@@MrStooge. HE MUST BE AS DUMB as those moon rocks,how do you lose TECH,that you have already acquired?I guess that,s possible since it seems that HE HAS forgotten how to READ,SHYT 4 BRAINS.MORE LIKE ZERO PARALLEL
@TwentyEighthParallel Thanks for taking the time and your explanation may be plausible. Why weren't the factories retooled to enable and evolve further missions though? The tech we have now is so much more advanced it is unbelievable. So I suppose the real question is why did it stop? Imagine the first few transatlantic flights. They said yeah we can do that now let's not bother again and shut down the program we built to make it possible. Sounds crazy doesn't it.
Your parade of ignorance was already addressed, but I'm answering from a different angle. YOU SAID: "I'd go back to the moon in a nanosecond but unfortunately we have LOST the technology." == That is an out of context quote mine, and you know it. You know darned well that Pettit wasn't claiming that the technology was "lost" in the sense that nobody knows how. That's ridiculous. The Apollo technology was "lost" decades ago in the exact same sense that the technology to travel on supersonic airliners (Concorde) was lost decades ago. The people have all moved on, retired, died, whatever. There are no manufacturing facilities that are tooled to build Apollo components. There are no training facilities. The launch facilities were torn down and replaced to launch other rockets instead. The computer systems were retired (both the onboard guidance computers, and the ground-based mainframes). The radar tracking systems were retooled to do other things. The communications systems were completely changed to communicate in the more modern format than the old analog S-band radio from Apollo. Sorry, but you can't just go hop into a Saturn V, and launch. This isn't a 1969 Ford Mustang, where you can change the spark plugs, stick some gas in the tank, and go. Apollo was a MASSIVE worldwide program, involving many countries, many technologies, many people, many industries, etc. Yes, in that sense, the technology HAS BEEN LOST. But, for you to assume this means that "we don't know how," is just out-of-context cherry picking from a quote-mine. There are warehouses the size of aircraft hangars that contain Apollo documentation. Only a small percentage of it has been converted and uploaded to the internet. But, even that small percentage that is on the internet would take you a lifetime to read. It's truly an act of willful ignorance to sit there and take a single sentence spoken by a single person, and assume, from that, you know all there is to know about Apollo. YOU SAID: "And it is a painful process to build it back up again." == Yes. And, if you don't believe it, just look at the Soviet TU-4. That's just an aircraft, not a Saturn V. And, if you read up on it (I don't expect you to know what that is until you research), you'll understand what a painful process it was. And, they never quite worked right. The engineers begged not to build that thing. They said it's going to take them more time and more money to build a copy of the US B-29, than just to start from scratch and build a superior plane. But, the Soviet administration wanted a B-29 copy, so, they used their 3 captured B-29s to reverse engineer the thing, and build a fleet of copies (which had a ton of problems), instead of just listening to their own engineers. If they had just built a new plane, rather than a copy, they'd have spent far less money, and done it in far less time, and the plane would have been far better. Does this mean that B-29s were fake, because it was a painful process to reverse engineer something instead of starting new? No?? Why is it APOLLO that's fake if it's a painful process to copy it, but B-29s aren't fake because it was a painful process to copy it? Look, history has taught us a million times over that it's a painful process to try to rebuild old technology. It's far faster, cheaper, and better, to start from a brand new program's starting line. Now, does this mean they don't take the lessons learned from Apollo, or B-29s, or a million other examples? No, of course that's not what Pettit was saying. You take the lessons of Apollo, you apply them to modern technology, and THAT is what you build upon. YOU SAID: "Just answer me this. How do you lose technology?" == Good gods. Even you can see how ridiculous that sounds!!! Indeed!!! How do you lose technology?? The answer is smacking you in the face, but you're so deluded that you can't see it. The answer is that he wasn't saying the technology was "lost" in the sense that you're attempting to claim. He's saying the technology was "lost" in the sense that the SANE people understand (as outlined by my reply, and other replies from the other guy). YOU SAID: "Why weren't the factories retooled to enable and evolve further missions though?" == Because congress pulled the plug (the funding). Sorry, but they don't keep factories and tooling and personnel working on programs that aren't funded. Again, referring to the Concorde, you could ask the same thing, right? "But, why weren't the Concorde factories retooled to enable and evolve further fast airliners?" Well, those people don't work for free. Those factories don't maintain themselves. Once you stop the money, sorry, but you either shut down the factories, or you retool them to do other things, or you've got a hell of a lot of starving employees with no paychecks. Sorry, but this is just silly for you to even ask. And, frankly, to be honest, the most repulsive stuff isn't even that you don't understand these basic principles of economics, but, that you came to your conclusions before you asked the questions. If you had asked these questions before you came to your conclusions, I might get a chuckle out of you asking silly things about why factories aren't still operating after the money stops. But, I probably would just give you a friendly "d'uh" in the exact same way I give myself a "d'uh" comment every time I say or think something silly like that. But, you're different. You actually came to your conclusions first, then asked questions second. And, I have no tolerance for that. If you don't understand things, ask questions, by all means, yes. But, to sit here and accuse thousands of people of being criminals who deserve a lifetime in prison, because you don't understand why factories don't continue to operate after their funding stops... yeah, that's where I can't be friendly any longer. QUESTIONS FIRST. CONCLUSIONS SECOND. You insist on doing it the other way around, at the expense of spitting in the faces of the 450,000 people who worked for a decade on Apollo. There's something very perverse about throwing 4.5 million years of human effort out the window on the basis of a 1-line out-of-context quote-mine about a topic you know nothing about. YOU SAID: "The tech we have now is so much more advanced it is unbelievable." == So? Without congress approving it, NASA cannot buy a stick of chewing gum, let alone send missions to the moon. Congress decides how NASA's money is spent. There is an appropriations committee that allocates every one of NASA's dollars. If they don't approve a program to go to the moon, there is no program to go to the moon. But, Artemis was approved in late 2019. NASA and Trump and Pence and Bridenstine are trying to push for moon landings by 2024. Congress hasn't approved funding at that pace. They've only funded it at a pace that would put people on the moon by 2028-2030. But, funding can go up or down, so we'll see what happens after the election, and after COVID is behind us. YOU SAID: "So I suppose the real question is why did it stop?" == Because it was very expensive, and congress pulled the plug. The main reason they went to the moon in the first place is because it was a political message to the Soviets. This was a product of the cold war. Once we beat them to putting a man on the moon, congress wanted to stop the funding immediately. But, there were already contractual obligations to build X amount of Saturn V rockets, landers, command/service modules, plus all of the support personnel for all of the communications, launch facilities, etc. They couldn't just pull the plug without paying their contractual obligations. So, they let Apollo keep flying to the moon through Apollo 17, and pulled the plug after that. Some of the hardware for Apollo 18/19/20 was even under construction, partially completed. YOU SAID: "Imagine the first few transatlantic flights. They said yeah we can do that now let's not bother again and shut down the program we built to make it possible. Sounds crazy doesn't it." == Ridiculous comparison. Flying the Atlantic was always going to be a commercial success. People want to do that. Once those flights were commercially available, they sold tickets like crazy. Apollo isn't like that. There isn't much of a commercial market to go to the moon. And, it was amazingly difficult to justify, outside of the cold war. If you adjust for inflation into today's money, the cost of putting each person on the moon for Apollo was about $16 billion. Yes, EACH person. And, that gave them just a few hours each. No astronaut even walked on the moon for 24 hours. This is not a commercially viable business model. Very few people would spend $16 billion to walk on the moon for less than 24 hours. And, unlike air travel, which can be made extremely cheap over time, going to the moon cannot. Yes, you can reduce the costs of going to the moon, but not like you can reduce the costs of air travel. This is basic thermodynamics. Going to the moon will ALWAYS be outside of the reach of a common tourist, even just on raw energy costs alone. No, a better comparison in history would be circumnavigating the Earth. Magellan was the first. And, how long after that was it before the 2nd?? FIFTY YEARS!!! So, yeah, if you want to look at historical voyages as comparisons, yeah, use that one. Don't tell me you think Atlantic flights are the same concept as Apollo.
@@yazzamx6380 Don't hold your breath. Even before COVID19, they were never given enough money to make it by then. According to the White House OMB (Office of Management and Budget), congress only gave them enough money to make it by around 2029 or 2030, thus asked for more money (which wasn't granted, at least not as of a couple months ago). But, if all you're talking about was a slingshot mission around the moon and back, yeah, they might be able to do that by 2024. Anyway, if you have more up-to-date info, I'd happily admit to being wrong. But, thus far, the only time I hear the 2024 date is when NASA says that's what they're aiming at in speeches and stuff, but then, behind the scenes, they're still crawling to congress' appropriations committee to pay for it, but it never gets granted, at least not in the amount needed for that timeline.
Mr Paul Grimm, technology isn't the issue. Money is the issue. Congress controls every dime of NASA's money, and unless congress assigns dollars to going to the moon, nobody goes to the moon.
@@rockethead7 - I agree with you on an actual landing on the moon, since the original plan was a mission in lunar orbit in 2023/2024, with a manned landing in 2028. This administration has pushed to have the manned landing brought forward to 2024 without the funds to go with it, which is an unnecessary risk and all for the wrong reasons imo. Therefore my view has been that they will still make it to the moon in 2024, but the original orbital mission, with a landing following years later. Either way, just getting people to the moon again debunks 95% of the reasons conspiracy theorists put forward for why such a space mission is impossible :-)
Yazzam X you’re obviously very intelligent. I don’t know much about gravity in space. In laymen terms is it because the dust particles are denser and heavier compared to size. Is that why larger objects like humans and the rover fall slower and need weighted because the gravity on the moon is 1/6 less than earth
@@mfrank3518 In a vacuum, all objects will fall at the same rate of acceleration. But, when you're talking about stuff like dust, the best analogy I can give you is that it's a bit like hitting a golf ball in a sand trap (I'm not a golfer, I'm just using it as an example). Some grains of sand barely go anywhere. Some go at a high arc. Some at a low arc. Etc. They're all subject to the same gravity and same air resistance (no air resistance on the moon, just talking about golf sand shots on Earth). Yet, if you look at each individual grain of sand as hit by a golf club in a sand trap, it's a big spray, with wildly varying results, right? Why? Because it all depends on how much energy each grain of sand received, and the angles. Well, it's the same on the moon. If you look at dust behavior, you'd really have to know how much energy each grain of dust was given upon impact with something, and the angles. But, the point Yazzam was trying to give you was this... once you see a grain of dust on the moon is following a certain trajectory in a certain amount of time, you can use basic physics formulas to determine the amount of gravity being experienced. And, nobody for 50 years has ever found an example of the trajectories & timeframes that Apollo dust has traveled in the videos, and has been able to demonstrate that it's in anything other than the moon's gravity. And, it's not for a lack of trying. There have been many conspiracy believers who have been looking for some sort of mathematical evidence for 50 years to prove Apollo was fake. Thus far, none of them have found any. Instead, all you hear from the conspiracy crowd is "too much" or "too little" or "they can't have done that" ... and other phrases like that... never providing a single mathematical proof to support their assertions. Never. Not a single time. They will say, "the dust shouldn't have flown like that." Then, when you ask them to demonstrate the math using the moon's gravity as the frame of reference, they all clam up. I've only seen one example of a conspiracy nut trying to use math to show that the moon's gravity isn't correct in the videos. He argued endlessly about how the math shows that the Apollo 15 dropping of the feather and hammer didn't work for the moon's gravity, therefore they weren't on the moon. I kept asking for the math, but he wouldn't provide it, and kept asserting over and over and over that the math was on his side. And, once he finally showed the math, I immediately found his error, and I showed him where he got the math wrong, and I literally never heard from him again.
rockethead7 I’m not a conspiracy guy. I just got this video suggested from RUclips for some reason and I noticed the dust that astronauts said (was fine as flour) falling at an unusually fast rate compared to everything else. Space may be a vacuum but even my dumbass knows that the moon has some gravity to it. That’s why the astronauts have weighted suits. The land rover is bouncing around yet space flour dust right behind the wheels is falling as fast as sand would on earth. There is a video where an astronaut mistakenly says humans have never been to “outer space”. It’s all bullshit.
@@mfrank3518 I didn't say you were a conspiracy guy. I was answering the questions, and was pointing out to any other readers that this is how the conspiracy people work, and that's the source for a lot of misunderstanding. Their suits were not weighted. They were heavy because of the necessary stuff. But, they didn't add any weight for the sake of adding weight. As for dust falling right behind the wheels as fast as it would on Earth, well, first of all, you have to determine the frame rate used on the 16mm clip. It had several frame rates, and they didn't always use "normal speed" of 24 fps. At that frame rate, it chews through an entire film roll in about 2.5 minutes. Most of the time, actually, they ran it at half rate, or even less. Thus when viewing it back, it's at double or triple (or even more) of the actual rate. On the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website, they specify the frame rates used on many of the clips (not all, but many). You should go take a look at the one in question, and find out the frame rate, and then do the math from there. But, that circles back to my point about the conspiracy crowd. Part of what I was trying to say is that the conspiracy crowd has been checking that math on every single clip for the past 50 years, and has never found a single one where the math doesn't work for lunar gravity.
@@zxccxz164 - The claim that the unprotected petrified wood was from the moon was an error made by the Rijksmuseum, a Dutch ART museum, where they assumed the rock donated to them was from the moon. The museum were warned it was unlikely to be from the moon but went ahead and displayed it as a moon rock in 2006.
@@zxccxz164 - So in 2009 that warning was proven correct when a visiting geologist saw the rock and knew it can't be from the moon... and the rest is history. So research matters my friend, you should try it :-)
@@yazzamx6380 so you still think Lee Oswald killed Kennedy and planes flew into the WTC and building 7 crumbled because of fire. You people are the funniest. Cant see outside the box because in your mind you are highly intelligent when in fact you have no common sence. Its no wonder the plandemic worked so well!!!!
Pedro Gonzales The fuel source they used was colorless in a vacuum . It was a hypergolic fuel called nitrogen tetroxide, in atmo it has a dark red haze and is very toxic.
