's....... 8 inches per mile(squared) of curvature(thats from nasa)." 8 inches per mile squared comes from 19th century levellers (a type of surveyor) because it's easy to work out on paper or even in our heads, where flat Earth theorist and author Samuel Birley Rowbotham mentioned it in his book published around 150 years ago, where he quoted his source as the "Encyclopedia Britannica". Today's flat Earth theorists are quoting from people like Rowbotham, while failing to understand that 8 inches per mile squared is actually the equation for a parabola, NOT a circle, but it's more than good enough for distances as far as the eye can see. A perfect rule of thumb equation back when people would have been using paper and pens, not calculators. Simply put, 8 inches per mile squared has nothing to do with NASA and hence it never came from NASA, unless you think NASA was formed in the 19th century :-)
    1
  131.  @Jaceftp  - And here's another claim from you that stands out in your reply, where you said and I quote "The horizon always stays at eye level(no matter how high you go). Thats impossible on a globe." Numerous people have proven that claim to be wrong, for example, search YouTube for the video; "Horizon Drop at Varying Altitudes. Flat Earth Debunked." Clearly showing the horizon DROPS with altitude. You can do that yourself with a half filled bottle of water, hence look online for; "Bottled Water: A Simple Device for Observing the Dip of the Horizon" Again clearly showing the horizon DROPS with altitude. The water bottle test is something that YOU and EVERY flat Earth believer can do the next time you're in an airplane, and yet you will not find a single example of any flat Earth believers carrying out that test and showing the horizon has risen to eye level, because ALL who have carried out that test have found the horizon DROPS with altitude.
    1
  132.  @Jaceftp  - I selected those 2 claims from you because they stood out as examples of you avoiding my question :-| That is, I'm still waiting for you to say which version of a flat Earth you believe. Why haven't you told me the version you accept as being the correct flat Earth 'model'? Is it because you don't know? If you don't know, if you can't decide, then just say so please :-|
    1
  133.  @ewa2z816  - You can pretend all you want, but the fact you said "clouds behind the moon means it’s not in outer space" suggests you're a flat Earth believer. Correct? :-)
    1
  134. We do live in a world where it's possible for people to change their minds :-)
    1
  135.  russmartin4888  - What you 'heard' are unfounded claims my friend. The race to the moon was seen WORLDWIDE as Capitalism versus Communism, which is the way the USA played it to fight back against the lead the USSR had in space with their many space firsts, including Sputnik that put fear into US citizens (if they could put a satellite into orbit then they could put nuclear weapons into orbit!!!). Therefore setting the target of landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade allowed MASSIVE funding to be agreed in Congress to fund the USA's space program, increasing NASA's funding to a peak of 9 TIMES normal, allowing them to catch up and then overtake the USSR in space by the mid-60s, ending with them meeting their goal of landing men on the moon. There's absolutely no way the USSR would ever have allowed the USA to achieve such a public propaganda win for Capitalism over Communism for something they knew was a lie, much less maintain that lie for the USA indefinitely. Especially when the USSR had the technology to expose a moon landing lie any time they wanted. So the fact remains the USA sent men to the moon 9 times from 1968 to 1972, with 6 of those missions landing on the moon :-)
    1
  136. But a science degree would help when it comes to understanding how men went to the moon instead of blindly believing the false claims made by conspiracy theorists :-)
    1
  137.  @danx1216  - Posting nothing but childish insults doesn't make your case, it only proves you have no argument :-)
    1
  138.  @danx1216  - Thanks for proving my point so perfectly :-) I find it interesting that in the other thread you started here with your list of 6 claims I asked you to select the best 2 claims for further discussion and yet I'm still waiting :-)
    1
  139.  @danx1216  - Think BEFORE you reply kid, you listed 6 hoax claims in your other thread and yet you ran away when I asked you to choose 2 for further discussion (see my reply posted 6 HOURS ago there!). So if you won't discuss the hoax claims you make when challenged, then you are in no position to ask for proof. Next? :-)
    1
  140.  @danx1216  - Still proving my points :-) Btw, when are you going to find the backbone to return to your other thread, the thread that you ran away from for some reason? :-|
    1
  141. 🙄
    1
  142. Today it is still impossible to fake in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour after hour of Apollo surface footage, therefore it had to be filmed in a location with 1/6 gravity, and hence it had to be filmed on the moon :-)
    1
  143. Nope. Next? :-)
    1
  144. ???
    1
  145. So if the largest and the most powerful rocket in history (only recently beaten by the SLS) wasn't sufficient to get men to the moon, then what would have been sufficient? In other words, state the technology that was needed to get men to the moon that you think they didn't have back then. Be specific please. And your Van Allen belts claim is false, where you listened and believed without question the distortions of the facts by conspiracy theorists :-|
    1
  146. Conspiracy theorists are the ones who put doubts into people's minds to make them think something is questionable even when it's not :-|
    1
  147. ​ @stacyturbeville6863  - If you don't know the technology needed to get people to the moon then you can't really say it's impossible :-| Getting people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history. Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket, thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal for that purpose. The world's most powerful rocket worked like a dream and so they were able to use the Saturn V to get their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable. Now look up NASA's recent Artemis 1 mission, with its SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful, where it took the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth on a 25 day mission to test all the systems, and it was a complete success. Hence within a few years the same SLS rocket and Orion space capsule will take a crew of astronauts to the moon and back, and some missions after that will include a lander to take people to the surface. Simply put, the SLS rocket is the new Saturn V and the Orion space capsule is the new Apollo Command Module, and so the USA have the technology today to send people to the moon.
    1
  148.  @davidvalensi8616  - You said "So what have you sent into space? " And what has ANY conspiracy theorist who claims the Van Allen belts are impossible to pass through ever sent into space? Name that conspiracy theorist please. And please don't try to shift this onto telemetry data where you don't understand the context but you believe the conspiracy theorists! We can discuss the telemetry data claim later, after the Van Allen belt discussion is done. As I pointed out Kelly Smith never said anything about the effect of Van Allen belt radiation upon people, he ONLY spoke about the effect upon the electronics and electrical systems of Orion, making the point that they won't risk sending people through the belts inside Orion until they've tested Orion in space first. And Dr Van Allen says we need to stay inside the region of the belts with the highest radiation for a WEEK before it could harm us. Do you question what Dr Van Allen has sent into space into the radiation belts named after him? :-| Every vehicle on Earth for land, sea and air that is designed to carry people has to be extensively tested for safely FIRST before risking those vehicles being used by people, doing all they can with the design to prevent vehicle failure and to protect people during accidents and dangerous incidents. Why would you think the standards for vehicles designed to carry people into space would be any different when it comes to testing and safety?
    1
  149.  @davidvalensi8616  - So if you choose to believe the moon landings were fake, then fine that's your opinion, but it doesn't mean you are obliged to accept EVERY hoax claim without question regarding the Apollo missions. You can say you agree with conspiracy theorists that the moon landings didn't happen but disagree with them on some of the claims they make, where the claims made about the Van Allen belts are completely wrong :-| Think about it please.
    1
  150.  @davidvalensi8616  - He doesn't need to say what everyone except conspiracy theorists already knows, i.e. that men went through the Van Allen belts during the Apollo missions. Hence your argument reminds me of the nonsense I get from flat Earth believers who use the same kind of approach, nit-picking on what someone said or didn't say or what was done or not done and twisting it to fit their beliefs :-| Btw, did you know that back in the late 60s early 70s the USSR also proved the Van Allen belts would not be harmful for people to pass through?