50 years later and we still struggle with making just a step for man let alone a giant leap for mankind. I cant even get such greatness today, 2020, on a mobile phone!
Direct line of sight radio communication using radio dishes. That's why millions of people can watch countless hours of satellite TV with small satellite dishes pointed at a geostationary satellite orbiting 22,300 miles up. Dishes like this; www.protv.co.uk/uploads/Sky%20dish%20installation%20in%20Bletchley.JPG The moon is about 11 times further away, therefore to receive the signal to the same strength would require a bigger dish, just like the massive radio dishes/telescopes used during the Apollo missions, like this; upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg/800px-Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg So it's exactly the same principle. Your satellite dish (if you have one) works because it is pointed *directly* at the satellite, where despite being over 22,000 miles away you can receive the TV channels perfectly if your dish is aligned correctly. Now move that SAME satellite to the distance of the moon and the signal would be too weak for your small satellite dish, but if you have the massive Parkes Radio Telescope in the link above, then you'll receive the TV channels without any problems, and you'll also be able to receive and send radio signals significant further than the moon. Although I'm sure you would agree that such a large radio dish is not practical to attach to your home ;-) And because the Earth rotates, then for distant spacecraft you will need to use at least THREE massive radio dishes spread around the world to ensure that one of them is in direct line of sight of the spacecraft at any given time. So it's not a mystery my friend, it's just science and engineering.
The Greatest film ever made .sheer American front, Promo film making at its best , great cinematogr, great set design, Acting could have been a little better
The film maker Stanley Kubrick insisted that all SIX Apollo Moon Landings be filmed out there on the Lunar surface. He was aiming for realism. I've often wondered why they are so realistic. Certainly a lot more realistic than his other film 2001 Odyssey
@@AshutoshSrivastavaTimetraveler If you say so Mr 'Knowledgeable' Best to go watch them again. And this time be honest about it. Oh wait ! You haven't really watched any of them have you.
For the Billions $$$$$'s Hoax on Taxpayers , Society Should Be Presented With A Fake Oscar .......Easier To Fool People , Than Convince Them They Have Been Fooled ...... Quiet on the Set .... And , Action ! !
Yeah, because they hired the smartest people from around the western world because they were also so gullible. Meanwhile the go to expert for moon landing hoaxers, Bart Sibrel was a taxi driver.
Here's an animation that shows how the lunar rover was folded up; ruclips.net/video/7OL3OmM-CYQ/видео.html Compare the folded up lunar rover in that animation to the real photos of the folded up rover; www.collectspace.com/review/ap15-KSC-71P-206.jpg The lunar rover was stored in the "quadrant 1" bay within the Lunar Module (in the Descent stage), labelled on this diagram as the LRV Stowage Compartment; www.longislandaerospacehistory.com/Select/LM/XXX-LM-PROJECT/LM%20project/DESIGN/des-014.jpg And here are the videos of the actual lunar rover deployment (on the moon and tested on Earth) and a documentary about the rover; ruclips.net/video/-ShauSWcTC4/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ObEjEEfnBj8/видео.html ruclips.net/video/5aDSYTMqyQw/видео.html I hope that information helps :-)
@@nebtheweb8885 you gate keeper's make me laugh. You all have the same lame troll tactics. It is in the shape of a serpents tongue strategically placed around the earth and Orion's belt at the top of the planet. Which if you've followed NASA just a little bit you would know that NASA is infatuated with this part of the galaxy for whatever reason...they have even named a number of their spacecraft that have "traveled to the moon" Orion. Us critical thinkers I'm sure have a pretty good idea as to why that is. Either way this is my opinion and you are entitled to have yours.
@@traviscarr4698 I am happy you are amused. I am also amused at your idiotic paranoia and the fact that you believe in talking snakes. Ouuuuuu, looky! A serpent tongue!!! RUN!!!!!! Must be a conspiracehhhhhhhhh!!! Lol. Orion is a capsule that hasn't been fully tested so it hasn't been to the moon. It has been past LEO but that was just a test. Doesn't matter, you seem to have a problem with Orion for some reason but then again you would be complaining if it were another name anyway. Seek help.
@Thomas Pickering thanks for the link. I'm well aware that NASA is very low level shit when it comes to what is really going on. I've read a lot on the zionist movement and I am very familiar with Oded Yinon and the greater Israel project. I don't think it stops there though. It seems this reality offers up one rabbit hole after another, which if you ask me is that way for a reason. Distracted soul's are more easy to manipulate. I think your blog had some truths in it though. Keep truth seeking brother
@@drewthompson7457 Some naughty person lost all the telemetry tapes , and the technology to help go back …. Over fifty years later .. with 50 years advancement in technology/ manufacturing materials , software etc etc etc 🤔
@@rub1tan679 : your you tube diploma is showing. Ever heard of transcription? No? Why are all the blueprints, etc. In the Library of Congress? It seems you have no idea that many museums have Apollo equipment on display. There are 2 Saturn V rockets on display. I prefer reality to your you tube fantasies.
@@rub1tan679 : a history lesson for you, since you can't find this info on your own. After the 6 moon landings, Pres Nixon cancelled the remaining missions and slashed NASA's budget. There was no money to complete the remainder of the Apollo missions. That's why there is still unused Apollo era equipment in museums. Since they are now over 50 years old, none are man-rated anymore. In case you missed it, there was a recent test of a new capsule, one that will again be man rated. Your You Tube diploma isn't doing you much good is it.
Not True'. they lost all the Golden evidence Like Billions of Dollars today. i would have been a little up set loosing 1 million. they also had the right machine to fly around and through the Belt. to day more money is spent on the Navy and air force , welfare and other life security's. life boomed after WW2 And now Later Day's are turning back seemingly for the rerun all over again, except a little harder each time. i never seen this part of moon landing and seems strange i would for get. Grace to us and hope the martians will reconsider .
@Nature and Physics Dungheaps are usually smarter unless they were produced by morons like this one, then they are just dingle berries. We can try N & P but these folks are at best fodder for poking fun at. Enlightening them is a hopeless cause but a good exercise for our brains.
@Nature and Physics If they would only read the ENTIRE document. They read dangerous radiation levels in the Van Allen Belts and claim we can't pass through. That makes me laugh!
@@globevandaldesmazes7815 I am amazed that your 3rd grade education let’s you use RUclips. Tell me again where you think the moon rocks came from. Explain why ALL the worlds scientists fully believe that Apollo landed men on the moon, but somehow you know more than them. That’s right: ALL the worlds scientists.
Yes he was amazed how Ass-tro-nuts could pass through all the trapped deadly radiation in the belts without being cooked to a crisp! Nobody ever landed on the 🌙 and nobody will ever travel farther than a lousy 400 miles because of the deadly radiation.
@@niteexplorer9934 YOU SAID: "They never got their lol" == Did you graduate high school? YOU SAID: "Who is paying you lol making you sound foolish" == Was it drugs? Is that what turned you so paranoid delusional that you think people are paid to post RUclips comments? And, who sounds foolish? You can't articulate a single sentence properly, can't spell, can't form a complete thought... again, was it drugs? Or, were you born this stupid?
yup. back & forth up there like a bus trip to play golf. they stopped going because of the cost of golf balls- wot with the gravity they went for miles, [even landed back on planet earth-] & the caddy was complaining. that was why they made an inflatable golf buggy which attached to the front of the nose cone.
Yes, and they stay around the earth while you were here. You stay with the sensation of something incredible and they stay laughing about all the ignorant. Who goes to another planet or gets away from 37 earth planets to jump, play, drive a stupid car, etc? Who will use the 5 senses to spend so much money for nothing, not even create a base on the moon? ---- They become multimillions, billions, millionaires, and you what? You stay poor, right? --- Today with so much technology they spend 20 billion on an SLS rocket that can't lift off? NASA is a money pig, a money sucker from the taxpayer.
25:22 icecream...?? With no gravity it's a miracle how they put the icecream into that cup.. so clean. Real heros all the way ;) Many people, if not all, have a smirk on their face, like one does when pranking. Very concious of the camera. (Pardon my English, not my native language)
Why would you think it was impossible? You can find photos and videos of astronauts eating tubs of ice cream on the International Space Station too, so are you saying that isn't real either?
@@nahigottagiveeveryonerespect - There are no bubbles in space except to those easily manipulated by charlatans :-) So don't pretend this is about Apollo when you're really saying this is about all manned space missions. Therefore if you're a flat Earth believer then just say so, otherwise state which manned space missions by any nation you accept as real and explain how you know it was real.
@@yazzamx6380 not pretending. Keep pretending in your fantasy gas ball millions of miles away. Keep believing everything you hear and see. You have made it to sheephood. Nah I gotta give everyone respect. Feeling Awesome Give God Our Thanks.
@@nahigottagiveeveryonerespect - If you believe the Earth is flat then you're not a Christian :-| Anyway, 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.
I would've loved to see them dismount the Rover from the Lunar Module. To me that would've been just as interesting to see as anything else they did on the moon!
You can watch the WONDERFULLY "high resolution" video PARTIAL deployment of the Apollo 15 Lunar Rover here: (Wasn't 1970s technology GREAT??) ruclips.net/video/VpqhVKwByZY/видео.html Where they had problems deploying it, even though they supposedly practiced it MANY times to ensure it worked flawlessly. (like it needed to work -- they had a "scary" amount of problems with it) Notice in the radio transmissions they occasionally "forget" to include the transmission time lag from the Earth to the Moon (ave. 2.5 seconds total to and from), and they talk in "real time". (that is, near immediate answer, and definitely NOT anywhere NEAR 2.5 seconds) Also notice that they are working in shadow, which SHOULD be near-black, but rarely is in videos and photos. Depending which NASA report you want to BELIEVE, the lunar surface had the albedo of "black paint" (asphalt at most), so the suggestion that it was "light reflection from the surface" is a SAD JOKE. And then, as you watch them drive the buggy (in other videos), NOTICE that they NEVER ONCE (afaik) turn their heads (bodies, since the helmets were stationary connected) from left to right. They ONLY look STRAIGHT AHEAD with minimal or mostly no movement and look like frozen dolls on a remote controlled vehicle. AND, if you TRULY believe that they would allow them to drive KILOMETERS away from the Lunar Module, taking a chance that they would get stuck or have a vehicle malfunction, so there is NO WAY they could walk back to safety without DYING, then you are truly lost in your ability to think critically and logically and objectively. The whole Lunar Rover thing was ALSO a sub-JOKE of the greater joke.
@@Pabloso213 You have Google, haven’t You? Just write ”deployment of the Lunar Rover” in the search bar and You Will have both real videos and animated descriptions how it was Done.
Surprised the “rocket scientists” didn’t delete this footage as well. You know nasa can’t afford new tapes with all that money they get for not going to the moon.
We left Myrtle Beach and drove straight to Florida to see Apollo 10. We arrived the day before the launch and slept in our car. Even as far away as we were, we felt the rumble and then the crackle as she pulled away. That was a long time ago, but it's one memory I will never lose.
Yes, and they stay around earth while you were here. You stay with the sensation of something incredible and they stay laughing about all the ignorant. Who goes to another planet or gets away from 37 earth planets to jump, play, drive a stupid car, etc? Who will use the 5 senses to spend so much money for nothing, not even create a base on the moon? ---- They become multimillions, billions, millionaires, and you what? You stay poor, right? --- Today with so much technology they spend 20 billion on an SLS rocket that can't lift off? NASA is a money pig, a money sucker from the tax-payer.
@@Blessedcrumb where do you think those giant Saturn5 rockets went ? Those massive things went up somewhere 😳. The moon isn't "easy" to get to but it's not all that difficult to get to either. Escaping earth's gravity is the hardest part. If you can get up high enough to get into orbit around earth all you need is a vehicle and fuel and a navigation system in order to get to the moon and enough fuel to get back to earth.
@@YDDES Czechs are great jokers and in one of their great movies is said ... why do you believe in God, no one ever saw him? And the unparalleled reply by Bolek Polivka, "I haven't see your c... and believe you have one." The lesson: you have yours, I have mine (belief)
The evidence is overwhelming that the missions happened, as documented. I'm not amazed at how YOU let yourself get tricked to believe otherwise, though.
@Angel Lee : don't worry, rocket science isn't for everyone. It likely won't make any difference that you can't understand what happened half a century ago.
@Angel Lee : have you tried reading a history book? What happened a half century ago doesn't disappointment me at all. What happens these days, i do find disappointing.
@@nanetteyvonne1222201 - To this day, not even the world's best special effects expects can replicate (in a studio) the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage. Therefore if it was filmed in a studio, then that studio was on the moon :-)
@@yazzamx6380 it's called slow motion, that is what gives the illusion of weightlessness. It's easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled.
@@stuartshaw3275 - Use some common sense please :-) Only the rate of fall is slowed down in 1/6 gravity, NOT the limb movements of the astronauts, and hence that's why slow motion doesn't work, because it slows EVERYTHING down. Slow motion is one of the EASIEST special effects to apply, so if slow motion could recreate perfect 1/6 gravity, then not only would the movie/TV industry match the Apollo footage PERFECTLY in a studio themselves in ALL moon scenes (NONE have), but there would also be COUNTLESS videos uploaded to RUclips where ordinary people like you and me have used slow motion to recreate the gravity of the moon OURSELVES to prove it can be done! So where are all those RUclips videos Stuart? Present a link to just ONE please. Where are all the clips from movies showing perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio? Present a link to just ONE please :-) Here's what we get when we do use slow motion; ruclips.net/video/Y6BXaGEuqxo/видео.html Gee, that looks *so* realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion, right? ;-) So the problem is, until someone can *demonstrate* perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence prove it can be done, then any claims that the Apollo footage was faked in a studio will remain unfounded.