    1
  151.  @davidvalensi8616  - You said "Yes he does need to say it, it's glaring that he didn't." You still haven't explained why he HAS to say what most people already know. Your flat Earth conclusion is a perfect example of your dishonesty here, since only a very tiny minority of Apollo hoax believers are flat Earth believers but ALL flat Earth believers are Apollo hoax believers by default, hence I never said the two groups are the same! I made the point that you're using the TACTICS as flat Earth believers, who for example insist someone HAS to say the Earth is a globe and claim it's glaring that he/she didn't, or insist Hubble HAS to spin around take photos of the Earth, or Apollo/ISS hoax believers who claim the camera HAS to spin around 360 degrees and it's glaring that it doesn't, etc. In other words you pick out something that you believe hasn't been done and then you make sweeping claims about why it didn't happen. That's not evidence, that's just playing games. So put aside your denial and address the actual points I've made please, eg. explain why you think Dr Van Allen is wrong about the belts he discovered.
    1
  152. What technology is needed to get men to the moon?
    1
  153. You said "Never been to the moon, Buzz Aldrin admitted finally that they have never been there." Except he didn't. You said "The Earth is 4x's bigger than the moon and yet when the supposed shot of the earth from the moon the earth is tiny" Search online for photographs of the full moon and you will find the size of the moon in those photos varies in size from just a little white dot to filling up the entire photograph! So which size of the moon is the correct one? The answer is - They are ALL the correct size, because it depends on the camera and lens used, and other factors like the magnification, the field of view, etc. The same applies to photos and footage of the Earth from the moon. Therefore the fact that you didn't know that explains why you fell for all the other hoax claims that you listed here :-)
    1
  154.  @davidvalensi8616  - You continue to prove my points perfectly kid :-)
    1
  155. So you think the moon doesn't exist? :-)
    1
  156. Bart Sibrel is as dishonest as they come, where YOU could debunk some of the claims he makes in his documentaries if you actually tried :-|
    1
  157. Nope, he finally realized that facts do matter :-)
    1
  158. Come on, really? :-) The significantly smaller Gemini 7 craft kept astronauts alive in low Earth orbit for TWO WEEKS in 1965! USSR's first space station kept a crew alive for over 3 WEEKS in low Earth orbit in 1971. So if the technology back then could provide enough oxygen for weeks in low Earth orbit, then why wouldn't that SAME technology work for missions to the moon lasting 12 days and less? As for computational power, BOTH the USSR and USA landed several unmanned craft onto the surface of the moon during the 60s using even LESS computational power compared to the Apollo missions. The calculations needed to send craft to the surface of the moon doesn't change just because we stuff people inside. Hence if there was enough computational power back then to land unmanned craft on the moon, and even to return back to Earth (like USSR's Luna 16, Luna 20 and Luna 24 with samples) then clearly it wasn't a problem for the superior computational power of the Apollo missions. As for fuel, clearly you think a rocket needs to fire it's rocket engines continuously, when in fact it doesn't, instead most of the time the craft are just coasting (just as they do in low Earth orbit). That's how the USSR were able to get their small unmanned craft (listed above) with moon samples to fly back to Earth in 1970, 1972 and 1976.
    1
  159. [This reply didn't appear - So reposted] Here are photographs of the Apollo sites taken 8 YEARS ago for example; www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTeM4ZqEKR4 Here's what China reported from their own craft in orbit around the moon; https://www.universetoday.com/93375/china-unveils-high-resolution-global-moon-map/ Quote "In fact the maps are detailed enough that Chinese scientists were able to detect traces of the Apollo landers, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China’s lunar exploration project." And the USSR had the means to expose any moon landing hoax any time they wanted and yet they never did. So instead of automatically deciding something you don't understand is BS, try taking the time to understand it first please :-)
    1
  160. Buzz did not say that, instead that's a claim made by those who appear to lack the intelligence to understand English... i.e. conspiracy believers who hear and see what they want to hear and see, and therefore they choose bias over objectivity and common sense :-|
    1
  161. You're saying the USSR were idiots back then? :-|
    1
  162. Well, you haven't and neither have I, but 24 men have gone to the moon and back, where 12 of those men walked on the moon :-)
    1
  163.  @jackmack276  - Actually they did.