WOW, they sure did have a LOT of equipment on that LM,... Lunar Rovers, Telescopes, all kinds of Cameras...good ones!, scientific sampling equipment, gas, communications equipment, batteries, food, circuit breakers, TP, water, TANG, oxygen, Rocks, space suits,etc., etc.
tetekofa, and all that radiation shielding that nasa has no idea how to get to work, as expressed by themselves when talking about any futurespace missions. It's as if none of this happend
Have you noticed that although the first EVA on April 21st went 1km WEST of LEM and the second EVA went 4 km SOUTH of LEM on April 22nd, the two scenes of the first and second EVA's at 14:24 and 17:30, respectively, show exactly the same landscapes??!! This video does not seem to be authentic.
It isn't authentic. It's a no brainer to me. If we actually went to the moon back then, don't you think by now every capable nation would have had men there as well? Society is so programmed & dumbed down they'll except anything proven liars tell them! NASA......NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER !! Will people ever wake up?
Baukra Baukra men there for what? What use would it be to live somewhere with no atmosphere, no food, no water, no natural resources, no soil, etc. Sounds like it would be pretty stupid and wasteful to want a permanent settlement there.
The parachutes and their strings managed to survive that immense heat of 5,000 degrees in a little container at the top of the Command Module. Thank goodness. Can you imagine what would have happened if a couple of the strings had burned through on re-entry and then they tried to open the chutes?
@@paulward4268 Exactly. And without even a practise run through to see if the Steel and Aluminium layer could protect the chutes and strings. I think some people are making straightforward comments and not pretending to be experts. That is good. Just asking really straightforward questions about how a half inch of Steel and a quarter of an inch of Aluminium could hold back 5,000 degrees on a lengthy Apollo re-entry. It would surely be glowing red-hot and frying the chutes and their nylon strings? The 4 inch thick steel columns of the World Trade Centre (100 floors below the plane impact) turned to dust after some jet fuel burned for 45 minutes 100 floors above. It's just a Crazee Universe !
Ablative heat shield. Look it up. They are still in use today. In short, the heat shield is designed to disintegrate, flake away, and take the heat with it.
@@Lanarkish What in the world are you talking about? They tested every single capsule type (and its heat shield) before putting people inside. What do you mean when you say there were no practice runs? For the Apollo command module, they flew 5 command modules (and their heat shields) in space on unmanned missions, before ever flying people inside. You know so little about this topic that you didn't even know those unmanned missions ever took place. Yet, you're sitting there questioning the validity of such a trivial topic as how a heat shield works? You sit there with your mocking tone, as if the entire planet's aerospace engineers simply forgot that re-entry can get hot if they don't have a heat shield? Your kitchen oven can be 500 degrees inside, yet, you can put your hand a quarter inch away from the glass, and you barely feel any heat. Why? Because it's simple cheap insulating glass. A fireman wears a little plastic suit capable of withstanding 1000 degree temperatures (or 2000 degrees for the better suits), and the person inside barely feels any heat. Imagine what you could do with an ablative heat shield.
The best camera angles are the ones of them flying just above the moon. Did they drop off the camera guy to get that shot. And all the footage of them off-roading the moon in that dune buggy! I laugh my ass off every time i watch this stuff, reminds me of the Beverly Hillbillies!
So you didn't know that there were the Lunar Module and the Command Module. The Lunar Module made the landing after it undocked from the Command Module. Then the Command Module (with one astronaut) was left orbiting the moon. If you mean the video clip (at 6.30 point) it was filmed from the Command Module.
@@rockethead7 I am following you down this whole comment section . You really have it bad for NASA don't you. I thought at first you were just a keen space head and really were into the moon landing thing,but it's like you are butt hurt with every comment that dares to contradict your beloved NASA and the moon story. AH poor rockethead7. Pwease pwease don't get upset. All these people who don't believe the moon lander made from scotch tape and coat hangers and foil really went to space are bad people. there there now. just sook your little dummy tit and go watch NASA videos till you fall asleep.
....am I the only one who loves watching moon footage, but when seeing lunar rocks kind of half expecting to see them sprout legs and move around just as in the Apollo 18 movie?
At 28:24 the mic picks up a very obscure statement... "I told them they better improve the skyline or we're in trouble" Am still at 90% that we did get there at some point, but from a conspiracy point of view it's a pretty heavy statement, but what do I know ...meh
That is exactly where they went! How many shit sandwiches must the American public be fed before putting their ego( and it is the TRUE enemy of fact )and accepting that we have never left low earth orbit. Challenger alone!- proves they are lying to us! The odds of 5 people who have the 'relative same appearances (exact actually), names and ages' of the "dead crew" of Challenger? 10 to neg 7! Aka ABSOLUTE FKIN ZERO. WAKEY WAKEY FOLKS. oh yes and check out Eric Dubay for more mind blowing reveals.And now the shill bots....
They are relaxed because they are very experienced former test pilots. NASA used test pilots for all it's space missions during the Mercury, Gemini, and most of the Apollo missions. This was intentional because when you are doing something that has never been done before, you want people who are unflappable when shit hits the fan.
What are the lies? Well the first is 'We went to the Moon'.- after you open your eyes and see that.... All the other stuff is far more easy to explain. Like unsealed gloves -same damaged buggy in two diff missions- The sound of a tool in a vacuum.camera cross hairs blocked by photoshop, shadows in diff drctns.Wrong rocket engines on Sat V add infinitum! The WE of course is our Govt Space Agency/Millionaire maker for govt officials.
Tim, how would you know what an unsealed glove looks like? If an astronaut on the moon is holding a tool then the hand holding it is inside the suit where the microphone is. If the tool vibrates then we would hear it. If two vehicles are supposed to be identical and they both have the same feature then it is not damage. Dah. Of course US astronauts went to the moon. Denying it is ridiculous on so many levels. Even amateur astronomers could see the command module in route and the Russian knew how to track space craft. As has been said many times, it would have been a lot easier to go to the moon than to fake it.
Two issues, never answered satisfactorily. The guy who helped design and test the Decent Rocket Motor , BILL CASEY, said , ' one'--the pre-flight, test results, showed that the thrust was so great ( and noisey) it threw up masses of desert sand , gravel, and small rocks. Two---the noise was such, that inside the module, no-way could anyone hear /talk to each other. Here, we have no dust, let alone rocks, and virtual silence. I'll never believe these people. The unaswered questions are massive, and nearly 45 years after.
Addressed and answered long ago, where you believe otherwise because of your own personal assumptions and your belief in what other doubters have told you :-| For example, the only sound the astronauts would hear inside the LM is the internal workings of the rocket engine, the 'blast' itself occurs in the rocket engine nozzle outside the spacecraft, hence would be silent due to being in a vacuum, because sound cannot travel through a vacuum. Here on Earth the roaring sound we hear from rocket engines is caused by the gases exiting the rocket engine nozzle at hypersonic speeds and colliding with the surrounding air molecules, to produce light and heat and *sound.* There's no air in space, so your claim that "the noise was such, that inside the module, no-way could anyone hear /talk to each other" is incorrect.
@@MrDaiseymay - Quoting someone talking about testing a rocket engine HERE ON EARTH is not the same as talking about rocket engines operating in a VACUUM, which are silent. And Bill Casey? Do you mean Bill Kaysing?
@@MrDaiseymay Your assertion is totally fallacy - Bill Casey did not exist. You are talking of Bill Kaysing, a writer, who worked for Rocketdyne, not an engineer and who started this ludicrous conspiracy. The lunar surface is hard rock beneath dust; the LEM used a low pressure (for reliability) rocket engine that was firing at only 3,000 pounds thrust before landing so along with the very thin atmosphere and low gravity there was not enough pressure to produce a crater; if you look closely at some pictures of landing sites e.g. Apollo 11 you can see some disturbance under the engine. Rocket exhaust gasses expand much more quickly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere and because there is no air resistance on the Moon, the blast deflected the dust sideways in a straight line at high speed - far too fast to settle on the LEM’S feet. No LEM engine sound is detected on descent to the Moon because the astronauts’ microphones were designed to muffle extraneous sound. Also, the low-pressure rocket engine did not produce a great deal of thrust and since they were in a vacuum there was no air to carry the shockwave and vibration.
What ive always found strange about the footage of the moon rover bouncing along is that, if you look at the arm thing covered in gold you can clearly see the reflection of the moon and the equator but the never move, the rover is bouncing all over the place but the reflection never changes. Has anyone else noticwd this? Is there a reason why? Given that the view in front is jumping about everywhere, then the reflection should lose the equator
At 28:24 the mic picks up a very obscure statement... "I told them they better improve the skyline or we're in trouble" Am still at 90% that we did get there at some point, but from a conspiracy point of view it's a pretty heavy statement, but what do I know ...meh
As of 2020, there have been 14 astronaut and 4 cosmonaut fatalities during spaceflight. Astronauts have also died while training for space missions, such as the Apollo 1 launch pad fire which killed an entire crew of three. There have also been some non-astronaut fatalities during spaceflight-related activities.
Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee were murdered. Grissom hung a lemon on a hanger on Apollo 1, a big eff you to NASA. He knew we were going NOWHERE fast.. Russia was way ahead in the space race. His last words in the capsule before they cremated him: "I can't hear a word you're saying. How do we expect to get ot the moon if we can't communicate between 3 rooms." Or something close to that. Learn the truth. You can't just murder one astronaut,too suspicious. But you CAN create an accident and sacrifice others to kill the guy you want. NASA is evil.
There's a pair of SFX experts who have analysed footage from the Apollo missions. They don't only understand today's technology, but also how things could be done in the past. They could not find A SINGLE inconsistency pointing to ANYTHING being faked. I suggest that you have another look at '2001: A Space Odyssey'. The special effects are embarrassing by today's standards. We went to the moon. Get over it.
I've read that the experts say it was easier to do the missions than to fake them. Just where do you believe "they" have a studio in vacuum and at 1/6th G on earth?
Amazing how they fall over then mysteriously stand up without any help from body limbs, clearly hooked up to overhead wires. Stupid to think people can’t see this 🤦🏻♂️
No-one does get up without using their limbs. Their weight is so much lower that they can much more easily push themselves up. This upward motion continues for longer as well.
Shame they didn't try throwing a football or something of that nature! It sure looked like their was gravity to me, I don't know, everything just looks and seems so suss to me. Why on earth haven't the usa or another country been back to the moon in soo long, you got musk talking about colonising Mars, yet no research base of any kind on the moon. Very strange lol
@@drewthompson7457 go look on google earth...there is plenty like this on earth. Deserts and various different landscapes look out of this world but they are not. This just looks like Nevada or somewhere
@@liz.217 : The tech is not lost, check the many museums that have Apollo era equipment on display. Florida has a complete Saturn V rocket on display. Libraries have books of Apollo era tech. But do you really expect NASA or even any car company to rebuild 60 yr old teck?
@@drewthompson7457 I was quoting a popular video of a NASA employee. I know it's ridiculous to think the biggest human achievement was not securely and meticulously documented. But thats what NASA claims. Never A Straight Answer.
Drew Thompson Nobody expects to rebuild old tech, but they say they can’t do it today because it’s “a painful process to build it back again”, yet somehow sent a rover to Mars?
@@autobahnman6869 : in defense of the brain dead, they have noticed that the TV remote doesn't even work from across the basement. So you can see them having trouble understanding how remote control could work on the moon....
How people can watch all these videos and claime they were filmed in a studio and wires removed without CGI just shows that intelligence has plummeted since this amazing achievement.
@@kimbalcalkins6672 That is a bit unfair. That was 13 years before the moon landing. You can't have expected the effects to be anything but laughable in that movie.
@@nickrose8733 Actually the effects were very convincing, like the tornado in Wizard of Oz or panorama shots in Gone with the wind. ruclips.net/video/0hGezrmlztA/видео.html
I was nearly ten years old at the time and watched every mission that I could comprehend at what it was. Seeing it now is so much more exciting and interesting. I say we should go back.
@@tonyjones7372 Sorry, but quoting from a 30 second clip from an Orion video made for children isn't an education. You obviously know absolutely nothing about the Van Allen belts. Real science isn't conducted by listening to Kelly Smith tell children that they have to solve these problems for Orion before putting people inside. All he was saying is that they needed to test the shielding before putting people in the craft. And, they did that in 2014, and it passed the test. Yet, 8 years later, you people keep on quoting from him anyway. Sorry, Tony, but your 30 second knowledge of the Van Allen belts isn't adequate.
@@rockethead7 Learn to spell and punctuate the English language correctly and people might even take you seriously and not just laugh at your lack of writing skills.
At 9:50 to 10:00 and at 24:44 shouldn't we espect to hear voices sounding more like someone describing a push bike ride wile filming it on a bumpy,off road descent ? All those landings look and sound incredibly smooth. Especially the touch down.
Amazing how they made it passed the Van Allen Belt with absolutely no I'll effects. People must have been tougher then because today, it would talk huge amounts of lead shielding just to protect the instruments on an unmanned flight.
Have you done any looking at how the lunar lander and the space suits were engineered to sustain the pressure difference equivalent to 131 million atmospheres or 10^-11 Tor? It’s still incredible to me since the pressure of the vacuum is 100,000x more powerful on the moon than even at the carmon line and were used over and over between walks/etc… I guess the shadows and other crap don’t even matter if there’s no way to parse the difference of 131,000,000 atmospheres or what is nearly 2 trillion lbs per square inch. The lunar lander didn’t have an air lock, so all the piss bags, food, water, everything thing in a container inside would also have to hold up too; all while tracking dirt in and out. It seems that there are greater more impossible issues that preclude even worrying about how things were filmed.
Huh? I think you don't understand what Tor is. Let's compare it to distances. Like, if you are used to measuring things in miles, like 150 miles to your destination, but, you want to measure the thickness of a piece of paper, it does you no good to measure a piece of paper in the unit of miles, like 0.000000000000000001 miles (or whatever). So, they came up with things like millimeters to get a more meaningful measurement of the thickness of paper. That's what Tor is when compared to atmospheres, it's a very small amount of pressure, not a larger amount. So, they came up with Tor as a way to measure very small pressure. And, your "10^-" quotation demonstrates the exact opposite as what you're trying to assert. That's not an amazingly large number, it's an amazingly small number. The "-" means AFTER the decimal point, not before it. Basically, you're just completely backward. The "air pressure" on the moon is a trillionth of Earth's (so close to zero that you have a difficult time even knowing about it), not a trillion times Earth's.