    1
  164. Sure, because no human is capable of changing his/her mind over such topics, a change of mind can only ever be achieved by force and threats from authorities, right? :-)
    1
  165.  @beyondnow1600  - Your opinion is just that... an opinion. No evidence, no details, just an empty statement. Which is fine of course, but unless you can present actual proof that Joe was told to change his mind, then the fact remains that Joe changed his mind based upon the evidence.
    1
  166. No, that's you blindly accepting conspiracy theorists twisting what the astronauts actually said, which is dishonest. Everything you've said in your reply is wrong, where you just accept EVERYTHING that conspiracy theorists told you without question. If you think I'm wrong, then choose ONE of the claims you mentioned for further discussion, preferably the one that you consider to be the strongest evidence and lets discuss it :-)
    1
  167. The only people who claim the Van Allen belts are impossible to pass through are conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves, knowing that many people would believe their claims because of the word "radiation" :-|
    1
  168. There's no wind blowing the flag my friend, and it's actually rather easy to prove there's no wind. Hence have a look at the footage again and see if you can spot the clue that tells you there's no wind :-)
    1
  169. And NASA are not faking photos, so the point is moot. The issue is ignorant people who want to believe in a specific conspiracy and hence they blindly believe without question ALL the claims made by conspiracy theorists in books, documentaries, websites and videos online.
    1
  170.  @bji2664  - Well since NASA only hire the very BEST people in any field, I would take that as a complement. But no, I don't work for NASA. Do you work for McDonald's? :-)
    1
  171. An enjoyable 70s sci-fi movie that showed it would have been impossible to fake such a mission and get away with it once, much less fake NINE manned missions to the moon (with 6 landings) and yet get away with it every time :-)
    1
  172. ???
    1
  173. Yes, a great book, but I'm not sure what you mean by "It's no wonder they had to create a degree of footage / photographs etc", since nothing was created, it was all taken on the moon. Perhaps I'm misreading it? :-)
    1
  174. Watch LRO Revisits Apollo Landing Sites :-)
    1
  175.  @robertmarsh1338  - Bart Sibrel is a proven |iar, therefore that doesn't say much about your claimed 'research' :-|
    1
  176. There's nothing strange if people research the facts instead of conspiracy videos :-) Getting people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history. Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket, thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal for that purpose. It worked like a dream and so they were able to use it to get their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable. Once the political goal of getting men to the moon first was achieved and Congress knew the USSR couldn't achieve the same due to the failure of their 'moon rocket', Congress withdrew the extra funding and so the Apollo missions ended despite having Saturn V rockets for 2 more missions (Congress had previously refused NASA funding for more Saturn V rockets). Now look up NASA's recent Artemis 1 mission, where their new SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful, making it the most powerful rocket EVER launched into space, took the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth on a 25 day mission to check everything they could. With Orion landing back in the ocean just like the Apollo Command Module, Artemis 1 mission was a complete success. So the USA have rebuilt the technology required to get people to the moon and back, and therefore will use that technology to send people to the moon within a few years.
    1
  177. Wrong, the evidence is solid, where NASA no more have to prove anything to conspiracy theorists than they have to prove the Earth is a globe to flat Earth theorists. And if the proof would have failed in court then don't you think conspiracy theorists over decades would have got together to test that evidence in court? :-) Btw, NONE of the photos or videos or film is fake.
    1
  178. Will you guys please stop parroting the same "wake up" nonsense all the time :-) EVERY conspiracy theory has people crying out "wake up", and yet I'm sure you don't believe EVERY conspiracy theory out there. As for the "bull shit technology" back then, please name the rocket launched since the 70s that was larger and more powerful that the 60's Saturn rockets used during Apollo. Please name the passenger plane that is faster than Concorde which first flew in 1969 (recognize that year?). Please name the jet powered plane that was faster than the 60's SR-71. Please name the rocket powered plane that was faster than the 60's X-15. The point is, some of the cutting edge technology back then was incredible and still holds up today, whereas it was consumer technology that was rather poor compared to today (especially electrical and electronic products). Besides, look at NASA's budget over the years and see if you can spot what made the moon landings possible; upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg
    1
  179. A wise man wouldn't blindly believe the claims of conspiracy theorists who say the US government lost proof and footage of the single most important event in history, much less over look the fact that there were SIX manned moon landings in total. The ONLY footage that was lost was NASA's BACKUP copy of the Apollo 11 moonwalk, since that was the first time they would attempt a TV broadcast from the moon and so they made a BACKUP copy just in case people worldwide couldn't see it live on their TVs. But the whole world did see it live and so NASA's backup copy of the SAME footage that we've all seen already wasn't needed, and so it was eventually lost. All the other Apollo 11 footage is still available, and nothing was lost from Apollo 12 (except Alan Bean damaged the TV camera), or Apollo 13 (failed mission), or Apollo 14, or Apollo 15, or Apollo 16 or Apollo 17. With a quick search you can find all the hour upon hour upon hour of Apollo footage here on YT, and on websites you can find scans of all the original Apollo photos, where from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17 the astronauts took nearly 15,000 photographs, ALL available for YOU to see. So remind me, which proof or footage is missing again? :-)
    1
  180.  @oceans1259  - You said "After hearing Stanley Kubrick talk about how it was his best masterpiece ever ..." No he didn't, so your camel's back was broken for nothing :-)
    1
  181. The USSR and USA first sent people into space in 1961, that's 63 years ago, and yet where are all the various resorts in low Earth orbit? :-) As for knowing, please watch LRO Revisits Apollo Landing Sites
    1
  182. During the 60s the USSR and USA landed several unmanned spacecraft on the moon using even less computing capacity than the Apollo missions. In 1970, 1972 and 1976, the USSR landed unmanned spacecraft that collected a tiny sample of moon dust and then lifted off to return those samples back to Earth. Those spacecraft were Luna 16, Luna 20 and Luna 24. So if landing on the moon and returning could have been done as early as 1970 with unmanned spacecraft then why wouldn't it be possible to achieve the same with the significantly larger and more powerful Apollo spacecraft? :-|
    1
  183. ALL such questions have been addressed without exception my friend, but you can't force someone to accept a valid answer if that person chooses not to believe it :-|
    1
  184. As I said to someone else here... The USSR would have spotted a fake a mile away. Even if you believe the USSR were fooled once, do you really think they would have been fooled 6 TIMES by exactly the same hoax, or fooled 9 times if you include all manned missions to the moon and back from 1968 to 1972? No way :-)
    1
  185. The USA sent people to the moon NINE times and landed SIX times, hence first sent men to the moon and back during Apollo 8 in 1968, landed for the first time during Apollo 11 in 1969, and landed for the last time with Apollo 17 in 1972. In 1970 and 1973, the Soviets landed two car sized rovers on the moon called Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2, where both rovers had multiple TV cameras and hence were remotely controlled thanks to the live TV footage sent back to Earth by the rover TV cameras. As a result, Lunokhod 2 was driven across the moon's surface for 4 months under remote control covering a distance of 37 km. So if the Soviet's lunar rovers could be remotely controlled from Earth while sending back live TV footage from the moon during 1970 and 1973, then why would it be a problem for the Apollo missions back then?
    1
  186.  @grumpymonkey585  - The technology to send a TV signal across the country is not the same as sending a TV signal from the moon my friend. For all spacecraft, we use MASSIVE radio dishes here on Earth pointing DIRECTLY at the spacecraft, where the spacecraft have small radio dishes and/or antennas to send and receive data. It's direct line of sight. And because the Earth rotates, then at least 3 massive radio dishes are required on Earth to make sure at least one of them is pointed at the spacecraft at any given time. That's why we can receive images sent back from spacecraft from Pluto and beyond, all because the dishes here on Earth are pointed DIRECTLY at the spacecraft. That's not how TV works here on Earth :-)
    1
  187.  @SonOfKong33  - I'm relaxed my friend :-), I'm just pointing out that claims that any of the footage could be fake have been debunked long ago (would you like a video that shows all the 'schoolboy errors' made in the moon scenes in "2001"? :-)).