I will add... not only do you fail to understand what Tor means, and what 10^- means, which resulted in getting your math completely backward... but you cannot even manage to multiply your own [wrong] numbers correctly. 131,000,000 x 14.7 isn't nearly 2 trillion, it's nearly 2 billion. You managed to even botch the 3rd grader portion of the math. You botched the rest of the math also, but, if your mind is so ruined by whatever your substance of choice is, such that you can't do basic multiplication, maybe it's time to try to kick the habit, eh?
@@proclusyellioupolos197 and these aren't live television signals, boompus, this was filmed the old fashioned way with a camera and a roll of film inside it. Nobody saw any of this until they returned to earth. And these films have been digitally remastered. You are so dumb not to catch on to small things like that, yes?
@@proclusyellioupolos197 What is your point? Have you ever studied the specs on the Saturn V rocket or the command module or the LEM to understand the size of these craft? Your lack of knowledge is not a legitimate proof of anything but your own ignorance. What you say is impossible because of your lack of understanding is achieved by men who do understand.
My personal favorite is when they are on the way back to earth 🌍 and the cloud formations are hall the size of the entire earth. How many times have you seen clouds that big down here on earth?
@@paulloveless4122 in California, we get days of seeing not a single cloud in the sky. For days even, just clear skies. I moved to Texas and out here it’s rare when we have a clear sky
@@RJCH88 That's all well and good and certainly believable - but the person I am respondingnis making a remark about nearly 1/2 of our planet! When has he or she ever seen HALF of the planets sky?
Spirit Of Light with the shielding built in and the short time they were in the belt, it was proven the radiation they were exposed to was no more than getting an x-ray on Earth.
Fear alright... Fear of knowing that NASA kinda mislead the world perception. Illusions are created to deviate one's mind into believing something which may or may not be the truth. But here again...what is the truth...it is what ever peoplecwant to believe. I have shown people something right in front of them.. They put their hands over their ears... Lalalalala... Funny
Comments like this I believe are placed to try and make us that know they never landed look silly. None of us that know they never landed have ever denied they took off in rockets. Just who's side you on????
@@kencombs9098 I think you need to go back to school as none of us that know they never landed have never doubted about the rockets taking of. You are thinking of the rockets you let off on bonfire night. Watch one of them in slow motion. They don't just go. They start slow then overcome gravity and go faster. Even us that know off the big bull shit know this.
Yes, the Earth from the moon should of looked substantially larger than the moon from the Earth ! Hmm 🤔. The Earth’s diameter is over 8,000 miles and the moon’s diameter is 2,000 miles (approx). Once again, Hmm 🤔 ?
Gang Of Four thats really ridiculous, the orbit of the moon is eliptical, not perfectly round, so just like the moon looks bigger to us and sometimes smaller, its the same looking at earth from the moon
OMG am I the only person here that has seen the footage that clearly shows them faking the shot of the earth from aboard the ship through the window by blacking out all but a round circle of the window and flipping all lights off? Only problem with their attempt was that they forget to turn a light off and you can clearly see what they were doing! It's time to wake up to the truth people!
YOU SAID: "Took 4 rovers to the moon" == Um, no dummy. They took 3 of them. Not 4. YOU SAID: "but forgot to take a telescope!?" == Um, no dummy. They had a telescopic camera to take photos of the stars on the very mission that this video is about (Apollo 16). They also had telescopic lenses on one of their Hasselblads on each of the later missions.
My foster father, a Jewish man with a wicked sense of humour, used to ask me, “Do you know why the Americans got to the moon & the Russians didn’t? It’s because the American’s Germans were better than the Russian’s Germans”. I’ve always wanted to believe that explanation. I fear it’s that “The American’s spooks had more chutzpah than the Russian’s spooks”.
I would give up all my material belongings to be able to be blasted off the Earth and walk on the Moon. What an incredible experience it must have been for those 12 lucky astronauts. :)
what did they said when they wake up from a dream? nothing...they did nothing ang go nowhere,,,the only thing nasholes sent to the "space" is your imagination...
@@sandmanbeaches565 yet another deluded conspiracy theorist with no evidence whatsoever just seeing what they want to see and ignoring any evidence that refutes their silly ideas.Go get your tinfoil hat on,
It sad that no matter how much anyone tells you it was real, you still won’t believe it… Why? Because you have no education and your parents probably never gave you attention.
@@kowen5499 believe what? Believe the moon landing happened? I definitely do! Working on my bachelors degree right now and have very loving parents by the way! 👍
@@kowen5499 while I'm not a flat earth person ad hominem attacks against them only makes them stronger. I see many round earth believers calling flat earth people stupid, ignorant etc etc. Its Sad that flat earth people are more kind than round earth people.
@@kowen5499 no human being ever past the exo layer of earth where satellites and net-working are present . Let that science you taking sink in. Analogy incoming... We are in a box, investigate whats deep in the box (oceans) then outside the box, you alien.
Thank you NASA, thank you RUclips What a people! what a story! I am so glad that I can return here and watch it from time to time. This story will keep you upbeat no matter what you do.
@@scottyboy2400 Ironically, people who take your advice and do the research that you only TALK about actually DO believe in this stuff. You're 12, I get it. It seems like ancient history. But we need to remember it because YOUR generation isn't going to achieve a damned thing. And before you tell me that my generation is causing global warming, let me just agree with that. We f**ked up. WE HAD TOO MANY CHILDREN. You're the problem. But all that aside, what kind of prick attacks a guy who posts a heartwarming comment about how happy watching this video made them feel? Feel good about yourself do you? What a jerk.
@@crowntour4990, What in the HELL makes you think anybody has to PROVE anything to an idiot like you? What makes you think anybody with an IQ above 50 gives a shit whether or not you believe that the moon landings were real? I am growing bone weary of you silly foil-headed numbskulls, who think, "Da government ALWAYS lies!" How much evidence do you idiots need?? How about the 500 MILLION eyewitnesses (including me), the testimony of the 24 men who actually WENT to the moon, the 450,000+ mathematicians, engineers, scientists, and technicians who made it happen, the 1,400+ Hasselblad 500C, 2 1/4" (70mm) square photos, or the 6,000,000 feet of 16mm film? Do you call ALL of these people LIARS? Did NASA FAKE all of that film? Why in the name of God would they do that, just so some idiots like YOU can claim to be smarter than anybody with the slightest modicum of intelligence?
I really hope your comment is a sarcastic joke and that you are 'pretending' to give an opinion of an idiot, instead of giving an opinion of an actual idiot.
Look let's get this straight.IF and it's a bloody big IF ! A Camera,which is 240,000 miles away from the earth-40 years ago could be remotely controlled with as much skill (camera angles-panning-point of view and focusing) as this then I would have feared for the livelihoods and jobs of ALL outside broadcasting camera men/women and other OB staff .However that hasn't happened.To me,if you believe they were remotely controlled from the earth then you've watched too much Fireball XL5/Space Patrol.
Mr Bazzabee What would the problem be, to remotely control a Camera via the rovers parabolic antenna and transmitter/receiver? Ed Fendell just pushed the ”tilt up” Button at about T minus 2 Seconds. The distance to the LM was chosen to keep it in frame during the ascent.
If that were so, then nasa would be able to show us a new REAL picture of the earth everyday instead of throwing us an admitted CGI of it! They don't have a camera on the moon and they never have and never will! If anyone looks deeply into it and still thinks we went to the moon they are blind to say the least! Good day lad!
Nice, also how does a rocket burn in a vacume? Why did astronauts say they cant make it past the van allen belt. How did they have the fuel to come back? Why wzs there no dust on the pods after firing thruster rockets to land. How did those rockets fire in a vacume? How do guys pop up off the ground at an angle, then there ia a dune buggy throwing sand which falls just like on earth. How did that dune buggy get there, is it a transformer?
@@LarryBrooks-cf9qp YOU SAID: "Nice, also how does a rocket burn in a vacume?" == Rocket engines are different than jet engines. A jet brings fuel, and then uses the oxygen in the surrounding air to do the burn. Rockets in a vacuum do not have any oxygen in the surrounding air, because there is no surrounding air. Rockets contain fuel tanks, and oxidizer tanks. Then, the fuel and oxidizer are injected into the engine bell together, where the burn happens, and the high speed expanding hot gasses push the craft. Sometimes the oxidizer is literally liquid oxygen. Other times it's an oxygen rich compound. And, occasionally, it doesn't have oxygen at all, but it called an "oxidizer" because it creates the same chemical reaction as oxygen. YOU SAID: "Why did astronauts say they cant make it past the van allen belt." == We don't have a man rated booster big enough to lift a manned craft that high. The last one in operation was the Saturn V, back in the early 1970s. There were two manned variants of the Saturn V, both of those variants sent men to the moon nine times from 1968 to 1972 (landed six of those times). After that, the Saturn V was retired (except for one more launch, Skylab). Until recently, nobody on the planet has even tried to build a rocket that big again. But, the SLS is roughly the same size and capacity, and is in development right now. When it's done, it will send manned (and woman'd) craft to the moon again. But, right now, there is no such rocket booster in existence. YOU SAID: "How did they have the fuel to come back?" == Well, you're sure asking a lot about rocket science for a person who doesn't even know how rockets burn. You are obviously asking these questions straight out of a standard conspiracy playbook of dumb things to ask on the internet. But, I'll trust (for now) that you're not dumb, and that you are honestly asking these questions, and not just spewing conspiracy oriented fake questions, with no intent on listening to answers (which most conspiracy nuts do). You have not done anything but ask questions, so I completely respect that. Asking questions is 100% wonderful. Ignoring answers is 100% repulsive. So, yes, I'm on your side here, until you give me reason to believe otherwise. My advice, however, is to actually go try to learn how the science works, and not take your first line of "education" from conspiracy sources (which is quite obviously what you're doing, even if you yourself do not believe in silly conspiracies, you're still obviously taking these questions from conspiracy videos). The conspiracy people do not understand anything about this topic. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zip. Zilch. And, there's a reason why there isn't a single aerospace engineer or rocket scientist anywhere on the planet who ask these questions you're asking, and the questions you're asking are isolated to people who literally know nothing. Anyway, the answer is in thermodynamics. If you boil away all of the mechanics of how rockets work, and just cut straight to the thermodynamics, it's easier to understand. But, I'll assume you don't understand thermodynamics already, because you probably wouldn't ask this question if you did. So, even though it's impossible to teach thermodynamics over RUclips comments, I'll give the super short thermodynamic lesson. The job of the Saturn V booster is to lift 100,000 pounds of payload (command/service module, lunar module, and people) to an altitude of 240,000 miles, with orbital velocity speed around the moon still remaining. That's the energy required to do the job of getting Apollo to the moon. It's a lot of energy. Then the lander does its thing, takes two people down to the surface and back, and connects back with the command/service module to go home. The job of the command/service module is merely to break lunar orbit, with a payload of a few people and rocks. Once they break lunar orbit, they basically just "fall" back to Earth. This doesn't require much energy. == Or, think of this another way. You need to throw a 100 pound rock to the top of a skyscraper. How much energy will that take you? Then, once you get it to the roof of the skyscraper, you break away half of the rock, leave it behind on the roof, and then simply lift the 50 pound rock over the edge of the skyscraper roof and drop it to the ground. Which took more energy? Lifting/throwing/carrying the 100 pound rock up the skyscraper? Or, tossing the 50 pound rock over the edge and letting it fall back to the ground? Well, that's basically Apollo, in analogy format. The Saturn V had the job of carrying the 100 pound rock to the top of the skyscraper. The service module just needed to lift the 50 pound rock over the guard rail on the roof and drop the rock back home. == Thermodynamics. YOU SAID: "Why wzs there no dust on the pods after firing thruster rockets to land." == Well, once again, you are obviously getting this from conspiracy videos, and not checking for yourself. There was dust on many of the landing pads. The conspiracy videos are dishonest, and only show you ones that didn't have any dust, or very little dust, or at a bad angle to see the dust. But, if you actually looked through the photo archive, rather than listening to conspiracy videos, you'll see plenty of photos showing dust in the landing pads. But, the conspiracy crowd is never honest. Never. They won't show you those, because it kills their fake narrative. But, the short answer for why there wasn't MORE dust than there was, is because there wasn't an atmosphere. On Earth, you might get a lot of dust all over the place when a helicopter lands or something, because there's an atmosphere for a dust cloud to form, swirl around, and fall back onto pads. On the moon, with no atmosphere, dust will just take the same trajectory as a thrown rock (out and away). No dust clouds. No swirling air to linger in, and fall back down. Nope, it just gets blown to the sides, and the only dust you'll get into the pads will be whatever little amount that is there when the engine is still running, and finds a good angle to bounce into the pads. It wasn't a lot, nor should it be a lot. But, yes, if you'd ignore the conspiracy videos, and check for yourself, you'll find dust in many landing pads. YOU SAID: "How did those rockets fire in a vacume?" == Didn't you already ask this question?
A) Thanks for demonstrating the universal truth that every hoax nut has the reading and writing skills of a 2nd grader. B) They brought sleeping pills on the missions, dewdrop. C) Apollo 16's landing was greatly delayed by a problem with the SPS engine on the service module. They nearly had to abort. And, as a result of the delays, they landed around 7 hours later than they expected. Yes, they slept instead of explored.
Just imagine, we see so many stars from Earth and there you all are in space on the Moon, and we can't even see one star, this is worse than a low budget movie. Astronauts landed on the Moon in 1969, so much has evolved since then, I think by now NASA should be shuttling people to the moon and back for site visits.
Did you bother to watch the video before commenting? They show you the specialized camera they used to capture 125 images of the stars, and even showed some of those star photos. Yet, you're sitting there saying "not one star" is shown? All this demonstrates is that you don't know anything, and never lifted a finger to even find out, nor even watch the video. As for what NASA should be doing to shuttle people to the moon and back, ok, whose fault is that? Do you think NASA wanted to retire the Apollo program? Do you think they never wanted to go back? You are aware that congress decides those things, not NASA, right? Or, have you never lifted a finger to understand how NASA's funding works, just as you've never lifted a finger to look at the photos of the stars that you don't think exist?