    1
  188.  @SonOfKong33  - Regarding the footage, because Apollo 11 was the first moon landing NASA couldn't know for sure if the live TV broadcast to the world would work, and so they stored a backup of the moonwalk broadcast onto telemetry magnetic tape just in case. If the TV broadcast failed, then NASA would have transferred their backup video footage to film and distribute that film to TV studios worldwide to show their audiences weeks or months later. But the broadcast did work, the whole world watched and recorded the Apollo 11 moon walk live and so NASA's backup copy was redundant, and as a result it was lost (probably the magnetic tapes reused). In other words, all that was erased was NASA's backup copy of the SAME Apollo 11 moonwalk footage that we've all seen already. And none of the footage from the 5 Apollo missions that followed are lost or erased. Think about that :-)
    1
  189. Nope. Next? :-)
    1
  190.  @cheeseburgereddie6287  - Nylon is cloth, cloth is flexible and hence like all cloth it easily bends and twists when moved. Hence the nylon cloth flag swings around as the astronauts move the flag pole that the nylon flag is attached to. The cloth slows down to a stop when the astronauts are not moving the flag pole. Besides, if you look carefully at the footage then you can see a number of clues that proves there's no air and proves hence no wind moving the flag :-)
    1
  191. Apollo 11 moon mission animated
    1
  192. YT doesn't like links in replies, so my last reply is the name of a short video that shows how they went to the moon and back. I hope that helps :-)
    1
  193. You said "then show you the NASA photos on their website of the Lunar module made of wafer thin Aluminium, kitchen foil stuffed into holes, missing rivets, and held together with duct tape." And right there I would stop you, because if I covered a car in wafer thin aluminium foil and held it all in place with duct tape, would you come to the conclusion that the car is MADE out of wafer thin aluminium foil? Of course not, and yet THAT is the logic you're presenting here :-) Another perfect example of flawed logic is "Also guided by a computer 1 millionth of the power of your mobile phone." During the 60s the USA and USSR landed several unmanned spacecraft on the moon with even LESS computing power, and in 1970 and 1972 and 1976 the USSR landed spacecraft that collected a tiny amount of moon dust and then returned that dust back to Earth for analysis, again with LESS computing power. The calculations needed to send a spacecraft to the moon, and then land and take-off and return to Earth, doesn't change just because we stuff people inside, the calculations are exactly the same. So if there was enough computing power to send all those unmanned spacecraft to the moon and back with LESS computing power than the Apollo missions, then clearly there was more than enough computer power available for the Apollo missions. Therefore I wouldn't say you were crazy, just ignorant and uninformed ;-)
    1
  194. Back then, how did mission control communicate with spacecraft and more specifically, how did mission control communicate with the astronauts in space throughout all space missions?
    1
  195. That's not common sense, it's just denial :-)
    1
  196. I literally saw your comment as I arrived on this video seconds after you posted it :-) Anyway, the flag was made out of nylon and there was a crossbar attached to the flagpole that went through a hem at the top of the flag to keep it upright. Hence the flag was hanging down from the crossbar and attached to the flap pole, where it flapped around as the astronauts moved the flag pole.
    1
  197. Well, you haven't and neither have I, but 24 men have, where 12 of them walked on the moon :-)
    1
  198. Look up the recent Artemis 1 mission which was a complete success.
    1
  199. 1 - Done. 2 - Wrong. 3 - Wrong. 4 - Irrelevant. 5 - Wrong. 6 - Irrelevant. You're just repeating the same tired old arguments from conspiracy theorists without really thinking about what you're saying :-| If you think I'm wrong, then please select the best 2 of your 6 points for further discussion here :-)
    1
  200. Operation YourpointIs? :-)
    1
  201.  @zeroswings2  - If you cannot support your own claims... then...
    1
  202.  @zeroswings2  - And merely listing something from a video is not making a point. So again, make your point please :-)
    1
  203.  @zeroswings2  - Why don't you make your own case instead of hiding behind others to do your work for you? :-)
    1
  204.  @zeroswings2  - And I prefer to chat with adults over topics like this, hence those who can support the points they make. So you can go and play somewhere else :-)
    1
  205.  @zeroswings2  - A 46 year old with the mind of a 14 year old it appears. Shame :-| Hence I find it interesting that you refuse to expand upon your opening comment, despite the fact that it is reasonable for others to ask you that question.
    1
  206.  @zeroswings2  - Oh I see, so you got offended and upset by my reply and decided to act like a child who refuses to eat his meal. I suggest you grow yourself a backbone in future :-)
    1
  207.  @zeroswings2  - Likewise
    1
  208. He's not.
    1
  209. Nope, that's conspiracy theorists twisting what Buzz Aldrin said and you fell for it because you want to believe the conspiracy theorists. And the video of Kubrick is actually an actor called Tom Mayk for the mockumentary "Shooting Stanley Kubrick". Tom doesn't even look like Kubrick, so ask yourself why you believed it was real without question :-|
    1
  210.  @markriding1267  - The problem with body language claims is that people often see what they want to see without taking context into account. Those 3 astronauts were ex test pilots who risked their lives every time they pushed experimental aircraft to the limits, hence put them in a plane and they would be calm in situations where most of us would soil our pants, but put them in front of an audience for a presentation and it's clearly out of their confort zone. After all, look at Neil Armstrong and the other astronauts just ONE WEEK after returning during quarantine on his birthday... Srch YouTube for the video; "Neil Armstrong's Birthday Celebrated During Apollo 11 Quarantine" They couldn't look happier, especially Neil. And srch YouTube for the video (and focus on the second half); "Bob Hope and Neil Armstrong" Notice Neil Armstrong in front of the troops in Vietnam, where again he couldn't look happier if he tried and is clearly relishing the moment. Therefore the idea that there is something wrong with the astronauts during the press conference is based upon false assumptions :-)
    1
  211. Since when does a light source cast shadows upon itself? :-) Anyway, sinvce you're clearly a flat Earth believer, can you say which version of a flat Earth you believe please? A brief summary in your own words would suffice. I ask because there are many versions to choose from, i.e. dome or no dome? Edge (finite plane) or no edge (infinite plane)? More land and seas beyond the ice wall? Pillars or no pillars? Gravity or no gravity? Globe sun and moon or flat sun and moon? Rahu and Ketu, or just the moon? etc. Once you say which flat Earth you mean, then your comments here will be in context of your flat Earth.
    1
  212. Nope, conspiracy theorists who distort what the astronauts are saying claim that, but those who listen to the astronauts know that they are talking about the vehicles CURRENTLY in service. At the time you're referring to, there were no rockets in service of the size and power of the Apollo Saturn V rocket that took men to the moon, therefore no rocket in service capable of taking people to the moon. However, you must have heard of the recent Artemis 1 mission were the world's most powerful rocket, the SLS which is slightly more powerful than the Saturn V, took the Orion space capsule (designed to carry up to four astronauts) on a mission to the moon and back it it was a complete success. So simply put, today the USA have the technology to send humans through the Van Allen radiation belts to the moon and back :-)
    1
  213. If you're a flat Earth believer then just say so please :-|
    1
  214. Today it is still impossible to fake in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour after hour of Apollo surface footage, therefore it had to be filmed in a location with 1/6 gravity, and hence it had to be filmed on the moon :-)
    1
  215. All false claims my friend, claims you got from conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves :-|
    1
  216. The Russians would have spotted a fake a mile away my friend. Even if you believe Russia were fooled once, do you really think they would have been fooled 6 TIMES by exactly the same hoax, or fooled 9 times if you include all manned missions to the moon and back from 1968 to 1972? No way :-)
    1
  217. The thing is none of the photos or footage is fake, but I'm pleased you know the moon landings were real :-)
    1