![Yeat & Quavo - 5BRAZY [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4XxnTAwyxus/mqdefault.jpg)
I'd go back to the moon in a nanosecond but unfortunately we have LOST the technology.
@TwentyEighthParallel And it is a painful process to build it back up again.
@TwentyEighthParallel Just answer me this. How do you lose technology?
@@MrStooge. HE MUST BE AS DUMB as those moon rocks,how do you lose TECH,that you have already acquired?I guess that,s possible since it seems that HE HAS forgotten how to READ,SHYT 4 BRAINS.MORE LIKE ZERO PARALLEL
@TwentyEighthParallel Thanks for taking the time and your explanation may be plausible. Why weren't the factories retooled to enable and evolve further missions though? The tech we have now is so much more advanced it is unbelievable. So I suppose the real question is why did it stop? Imagine the first few transatlantic flights. They said yeah we can do that now let's not bother again and shut down the program we built to make it possible. Sounds crazy doesn't it.
Your parade of ignorance was already addressed, but I'm answering from a different angle.
YOU SAID: "I'd go back to the moon in a nanosecond but unfortunately we have LOST the technology."
== That is an out of context quote mine, and you know it. You know darned well that Pettit wasn't claiming that the technology was "lost" in the sense that nobody knows how. That's ridiculous. The Apollo technology was "lost" decades ago in the exact same sense that the technology to travel on supersonic airliners (Concorde) was lost decades ago. The people have all moved on, retired, died, whatever. There are no manufacturing facilities that are tooled to build Apollo components. There are no training facilities. The launch facilities were torn down and replaced to launch other rockets instead. The computer systems were retired (both the onboard guidance computers, and the ground-based mainframes). The radar tracking systems were retooled to do other things. The communications systems were completely changed to communicate in the more modern format than the old analog S-band radio from Apollo. Sorry, but you can't just go hop into a Saturn V, and launch. This isn't a 1969 Ford Mustang, where you can change the spark plugs, stick some gas in the tank, and go. Apollo was a MASSIVE worldwide program, involving many countries, many technologies, many people, many industries, etc. Yes, in that sense, the technology HAS BEEN LOST. But, for you to assume this means that "we don't know how," is just out-of-context cherry picking from a quote-mine. There are warehouses the size of aircraft hangars that contain Apollo documentation. Only a small percentage of it has been converted and uploaded to the internet. But, even that small percentage that is on the internet would take you a lifetime to read. It's truly an act of willful ignorance to sit there and take a single sentence spoken by a single person, and assume, from that, you know all there is to know about Apollo.
YOU SAID: "And it is a painful process to build it back up again."
== Yes. And, if you don't believe it, just look at the Soviet TU-4. That's just an aircraft, not a Saturn V. And, if you read up on it (I don't expect you to know what that is until you research), you'll understand what a painful process it was. And, they never quite worked right. The engineers begged not to build that thing. They said it's going to take them more time and more money to build a copy of the US B-29, than just to start from scratch and build a superior plane. But, the Soviet administration wanted a B-29 copy, so, they used their 3 captured B-29s to reverse engineer the thing, and build a fleet of copies (which had a ton of problems), instead of just listening to their own engineers. If they had just built a new plane, rather than a copy, they'd have spent far less money, and done it in far less time, and the plane would have been far better. Does this mean that B-29s were fake, because it was a painful process to reverse engineer something instead of starting new? No?? Why is it APOLLO that's fake if it's a painful process to copy it, but B-29s aren't fake because it was a painful process to copy it? Look, history has taught us a million times over that it's a painful process to try to rebuild old technology. It's far faster, cheaper, and better, to start from a brand new program's starting line. Now, does this mean they don't take the lessons learned from Apollo, or B-29s, or a million other examples? No, of course that's not what Pettit was saying. You take the lessons of Apollo, you apply them to modern technology, and THAT is what you build upon.
YOU SAID: "Just answer me this. How do you lose technology?"
== Good gods. Even you can see how ridiculous that sounds!!! Indeed!!! How do you lose technology?? The answer is smacking you in the face, but you're so deluded that you can't see it. The answer is that he wasn't saying the technology was "lost" in the sense that you're attempting to claim. He's saying the technology was "lost" in the sense that the SANE people understand (as outlined by my reply, and other replies from the other guy).
YOU SAID: "Why weren't the factories retooled to enable and evolve further missions though?"
== Because congress pulled the plug (the funding). Sorry, but they don't keep factories and tooling and personnel working on programs that aren't funded. Again, referring to the Concorde, you could ask the same thing, right? "But, why weren't the Concorde factories retooled to enable and evolve further fast airliners?" Well, those people don't work for free. Those factories don't maintain themselves. Once you stop the money, sorry, but you either shut down the factories, or you retool them to do other things, or you've got a hell of a lot of starving employees with no paychecks. Sorry, but this is just silly for you to even ask. And, frankly, to be honest, the most repulsive stuff isn't even that you don't understand these basic principles of economics, but, that you came to your conclusions before you asked the questions. If you had asked these questions before you came to your conclusions, I might get a chuckle out of you asking silly things about why factories aren't still operating after the money stops. But, I probably would just give you a friendly "d'uh" in the exact same way I give myself a "d'uh" comment every time I say or think something silly like that. But, you're different. You actually came to your conclusions first, then asked questions second. And, I have no tolerance for that. If you don't understand things, ask questions, by all means, yes. But, to sit here and accuse thousands of people of being criminals who deserve a lifetime in prison, because you don't understand why factories don't continue to operate after their funding stops... yeah, that's where I can't be friendly any longer. QUESTIONS FIRST. CONCLUSIONS SECOND. You insist on doing it the other way around, at the expense of spitting in the faces of the 450,000 people who worked for a decade on Apollo. There's something very perverse about throwing 4.5 million years of human effort out the window on the basis of a 1-line out-of-context quote-mine about a topic you know nothing about.
YOU SAID: "The tech we have now is so much more advanced it is unbelievable."
== So? Without congress approving it, NASA cannot buy a stick of chewing gum, let alone send missions to the moon. Congress decides how NASA's money is spent. There is an appropriations committee that allocates every one of NASA's dollars. If they don't approve a program to go to the moon, there is no program to go to the moon. But, Artemis was approved in late 2019. NASA and Trump and Pence and Bridenstine are trying to push for moon landings by 2024. Congress hasn't approved funding at that pace. They've only funded it at a pace that would put people on the moon by 2028-2030. But, funding can go up or down, so we'll see what happens after the election, and after COVID is behind us.
YOU SAID: "So I suppose the real question is why did it stop?"
== Because it was very expensive, and congress pulled the plug. The main reason they went to the moon in the first place is because it was a political message to the Soviets. This was a product of the cold war. Once we beat them to putting a man on the moon, congress wanted to stop the funding immediately. But, there were already contractual obligations to build X amount of Saturn V rockets, landers, command/service modules, plus all of the support personnel for all of the communications, launch facilities, etc. They couldn't just pull the plug without paying their contractual obligations. So, they let Apollo keep flying to the moon through Apollo 17, and pulled the plug after that. Some of the hardware for Apollo 18/19/20 was even under construction, partially completed.
YOU SAID: "Imagine the first few transatlantic flights. They said yeah we can do that now let's not bother again and shut down the program we built to make it possible. Sounds crazy doesn't it."
== Ridiculous comparison. Flying the Atlantic was always going to be a commercial success. People want to do that. Once those flights were commercially available, they sold tickets like crazy. Apollo isn't like that. There isn't much of a commercial market to go to the moon. And, it was amazingly difficult to justify, outside of the cold war. If you adjust for inflation into today's money, the cost of putting each person on the moon for Apollo was about $16 billion. Yes, EACH person. And, that gave them just a few hours each. No astronaut even walked on the moon for 24 hours. This is not a commercially viable business model. Very few people would spend $16 billion to walk on the moon for less than 24 hours. And, unlike air travel, which can be made extremely cheap over time, going to the moon cannot. Yes, you can reduce the costs of going to the moon, but not like you can reduce the costs of air travel. This is basic thermodynamics. Going to the moon will ALWAYS be outside of the reach of a common tourist, even just on raw energy costs alone. No, a better comparison in history would be circumnavigating the Earth. Magellan was the first. And, how long after that was it before the 2nd?? FIFTY YEARS!!! So, yeah, if you want to look at historical voyages as comparisons, yeah, use that one. Don't tell me you think Atlantic flights are the same concept as Apollo.
In 1972 NASA went to the moon . Now they just go around in circles with all our modern technology?
Going back in 2024.
@@yazzamx6380
Don't hold your breath. Even before COVID19, they were never given enough money to make it by then. According to the White House OMB (Office of Management and Budget), congress only gave them enough money to make it by around 2029 or 2030, thus asked for more money (which wasn't granted, at least not as of a couple months ago). But, if all you're talking about was a slingshot mission around the moon and back, yeah, they might be able to do that by 2024. Anyway, if you have more up-to-date info, I'd happily admit to being wrong. But, thus far, the only time I hear the 2024 date is when NASA says that's what they're aiming at in speeches and stuff, but then, behind the scenes, they're still crawling to congress' appropriations committee to pay for it, but it never gets granted, at least not in the amount needed for that timeline.
Mr Paul Grimm, technology isn't the issue. Money is the issue. Congress controls every dime of NASA's money, and unless congress assigns dollars to going to the moon, nobody goes to the moon.
rockethead7 Aliens warned us to stay of their moon
@@rockethead7 - I agree with you on an actual landing on the moon, since the original plan was a mission in lunar orbit in 2023/2024, with a manned landing in 2028.
This administration has pushed to have the manned landing brought forward to 2024 without the funds to go with it, which is an unnecessary risk and all for the wrong reasons imo.
Therefore my view has been that they will still make it to the moon in 2024, but the original orbital mission, with a landing following years later.
Either way, just getting people to the moon again debunks 95% of the reasons conspiracy theorists put forward for why such a space mission is impossible :-)
I only have one thing. Has anyone ever noticed how fast the moon dust falls back to the ground when disturbed
Falls down at the rate of 1/6 gravity, i.e. 2.46 (square root of 6) times slower compared to dust on Earth in a vacuum (no air resistance).
Yazzam X you’re obviously very intelligent. I don’t know much about gravity in space. In laymen terms is it because the dust particles are denser and heavier compared to size. Is that why larger objects like humans and the rover fall slower and need weighted because the gravity on the moon is 1/6 less than earth
@@mfrank3518
In a vacuum, all objects will fall at the same rate of acceleration. But, when you're talking about stuff like dust, the best analogy I can give you is that it's a bit like hitting a golf ball in a sand trap (I'm not a golfer, I'm just using it as an example). Some grains of sand barely go anywhere. Some go at a high arc. Some at a low arc. Etc. They're all subject to the same gravity and same air resistance (no air resistance on the moon, just talking about golf sand shots on Earth). Yet, if you look at each individual grain of sand as hit by a golf club in a sand trap, it's a big spray, with wildly varying results, right? Why? Because it all depends on how much energy each grain of sand received, and the angles. Well, it's the same on the moon. If you look at dust behavior, you'd really have to know how much energy each grain of dust was given upon impact with something, and the angles. But, the point Yazzam was trying to give you was this... once you see a grain of dust on the moon is following a certain trajectory in a certain amount of time, you can use basic physics formulas to determine the amount of gravity being experienced. And, nobody for 50 years has ever found an example of the trajectories & timeframes that Apollo dust has traveled in the videos, and has been able to demonstrate that it's in anything other than the moon's gravity. And, it's not for a lack of trying. There have been many conspiracy believers who have been looking for some sort of mathematical evidence for 50 years to prove Apollo was fake. Thus far, none of them have found any. Instead, all you hear from the conspiracy crowd is "too much" or "too little" or "they can't have done that" ... and other phrases like that... never providing a single mathematical proof to support their assertions. Never. Not a single time. They will say, "the dust shouldn't have flown like that." Then, when you ask them to demonstrate the math using the moon's gravity as the frame of reference, they all clam up. I've only seen one example of a conspiracy nut trying to use math to show that the moon's gravity isn't correct in the videos. He argued endlessly about how the math shows that the Apollo 15 dropping of the feather and hammer didn't work for the moon's gravity, therefore they weren't on the moon. I kept asking for the math, but he wouldn't provide it, and kept asserting over and over and over that the math was on his side. And, once he finally showed the math, I immediately found his error, and I showed him where he got the math wrong, and I literally never heard from him again.
rockethead7 I’m not a conspiracy guy. I just got this video suggested from RUclips for some reason and I noticed the dust that astronauts said (was fine as flour) falling at an unusually fast rate compared to everything else. Space may be a vacuum but even my dumbass knows that the moon has some gravity to it. That’s why the astronauts have weighted suits. The land rover is bouncing around yet space flour dust right behind the wheels is falling as fast as sand would on earth. There is a video where an astronaut mistakenly says humans have never been to “outer space”. It’s all bullshit.
@@mfrank3518
I didn't say you were a conspiracy guy. I was answering the questions, and was pointing out to any other readers that this is how the conspiracy people work, and that's the source for a lot of misunderstanding.
Their suits were not weighted. They were heavy because of the necessary stuff. But, they didn't add any weight for the sake of adding weight.
As for dust falling right behind the wheels as fast as it would on Earth, well, first of all, you have to determine the frame rate used on the 16mm clip. It had several frame rates, and they didn't always use "normal speed" of 24 fps. At that frame rate, it chews through an entire film roll in about 2.5 minutes. Most of the time, actually, they ran it at half rate, or even less. Thus when viewing it back, it's at double or triple (or even more) of the actual rate. On the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website, they specify the frame rates used on many of the clips (not all, but many). You should go take a look at the one in question, and find out the frame rate, and then do the math from there.
But, that circles back to my point about the conspiracy crowd. Part of what I was trying to say is that the conspiracy crowd has been checking that math on every single clip for the past 50 years, and has never found a single one where the math doesn't work for lunar gravity.
The hardest thing for these astronauts is knowing when to be in character and when not.
*golf clap*
???
@@zxccxz164 I like how you put 1 and 1 together to get 3
@@zxccxz164 - The claim that the unprotected petrified wood was from the moon was an error made by the Rijksmuseum, a Dutch ART museum, where they assumed the rock donated to them was from the moon.
The museum were warned it was unlikely to be from the moon but went ahead and displayed it as a moon rock in 2006.
@@zxccxz164 - So in 2009 that warning was proven correct when a visiting geologist saw the rock and knew it can't be from the moon... and the rest is history.
So research matters my friend, you should try it :-)
It's far easier to fool a person than it is to convince a person that they have been fooled.
Hence conspiracy believers refuse to believe they have been fooled by conspiracy theorists :-)
@@yazzamx6380 so you still think Lee Oswald killed Kennedy and planes flew into the WTC and building 7 crumbled because of fire. You people are the funniest. Cant see outside the box because in your mind you are highly intelligent when in fact you have no common sence. Its no wonder the plandemic worked so well!!!!
The ascent stage of the LEM showed no thrust rocket propelling it upward. Was there some kind of rocked or was it lifted up by cables or what?
B.S.
Pedro Gonzales The fuel source they used was colorless in a vacuum . It was a hypergolic fuel called nitrogen tetroxide, in atmo it has a dark red haze and is very toxic.
Boy I'm surprised how good the radio reception on the moon works
No delay when they called the president either. Amazing.
Old Technology is the best
50 years later and we still struggle with making just a step for man let alone a giant leap for mankind. I cant even get such greatness today, 2020, on a mobile phone!
Direct line of sight radio communication using radio dishes. That's why millions of people can watch countless hours of satellite TV with small satellite dishes pointed at a geostationary satellite orbiting 22,300 miles up. Dishes like this;
www.protv.co.uk/uploads/Sky%20dish%20installation%20in%20Bletchley.JPG
The moon is about 11 times further away, therefore to receive the signal to the same strength would require a bigger dish, just like the massive radio dishes/telescopes used during the Apollo missions, like this;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg/800px-Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg
So it's exactly the same principle.
Your satellite dish (if you have one) works because it is pointed *directly* at the satellite, where despite being over 22,000 miles away you can receive the TV channels perfectly if your dish is aligned correctly.
Now move that SAME satellite to the distance of the moon and the signal would be too weak for your small satellite dish, but if you have the massive Parkes Radio Telescope in the link above, then you'll receive the TV channels without any problems, and you'll also be able to receive and send radio signals significant further than the moon.
Although I'm sure you would agree that such a large radio dish is not practical to attach to your home ;-)
And because the Earth rotates, then for distant spacecraft you will need to use at least THREE massive radio dishes spread around the world to ensure that one of them is in direct line of sight of the spacecraft at any given time.
So it's not a mystery my friend, it's just science and engineering.
Oh and dont forget a phone call to the president.... Back in the 60's
The Greatest film ever made .sheer American front, Promo film making at its best , great cinematogr, great set design, Acting could have been a little better
The film maker Stanley Kubrick insisted that all SIX Apollo Moon Landings be filmed out there on the Lunar surface. He was aiming for realism. I've often wondered why they are so realistic. Certainly a lot more realistic than his other film 2001 Odyssey
@@apolloskyfacer5842 they are not realistic so always doubted
@@AshutoshSrivastavaTimetraveler If you say so Mr 'Knowledgeable' Best to go watch them again. And this time be honest about it. Oh wait ! You haven't really watched any of them have you.
For the Billions $$$$$'s Hoax on Taxpayers , Society Should Be Presented With A Fake Oscar .......Easier To Fool People , Than Convince Them They Have Been Fooled ...... Quiet on the Set .... And , Action ! !
Acting like drunks on vacation,
All of the people in the control center actually believe that they’re controlling the space capsule. This is the most fascinating part.
Yeah, because they hired the smartest people from around the western world because they were also so gullible.
Meanwhile the go to expert for moon landing hoaxers, Bart Sibrel was a taxi driver.
it's amazing how confidently stupid people like you are.
Some might have some doubt but who dare😂
And just how did they drag that dang buggy up there on the little lunar lander?
@Thomas Pickering - You didn't answer his question.
Here's an animation that shows how the lunar rover was folded up;
ruclips.net/video/7OL3OmM-CYQ/видео.html
Compare the folded up lunar rover in that animation to the real photos of the folded up rover;
www.collectspace.com/review/ap15-KSC-71P-206.jpg
The lunar rover was stored in the "quadrant 1" bay within the Lunar Module (in the Descent stage), labelled on this diagram as the LRV Stowage Compartment;
www.longislandaerospacehistory.com/Select/LM/XXX-LM-PROJECT/LM%20project/DESIGN/des-014.jpg
And here are the videos of the actual lunar rover deployment (on the moon and tested on Earth) and a documentary about the rover;
ruclips.net/video/-ShauSWcTC4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ObEjEEfnBj8/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/5aDSYTMqyQw/видео.html
I hope that information helps
:-)
Let indoctrination answer 🤣
With a U-Haul tow rig of course! (see Yazzam's explanation).
Ethan Mai legos
That NASA logo though...a serpents tongue wrapped around the earth? Odd choice to represent a space agency
@Travis Carr That's quite the imagination you have there. I guess people that believe in talking snakes would jump to those conclusions. Lol.
@@nebtheweb8885 you gate keeper's make me laugh. You all have the same lame troll tactics. It is in the shape of a serpents tongue strategically placed around the earth and Orion's belt at the top of the planet. Which if you've followed NASA just a little bit you would know that NASA is infatuated with this part of the galaxy for whatever reason...they have even named a number of their spacecraft that have "traveled to the moon" Orion. Us critical thinkers I'm sure have a pretty good idea as to why that is. Either way this is my opinion and you are entitled to have yours.
@Thomas Pickering thanks for the link Thomas
@@traviscarr4698 I am happy you are amused. I am also amused at your idiotic paranoia and the fact that you believe in talking snakes. Ouuuuuu, looky! A serpent tongue!!! RUN!!!!!! Must be a conspiracehhhhhhhhh!!! Lol. Orion is a capsule that hasn't been fully tested so it hasn't been to the moon. It has been past LEO but that was just a test. Doesn't matter, you seem to have a problem with Orion for some reason but then again you would be complaining if it were another name anyway. Seek help.
@Thomas Pickering thanks for the link. I'm well aware that NASA is very low level shit when it comes to what is really going on. I've read a lot on the zionist movement and I am very familiar with Oded Yinon and the greater Israel project. I don't think it stops there though. It seems this reality offers up one rabbit hole after another, which if you ask me is that way for a reason. Distracted soul's are more easy to manipulate. I think your blog had some truths in it though. Keep truth seeking brother
Back then technology was soo advanced!.
The tech was as advanced as it needed to be to get the job done.
It was expensive enough at that time.
@@drewthompson7457 Some naughty person lost all the telemetry tapes , and the technology to help go back …. Over fifty years later .. with 50 years advancement in technology/ manufacturing materials , software etc etc etc 🤔
@@rub1tan679 : your you tube diploma is showing. Ever heard of transcription? No?
Why are all the blueprints, etc. In the Library of Congress?
It seems you have no idea that many museums have Apollo equipment on display.
There are 2 Saturn V rockets on display.
I prefer reality to your you tube fantasies.
@@drewthompson7457 Brilliant 👍so you still have the technology to go back why the delay ???
@@rub1tan679 : a history lesson for you, since you can't find this info on your own.
After the 6 moon landings, Pres Nixon cancelled the remaining missions and slashed NASA's budget.
There was no money to complete the remainder of the Apollo missions.
That's why there is still unused Apollo era equipment in museums.
Since they are now over 50 years old, none are man-rated anymore.
In case you missed it, there was a recent test of a new capsule, one that will again be man rated.
Your You Tube diploma isn't doing you much good is it.
"You saw an example of goal-oriented teamwork in action" Well said, well said and so true. Will we ever be able to pull together like that again?
Yes, if we the people can find what unites us instead on solely what divides us.
We’ve not returned to the moon because Martians have posted No Trespassing
Martians are people too. I saw Heavy Metal last week.
I heard it was the Venusians....
It's the lunatics
Not True'. they lost all the Golden evidence Like Billions of Dollars today. i would have been a little up set loosing 1 million. they also had the right machine to fly around and through the Belt. to day more money is spent on the Navy and air force , welfare and other life security's. life boomed after WW2 And now Later Day's are turning back seemingly for the rerun all over again, except a little harder each time. i never seen this part of moon landing and seems strange i would for get. Grace to us and hope the martians will reconsider .
@@trafficjon400 : What evidence was lost? There are also pictures of the Apollo landing sites.
22:46
“The closer I get to it, the bigger it gets”
Trained astronutz amazed by perspective. LMFAO.
@Nature and Physics Dungheaps are usually smarter unless they were produced by morons like this one, then they are just dingle berries.
We can try N & P but these folks are at best fodder for poking fun at. Enlightening them is a hopeless cause but a good exercise for our brains.
@Nature and Physics If they would only read the ENTIRE document. They read dangerous radiation levels in the Van Allen Belts and claim we can't pass through. That makes me laugh!
@Nature and Physics 👴🏻
@Nature and Physics easy my boy, you look too serious to be right 👴🏻😁
@Nature and Physics Henri Poincaré, check this guy out, I swear it's useful for your problem
Beautiful piece of theater, it is
still humanly impossible in 2022 to cross the Van Halen belt because of too high radiation.
The Van Halen belt aye?? Lol
So many NASA fan boys here. I don’t know who the hell could watch this and think that we still went to the moon!
Of course. It helps to go 25,000 miles per hour.
@@globevandaldesmazes7815 I am amazed that your 3rd grade education let’s you use RUclips. Tell me again where you think the moon rocks came from. Explain why ALL the worlds scientists fully believe that Apollo landed men on the moon, but somehow you know more than them. That’s right: ALL the worlds scientists.
Man's fifth lunar non-landing...
Alright Einstein😂
Guy in Houston: Hey can you get that rock right there?
Guy on moon: You mean dis un right chere?
Guy in Houston: Yeah dat un
Guy on moon: Ahh right
😆
Van Allen was fascinated with Apollo space program.
so was Van Halen, Van Morrison didn't give a fuck.
@@melaniecotterell8263 Rumour has it Van Damme was on the fence.
@@underdogpsychosis2841 I heard it's because he was chillen with von dutch
@@Bigchillen321 hahaha
Yes he was amazed how Ass-tro-nuts could pass through all the trapped deadly radiation in the belts without being cooked to a crisp! Nobody ever landed on the 🌙 and nobody will ever travel farther than a lousy 400 miles because of the deadly radiation.
Something funny happened on the way to the moon.
They never got their lol
Off The Cuff ,Who is paying you lol making you sound foolish
@@niteexplorer9934 *there.
Sorry, I had to ~ couldn't stand.
@@niteexplorer9934
YOU SAID: "They never got their lol"
== Did you graduate high school?
YOU SAID: "Who is paying you lol making you sound foolish"
== Was it drugs? Is that what turned you so paranoid delusional that you think people are paid to post RUclips comments? And, who sounds foolish? You can't articulate a single sentence properly, can't spell, can't form a complete thought... again, was it drugs? Or, were you born this stupid?
@@niteexplorer9934 You mean they never got there.
Nothing so hidden but the truth!
yup. back & forth up there like a bus trip to play golf. they stopped going because of the cost of golf balls- wot with the gravity they went for miles, [even landed back on planet earth-] & the caddy was complaining. that was why they made an inflatable golf buggy which attached to the front of the nose cone.
Yes, and they stay around the earth while you were here. You stay with the sensation of something incredible and they stay laughing about all the ignorant. Who goes to another planet or gets away from 37 earth planets to jump, play, drive a stupid car, etc? Who will use the 5 senses to spend so much money for nothing, not even create a base on the moon?
---- They become multimillions, billions, millionaires, and you what? You stay poor, right?
--- Today with so much technology they spend 20 billion on an SLS rocket that can't lift off? NASA is a money pig, a money sucker from the taxpayer.
Exactly
The truth is the only thing that NASA has sent to space is your imagination
@@patreeky5975
Flat earther or just an incredulous millennial?
25:22 icecream...?? With no gravity it's a miracle how they put the icecream into that cup.. so clean. Real heros all the way ;)
Many people, if not all, have a smirk on their face, like one does when pranking. Very concious of the camera.
(Pardon my English, not my native language)
Why would you think it was impossible? You can find photos and videos of astronauts eating tubs of ice cream on the International Space Station too, so are you saying that isn't real either?
@@yazzamx6380 yes. Not real. Bubbles in space.
@@nahigottagiveeveryonerespect - There are no bubbles in space except to those easily manipulated by charlatans :-)
So don't pretend this is about Apollo when you're really saying this is about all manned space missions.
Therefore if you're a flat Earth believer then just say so, otherwise state which manned space missions by any nation you accept as real and explain how you know it was real.
@@yazzamx6380 not pretending. Keep pretending in your fantasy gas ball millions of miles away. Keep believing everything you hear and see. You have made it to sheephood. Nah I gotta give everyone respect. Feeling Awesome Give God Our Thanks.
@@nahigottagiveeveryonerespect - If you believe the Earth is flat then you're not a Christian :-|
Anyway, 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.
17:35 "it's absolutely unreal". Yes, we know.
They are telling us the truth with that statement but they use double, triple meanings with their speech!
Lol
@@spirit_dust Are you pretending to be stupid, or are you really that stupid?
4:30 Smooth motion in space of the lunar module then - stop 🛑
@@janjohansenmusic You are looking at a greatly sped-up version of the video. The actual rotation took almost 5 minutes to complete.
I would've loved to see them dismount the Rover from the Lunar Module. To me that would've been just as interesting to see as anything else they did on the moon!
John Caldwell why haven’t you watched “deployment of the lunar rover”?