  218. Check out the even smaller Gemini spacecraft in low Earth orbit during the 60s, where Gemini 7 had two astronauts on board for 2 weeks, and in 1970 the USSR's Soyuz 9 spacecraft had two cosmonauts on board for 18 days in low Earth orbit. Therefore given that it was possible in low Earth orbit, then it was also possible for missions to the moon. I hope that helps :-)
    1
  219. So you're saying the USSR were stupid? :-|
    1
  220.  @scaf121  - But you are saying that :-| Because back then the USSR had an advance space program that could track spacecraft to the moon and beyond (they even sent a spacecraft to Venus in 1970, tracking it all the way there). My point is, the USA send men to the moon 9 times from 1968 to 1972, landing on the moon during 6 of those missions. So I can understand the USSR being caught out the first time (even though the USA announced each mission before launch), but to fool the USSR 9 times in a row with fake missions to the moon and back? How is that possible other than the USSR being too stupid to spot it each time? :-)
    1
  221. Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions; Dr Van Allen quote 1: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week." In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year). If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks. Dr Van Allen quote 2: "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." In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation to the moon and back wasn't a problem either. So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but they are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks. Ask yourself which conspiracy theorist who talks about the Van Allen belts has ever had spacecraft that he/she helped to design sent out into space into those same belts :-|
    1
  222. The first photos from the surface of Mars were sent back to Earth in 1976, that's 46 YEARS ago. And yet in all those 46 years with countless photographs sent back from Mars by various craft and rovers, no conspiracy theorist has ever matched the landscape and its features to a photograph from a specific location on Greenland, therefore your claim is unfounded nonsense :-)
    1
  223. But isn't Artemis 1 that featured the record breaking SLS rocket and the Orion space capsule (designed to carry FOUR astronauts) that recently returned from a 25 day mission to the moon and back to Earth... an example of the USA rebuilding the technology that was lost? If not, then please explain what you think 'lost technology' means :-)
    1
  224. Did you delete your reply posted about an hour ago, or was it removed by YT? If it was you then no problem, I'll ignore the contents of your reply (which is only fair).
    1
  225. There's no fake footage my friend, only false claims by conspiracy theorists who twist the facts to put doubt in people's minds :-|
    1
  226. Nope :-)
    1
  227. Apollo hoax evidence would be laughed out of any court :-)
    1
  228.  @M60gunner1971  - And the point is, none of it was faked. I've discussed Apollo hoax claims for years and yet NONE of the claims holds up to scrutiny, instead they ALL fall apart upon close examination without exception.
    1
  229.  @M60gunner1971  - I'm simply stating the facts, if you don't like to discuss facts, then perhaps forums are not really the place for you.
    1
  230.  @M60gunner1971  - After you son :-)
    1
  231.  @M60gunner1971  - You too. Bye.
    1
  232. Because he didn't receive a fake moon rock my friend :-) The Dutch Prime Minister was given a rock by the US ambassador to commemorate the visit to the Netherlands of the Apollo astronauts, but the rock was never claimed to be from the moon (it wasn't even protected or labelled, unlike the actual moon rocks given out as gifts). After his death, the family of that Prime Minister donated the rock to a Dutch Art museum, who assumed it was from the moon (a mistake that a Science Museum would have never made :-)). They made some enquiries over the phone about the rock and were told that it's highly unlikely to be from the moon, but they still decided to put it on display as a moon rock in 2006. Three years later a geologist visiting that Art museum saw the claimed moon rock and immediately knew it could not be from the moon and informed the museum.... and so that story broke in 2009 and the rest is history. The actual moon rocks given to the Dutch are held in storage in their museum of Science and Medicine. I hope that helps.
    1
  233. Ok.... so, getting back to the topic.... :-)
    1
  234. Which isn't an issue since none of the evidence is fake :-|
    1
  235. Correct, we did land on the moon my friend, but it is impossible to fake the Apollo footage in a studio :-)
    1
  236.  @SonOfKong33  - But which footage? Apollo 11? Apollo 14? Apollo 15? Apollo 16? Apollo 17? Have you seen the difference between Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 footage?
    1
  237. So no conspiracy believers can change their minds unless someone threatened or seduced them?
    1