You can watch the WONDERFULLY "high resolution" video PARTIAL deployment of the Apollo 15 Lunar Rover here: (Wasn't 1970s technology GREAT??)
ruclips.net/video/VpqhVKwByZY/видео.html
Where they had problems deploying it, even though they supposedly practiced it MANY times to ensure it worked flawlessly. (like it needed to work -- they had a "scary" amount of problems with it)
Notice in the radio transmissions they occasionally "forget" to include the transmission time lag from the Earth to the Moon (ave. 2.5 seconds total to and from), and they talk in "real time". (that is, near immediate answer, and definitely NOT anywhere NEAR 2.5 seconds)
Also notice that they are working in shadow, which SHOULD be near-black, but rarely is in videos and photos. Depending which NASA report you want to BELIEVE, the lunar surface had the albedo of "black paint" (asphalt at most), so the suggestion that it was "light reflection from the surface" is a SAD JOKE.
And then, as you watch them drive the buggy (in other videos), NOTICE that they NEVER ONCE (afaik) turn their heads (bodies, since the helmets were stationary connected) from left to right. They ONLY look STRAIGHT AHEAD with minimal or mostly no movement and look like frozen dolls on a remote controlled vehicle.
AND, if you TRULY believe that they would allow them to drive KILOMETERS away from the Lunar Module, taking a chance that they would get stuck or have a vehicle malfunction, so there is NO WAY they could walk back to safety without DYING, then you are truly lost in your ability to think critically and logically and objectively. The whole Lunar Rover thing was ALSO a sub-JOKE of the greater joke.
@@YDDES was tha filme in the same studio???
@@YDDES where’s that film I’d love to see that one
@@Pabloso213 You have Google, haven’t You? Just write ”deployment of the Lunar Rover” in the search bar and You Will have both real videos and animated descriptions how it was Done.
Had the pleasure yesterday to see Apollo 60015 87 sample of anorthosite yesterday which was retrieved during this mission
Surprised the “rocket scientists” didn’t delete this footage as well. You know nasa can’t afford new tapes with all that money they get for not going to the moon.
@Thomas Pickering >strangerinajewishworld
Kek
why would they delete it? and tape has mass (which is pretty expensive)
We left Myrtle Beach and drove straight to Florida to see Apollo 10. We arrived the day before the launch and slept in our car. Even as far away as we were, we felt the rumble and then the crackle as she pulled away. That was a long time ago, but it's one memory I will never lose.
Yes, and they stay around earth while you were here. You stay with the sensation of something incredible and they stay laughing about all the ignorant. Who goes to another planet or gets away from 37 earth planets to jump, play, drive a stupid car, etc? Who will use the 5 senses to spend so much money for nothing, not even create a base on the moon?
---- They become multimillions, billions, millionaires, and you what? You stay poor, right?
--- Today with so much technology they spend 20 billion on an SLS rocket that can't lift off? NASA is a money pig, a money sucker from the tax-payer.
Flexing myrtle Beach
@@jimwednt1229 That's the one.
Great memory for a kid. Too bad it was a complete fake.
@@Blessedcrumb where do you think those giant Saturn5 rockets went ?
Those massive things went up somewhere 😳.
The moon isn't "easy" to get to but it's not all that difficult to get to either.
Escaping earth's gravity is the hardest part. If you can get up high enough to get into orbit around earth all you need is a vehicle and fuel and a navigation system in order to get to the moon and enough fuel to get back to earth.
We celebrate Christmas, Easter, Veteran's day, 4th of July but there is not a peep about the "greatest humanity achievement?" How strange
🙏
Even Buzz said that " we didn't go!!.......
GOD REST Mr Gus Grissom RIP🌷🙏
And, what about all the people, who Said we went???
@@YDDES Czechs are great jokers and in one of their great movies is said ... why do you believe in God, no one ever saw him? And the unparalleled reply by Bolek Polivka, "I haven't see your c... and believe you have one."
The lesson: you have yours, I have mine (belief)
great point---millions of propaganda dollars squandered.
amarshmuse concepta ol' Gus sure did know what we now know today. Sadly he didn't know that it would cost him his life
I'm still amazed that so many ppl fell for this. I'm even more surprised ppl still believe it. Humans are very easy tricked.
The evidence is overwhelming that the missions happened, as documented. I'm not amazed at how YOU let yourself get tricked to believe otherwise, though.
@@Monkeyboysdontknow LOL
it gets better every time, at 18:40 there's plenty of shadow, then at 19:08 the shadows have vanished, then later they're back again, so good
How Did We Put All That Evidence And Tracks Up There Then...
@@davidsumner9348photoshop .....quit falling for foolishness.....research the fraud with an open mind and you will come to the same conclusion .
Let's be honest, none of yall searched for this
Actually I did as well as the other missions starting with the services failed attempts to get off the ground.
@@JoeOutdoors Now that was a cool video to watch!
Good for a laugh is about it, these are all really over paid bad actors.
Me? Honest? 😂
@@wavular : Go flip another burger - it will be a good career move for you.
It's absolutely so unreal...
totally unreal
Certainly is . Lol 😂
@@martinattwood7801 Might be,.....sad but we will never know.
@@piano4014 maybe not officially. But I think the evidence is quite clear . Once you see through all the propaganda.
Correct
It was fake totally ✔️
Nothing as impressive as a Saturn V launch!
Never run out of oxygen, everything is always perfect, with a little scary almost happened story
Nature and Physics thanks
@Nature and Physics why aren't astronauts taking selfies on the moon? The camera exists for a long time
@@Nmoney702 Who's operating the cameras on the Moon? Some nice zoom outs, zoom ins and pan shots.
Stanley peut être...;)
@@alexcampbell3032 : if you haven't looked up an answer yet, the rover camera could be remote controlled from earth.
I watched all this on TV when I was a child .
Bumblebee - My GT86
Me too back then we only had 3 boardcast stations sometimes 4 with PBS!
@vernon padilla : Your you tube diploma is showing.
@Angel Lee : don't worry, rocket science isn't for everyone.
It likely won't make any difference that you can't understand what happened half a century ago.
@Angel Lee : have you tried reading a history book? What happened a half century ago doesn't disappointment me at all. What happens these days, i do find disappointing.
Me too
Stanley Kubrick was an amazing film maker.
Then clearly you know nothing about film making :-)
Yazzam X other than it can take the place of reality.
@@nanetteyvonne1222201 - To this day, not even the world's best special effects expects can replicate (in a studio) the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage. Therefore if it was filmed in a studio, then that studio was on the moon :-)
@@yazzamx6380 it's called slow motion, that is what gives the illusion of weightlessness. It's easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled.
@@stuartshaw3275 - Use some common sense please :-) Only the rate of fall is slowed down in 1/6 gravity, NOT the limb movements of the astronauts, and hence that's why slow motion doesn't work, because it slows EVERYTHING down.
Slow motion is one of the EASIEST special effects to apply, so if slow motion could recreate perfect 1/6 gravity, then not only would the movie/TV industry match the Apollo footage PERFECTLY in a studio themselves in ALL moon scenes (NONE have), but there would also be COUNTLESS videos uploaded to RUclips where ordinary people like you and me have used slow motion to recreate the gravity of the moon OURSELVES to prove it can be done!
So where are all those RUclips videos Stuart? Present a link to just ONE please. Where are all the clips from movies showing perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio? Present a link to just ONE please :-)
Here's what we get when we do use slow motion;
ruclips.net/video/Y6BXaGEuqxo/видео.html
Gee, that looks *so* realistic doesn't it? No-one would ever guess that was slow motion, right? ;-)
So the problem is, until someone can *demonstrate* perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence prove it can be done, then any claims that the Apollo footage was faked in a studio will remain unfounded.
We went to the moon with technology that is less than my low end cell phone... right...😂
Exactly how much technology did NASA have?
And, they placed phone calls with technology that is less than your current cell phone also. Shocker.
Right!
You are very stupid...right...😂
WOW, they sure did have a LOT of equipment on that LM,... Lunar Rovers, Telescopes, all kinds of Cameras...good ones!, scientific sampling equipment, gas, communications equipment, batteries, food, circuit breakers, TP, water, TANG, oxygen, Rocks, space suits,etc., etc.
amazing what 10 years of planning can accomplish.... I wonder how far you can think ahead?
tetekofa, and all that radiation shielding that nasa has no idea how to get to work, as expressed by themselves when talking about any futurespace missions. It's as if none of this happend
Tons of extra oxygen and fuel. Good thing they had all of that for the multiple, unexpected revs around the moon.
Tetekofa
So, how many ”rovers” and ”telescopes” did they have?
Who says NASA has No ideas how to shield against radiation???
Have you noticed that although the first EVA on April 21st went 1km WEST of LEM and the second EVA went 4 km SOUTH of LEM on April 22nd, the two scenes of the first and second EVA's at 14:24 and 17:30, respectively, show exactly the same landscapes??!! This video does not seem to be authentic.
You're right. bs
none of it is authentic. Get your head out of your ass already!
@Joaquim Dias Fernandea Wow! Nossos especialistas - formados por curso intensivo de 10 minutos no RUclips, como sempre dando seus vereditos. :))
It isn't authentic. It's a no brainer to me. If we actually went to the moon back then, don't you think by now every capable nation would have had men there as well? Society is so programmed & dumbed down they'll except anything proven liars tell them! NASA......NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER !! Will people ever wake up?
Baukra Baukra men there for what? What use would it be to live somewhere with no atmosphere, no food, no water, no natural resources, no soil, etc. Sounds like it would be pretty stupid and wasteful to want a permanent settlement there.
Lights, camera, action...
Nope. Next? :-)
Lol, nobody believes this was real anymore
5,000 degrees on re-entry, wow, what an air conditioner they must have had in the capsule.
The parachutes and their strings managed to survive that immense heat of 5,000 degrees in a little container at the top of the Command Module. Thank goodness. Can you imagine what would have happened if a couple of the strings had burned through on re-entry and then they tried to open the chutes?
Hahahaha....experts who know nothing about ablation.
@@paulward4268 Exactly. And without even a practise run through to see if the Steel and Aluminium layer could protect the chutes and strings. I think some people are making straightforward comments and not pretending to be experts. That is good. Just asking really straightforward questions about how a half inch of Steel and a quarter of an inch of Aluminium could hold back 5,000 degrees on a lengthy Apollo re-entry. It would surely be glowing red-hot and frying the chutes and their nylon strings? The 4 inch thick steel columns of the World Trade Centre (100 floors below the plane impact) turned to dust after some jet fuel burned for 45 minutes 100 floors above. It's just a Crazee Universe !
Ablative heat shield. Look it up. They are still in use today. In short, the heat shield is designed to disintegrate, flake away, and take the heat with it.
@@Lanarkish
What in the world are you talking about? They tested every single capsule type (and its heat shield) before putting people inside. What do you mean when you say there were no practice runs? For the Apollo command module, they flew 5 command modules (and their heat shields) in space on unmanned missions, before ever flying people inside.
You know so little about this topic that you didn't even know those unmanned missions ever took place. Yet, you're sitting there questioning the validity of such a trivial topic as how a heat shield works? You sit there with your mocking tone, as if the entire planet's aerospace engineers simply forgot that re-entry can get hot if they don't have a heat shield?
Your kitchen oven can be 500 degrees inside, yet, you can put your hand a quarter inch away from the glass, and you barely feel any heat. Why? Because it's simple cheap insulating glass. A fireman wears a little plastic suit capable of withstanding 1000 degree temperatures (or 2000 degrees for the better suits), and the person inside barely feels any heat. Imagine what you could do with an ablative heat shield.
The best camera angles are the ones of them flying just above the moon. Did they drop off the camera guy to get that shot. And all the footage of them off-roading the moon in that dune buggy! I laugh my ass off every time i watch this stuff, reminds me of the Beverly Hillbillies!
So you didn't know that there were the Lunar Module and the Command Module. The Lunar Module made the landing after it undocked from the Command Module. Then the Command Module (with one astronaut) was left orbiting the moon.
If you mean the video clip (at 6.30 point) it was filmed from the Command Module.
I don't understand it, therefore it must be fake.
@@mikep9604 🤣🤣🤣rip logic
@@rockethead7 I am following you down this whole comment section . You really have it bad for NASA don't you. I thought at first you were just a keen space head and really were into the moon landing thing,but it's like you are butt hurt with every comment that dares to contradict your beloved NASA and the moon story. AH poor rockethead7. Pwease pwease don't get upset. All these people who don't believe the moon lander made from scotch tape and coat hangers and foil really went to space are bad people. there there now. just sook your little dummy tit and go watch NASA videos till you fall asleep.
....am I the only one who loves watching moon footage, but when seeing lunar rocks kind of half expecting to see them sprout legs and move around just as in the Apollo 18 movie?
At 28:24 the mic picks up a very obscure statement...
"I told them they better improve the skyline or we're in trouble"
Am still at 90% that we did get there at some point, but
from a conspiracy point of view it's a pretty heavy statement, but what do I know
...meh
waal, only when looking for signs of reality
Thanks for the upload, AIRBOYD! I love these old mission summary documentaries.
Ypu know why the crew was so relaxed? Because they knew they were going to a movie studio after they ditched the rocket in The ocean.
@Skip Frake beyond an idiot! Bonehead!
That is exactly where they went! How many shit sandwiches must the American public be fed before putting their ego( and it is the TRUE enemy of fact )and accepting that we have never left low earth orbit.
Challenger alone!- proves they are lying to us! The odds of 5 people who have the 'relative same appearances (exact actually), names and ages' of the "dead crew" of Challenger? 10 to neg 7!
Aka ABSOLUTE FKIN ZERO. WAKEY WAKEY FOLKS. oh yes and check out Eric Dubay for more mind blowing reveals.And now the shill bots....
Great fake cgi
@timmadden3193 ckmy ch 4 no slow mo and then some real time at the beach...😂
They are relaxed because they are very experienced former test pilots. NASA used test pilots for all it's space missions during the Mercury, Gemini, and most of the Apollo missions. This was intentional because when you are doing something that has never been done before, you want people who are unflappable when shit hits the fan.
i think we've lied more in ten days, then most people do in ten life times
You must be quoting the Democratic party.
@@compellinglyhigh646 nasa, but that also fits, lol
Ekaw, who are “we” and what are the lies?
What are the lies? Well the first is 'We went to the Moon'.- after you open your eyes and see that.... All the other stuff is far more easy to explain. Like unsealed gloves -same damaged buggy in two diff missions- The sound of a tool in a vacuum.camera cross hairs blocked by photoshop, shadows in diff drctns.Wrong rocket engines on Sat V add infinitum! The WE of course is our Govt Space Agency/Millionaire maker for govt officials.
Tim, how would you know what an unsealed glove looks like? If an astronaut on the moon is holding a tool then the hand holding it is inside the suit where the microphone is. If the tool vibrates then we would hear it. If two vehicles are supposed to be identical and they both have the same feature then it is not damage. Dah. Of course US astronauts went to the moon. Denying it is ridiculous on so many levels. Even amateur astronomers could see the command module in route and the Russian knew how to track space craft. As has been said many times, it would have been a lot easier to go to the moon than to fake it.
Two issues, never answered satisfactorily. The guy who helped design and test the Decent Rocket Motor , BILL CASEY, said , ' one'--the pre-flight, test results, showed that the thrust was so great ( and noisey) it threw up masses of desert sand , gravel, and small rocks. Two---the noise was such, that inside the module, no-way could anyone hear /talk to each other. Here, we have no dust, let alone rocks, and virtual silence. I'll never believe these people. The unaswered questions are massive, and nearly 45 years after.
Addressed and answered long ago, where you believe otherwise because of your own personal assumptions and your belief in what other doubters have told you :-|
For example, the only sound the astronauts would hear inside the LM is the internal workings of the rocket engine, the 'blast' itself occurs in the rocket engine nozzle outside the spacecraft, hence would be silent due to being in a vacuum, because sound cannot travel through a vacuum.
Here on Earth the roaring sound we hear from rocket engines is caused by the gases exiting the rocket engine nozzle at hypersonic speeds and colliding with the surrounding air molecules, to produce light and heat and *sound.*
There's no air in space, so your claim that "the noise was such, that inside the module, no-way could anyone hear /talk to each other" is incorrect.
@@yazzamx6380 I was quoting the chiel engineer and designer of Rockettdyne, who made the bloody thing. BILL CASEY. who are you quoting ?
@@MrDaiseymay - Quoting someone talking about testing a rocket engine HERE ON EARTH is not the same as talking about rocket engines operating in a VACUUM, which are silent.
And Bill Casey? Do you mean Bill Kaysing?
@@MrDaiseymay Your assertion is totally fallacy - Bill Casey did not exist. You are talking of Bill Kaysing, a writer, who worked for Rocketdyne, not an engineer and who started this ludicrous conspiracy.
The lunar surface is hard rock beneath dust; the LEM used a low pressure (for reliability) rocket engine that was firing at only 3,000 pounds thrust before landing so along with the very thin atmosphere and low gravity there was not enough pressure to produce a crater; if you look closely at some pictures of landing sites e.g. Apollo 11 you can see some disturbance under the engine.
Rocket exhaust gasses expand much more quickly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere and because there is no air resistance on the Moon, the blast deflected the dust sideways in a straight line at high speed - far too fast to settle on the LEM’S feet.
No LEM engine sound is detected on descent to the Moon because the astronauts’ microphones were designed to muffle extraneous sound. Also, the low-pressure rocket engine did not produce a great deal of thrust and since they were in a vacuum there was no air to carry the shockwave and vibration.
The lunar terrain is fascinating. That giant half rock looked like it could be the moon's version of Oregon's Half Dome rock
Yeah it was designed on it.
What jetting do you recommend for my YZ250? 2-stroke. Will the EFI 450 4-strokes run OK?
It probably was. Cuz Disney needed something to use for their FAKE moon landing!
Because they never did but you are too gullible to believe the movie.
Why is there wind on the moon?
What ive always found strange about the footage of the moon rover bouncing along is that, if you look at the arm thing covered in gold you can clearly see the reflection of the moon and the equator but the never move, the rover is bouncing all over the place but the reflection never changes. Has anyone else noticwd this? Is there a reason why? Given that the view in front is jumping about everywhere, then the reflection should lose the equator
At 28:24 the mic picks up a very obscure statement...
"I told them they better improve the skyline or we're in trouble"
Am still at 90% that we did get there at some point, but
from a conspiracy point of view it's a pretty heavy statement, but what do I know
...meh
You'll be surprised what they accomplished in area 51.
@@SebbyD ruclips.net/video/4-zzqW1WKZE/видео.html nah mate
Because it is not on the Moon. No man was on the Moon.
@@rukaslyricist Great. I saw this, too. No one was on the Moon.
As of 2020, there have been 14 astronaut and 4 cosmonaut fatalities during spaceflight. Astronauts have also died while training for space missions, such as the Apollo 1 launch pad fire which killed an entire crew of three. There have also been some non-astronaut fatalities during spaceflight-related activities.
Gotta get rid of the non-compliant.
Guess how many people died climbing Mt Everest?
@@thecoldglassofwatershow well said
The CIA was present at NASA the day before the fire of Apollo 1. Logical to assume the astronauts were killed.
Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee were murdered. Grissom hung a lemon on a hanger on Apollo 1, a big eff you to NASA. He knew we were going NOWHERE fast.. Russia was way ahead in the space race.
His last words in the capsule before they cremated him: "I can't hear a word you're saying. How do we expect to get ot the moon if we can't communicate between 3 rooms." Or something close to that. Learn the truth.
You can't just murder one astronaut,too suspicious. But you CAN create an accident and sacrifice others to kill the guy you want. NASA is evil.
please watch some : Flat earth dave interviews 2, do you think after the last 3 years media lies ?
Thanks , Stanley Kubrick , for making this possible. That’s the only real information about this whole scam
There's a pair of SFX experts who have analysed footage from the Apollo missions. They don't only understand today's technology, but also how things could be done in the past. They could not find A SINGLE inconsistency pointing to ANYTHING being faked.
I suggest that you have another look at '2001: A Space Odyssey'. The special effects are embarrassing by today's standards.
We went to the moon. Get over it.
I've read that the experts say it was easier to do the missions than to fake them.
Just where do you believe "they" have a studio in vacuum and at 1/6th G on earth?
Amazing how they fall over then mysteriously stand up without any help from body limbs, clearly hooked up to overhead wires. Stupid to think people can’t see this 🤦🏻♂️
You aren't any engineer kiddo, so how should you know how spacesuit would behave in moon gravity;)
No-one does get up without using their limbs. Their weight is so much lower that they can much more easily push themselves up. This upward motion continues for longer as well.
Shame they didn't try throwing a football or something of that nature! It sure looked like their was gravity to me, I don't know, everything just looks and seems so suss to me. Why on earth haven't the usa or another country been back to the moon in soo long, you got musk talking about colonising Mars, yet no research base of any kind on the moon. Very strange lol
Ignorant fuck.
@@questioneverything0 Everything looks sus when you don’t know a fucking thing about the subject.
WHAT A VIEW. ABSOLUTLY UNREAL
Yes, nothing like it on Earth.
FAKE💯
Unreal is right
@@drewthompson7457 go look on google earth...there is plenty like this on earth. Deserts and various different landscapes look out of this world but they are not. This just looks like
Nevada or somewhere
@@2phreshkru : where in Nevada do you find zero air pressure, and 1/6th gravity?
But keep believing your delusions , no one cares.
They said. That they took pictures of the earth and other bodies in different ways ., so why we still have cgi images of it..
Yeah, why do we still have b/w pictures of Paris and New York?
Color photos have existed for decades...
Just a regular jaunt to the moon and back, simples...nothing to see here folks
No one here is fooled... WELL DONE 👍
???
"I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond but....."
We lost the technology! Silly boys lose everything.
@@liz.217 : The tech is not lost, check the many museums that have Apollo era equipment on display. Florida has a complete Saturn V rocket on display. Libraries have books of Apollo era tech. But do you really expect NASA or even any car company to rebuild 60 yr old teck?
@@drewthompson7457 I was quoting a popular video of a NASA employee. I know it's ridiculous to think the biggest human achievement was not securely and meticulously documented. But thats what NASA claims. Never A Straight Answer.
Drew Thompson Nobody expects to rebuild old tech, but they say they can’t do it today because it’s “a painful process to build it back again”, yet somehow sent a rover to Mars?
@@liz.217 NASA never lies about anything do they?
Who was on the ground-at a distance filming the lunar module as it lifted off the surface??
@Thomas Pickering - Answer his question.
From Apollo 15 onwards, the Apollo TV cameras were remotely controlled by Ed Fendell at mission control (Google Search: Ed Fendell Apollo).
It's called remote, mission control took over the mounted cameras, com on you conspiracy lima beans always keep shit up.
@@autobahnman6869 : in defense of the brain dead, they have noticed that the TV remote doesn't even work from across the basement. So you can see them having trouble understanding how remote control could work on the moon....
@@yazzamx6380 bollocks
*it's absolutely unreal"
In Spain we have a saying about liars: "You're faker than the Moon landing"
Spain's gone down in my estimation.
How did the camera get there first as the thing came in to land?
At least someone coming with the right question.
Hi, there was a camera attached to the outside of the lander.
The moon out in Area 51 lol
Actually, many see it in the night sky.
How people can watch all these videos and claime they were filmed in a studio and wires removed without CGI just shows that intelligence has plummeted since this amazing achievement.
Well, you can try that mud on someone who isn't in film.
Kubrick helped, my guy.
Ever heard of 2001?
@@philyeary8809 2001 looks like what it is - an artist's depiction of the Moon in 1968 - not that good.
Forbidden Planet - 1956
@@kimbalcalkins6672 That is a bit unfair. That was 13 years before the moon landing. You can't have expected the effects to be anything but laughable in that movie.
@@nickrose8733 Actually the effects were very convincing, like the tornado in Wizard of Oz or panorama shots in Gone with the wind. ruclips.net/video/0hGezrmlztA/видео.html
Honestly these old documentaries are way better than todays
Imagine standing in spacecraft so far from your home planet and being utterly professional and cool. What a bunch of rocket men.
😵💫
Imagine believing this shit is real lol
Well, they were well trained, and had a schedule to keep, and the were professional.
But yeah, pretty amazing.
@Nick Giorgione : you like making stupid, unfounded comments.
FYI: there is no air on the moon. Most people know this, how did you miss it?
SO FAKE
11:28
😂😂😂
I was nearly ten years old at the time and watched every mission that I could comprehend at what it was. Seeing it now is so much more exciting and interesting. I say we should go back.
we can't go back, as NASA will tell you, we do not have the ability to get a human past the Van Allen belt
They never went 🤣
@@jayyelland8289 I didn't say that, but if they can't get a human through the Van Alen belt in 2022, how did they in 1969????
@@tonyjones7372
Sorry, but quoting from a 30 second clip from an Orion video made for children isn't an education. You obviously know absolutely nothing about the Van Allen belts. Real science isn't conducted by listening to Kelly Smith tell children that they have to solve these problems for Orion before putting people inside. All he was saying is that they needed to test the shielding before putting people in the craft. And, they did that in 2014, and it passed the test. Yet, 8 years later, you people keep on quoting from him anyway. Sorry, Tony, but your 30 second knowledge of the Van Allen belts isn't adequate.
@@rockethead7 Learn to spell and punctuate the English language correctly and people might even take you seriously and not just laugh at your lack of writing skills.
Watching "astronauts" read a newspaper is such a LOL. Puppets.
After 10 days in space it's amazing how fast they go their legs back under them, bouncing down those stairs like it never happened
Serious?
Apollo 16 landed on the moon 4 days after liftoff from Earth, not 10. And, sorry, but atrophy doesn't set in that quickly.
@@rockethead7 Was that Earth days or space days?
I'm not going to play this game with you. YOU are the one who listed how many days you thought it was (you were wrong). Don't play word games now.
@@rockethead7 Open the pod bay doors Hal…..
At 9:50 to 10:00 and at 24:44 shouldn't we espect to hear voices sounding more like someone describing a push bike ride wile filming it on a bumpy,off road descent ? All those landings look and sound incredibly smooth. Especially the touch down.
Is cuz moon has trivial gravity
check the length of shadow at 24:10 , compared to say 14:44
Good Job, but i bet most of these guys voted for Richard Nixon who immediately axed the program!
Bet they wish they had the green screen back then like they do today 😂
Anyone who believes this needs a serious reality check.
🤔 😉 🤣
Amazing how they made it passed the Van Allen Belt with absolutely no I'll effects. People must have been tougher then because today, it would talk huge amounts of lead shielding just to protect the instruments on an unmanned flight.
@Hummer's Revenge Science. REAL science, not NASA´s bullcrap
@Hummer's Revenge cause I work in NASA
@@Gozne More lies.
@@Monkeyboysdontknow I expected you to believe me if I told you I work in NASA.
@@Monkeyboysdontknow Actually I dont work at NASA, I AM NASA.
Have you done any looking at how the lunar lander and the space suits were engineered to sustain the pressure difference equivalent to 131 million atmospheres or 10^-11 Tor? It’s still incredible to me since the pressure of the vacuum is 100,000x more powerful on the moon than even at the carmon line and were used over and over between walks/etc… I guess the shadows and other crap don’t even matter if there’s no way to parse the difference of 131,000,000 atmospheres or what is nearly 2 trillion lbs per square inch. The lunar lander didn’t have an air lock, so all the piss bags, food, water, everything thing in a container inside would also have to hold up too; all while tracking dirt in and out. It seems that there are greater more impossible issues that preclude even worrying about how things were filmed.
Huh? I think you don't understand what Tor is. Let's compare it to distances. Like, if you are used to measuring things in miles, like 150 miles to your destination, but, you want to measure the thickness of a piece of paper, it does you no good to measure a piece of paper in the unit of miles, like 0.000000000000000001 miles (or whatever). So, they came up with things like millimeters to get a more meaningful measurement of the thickness of paper. That's what Tor is when compared to atmospheres, it's a very small amount of pressure, not a larger amount. So, they came up with Tor as a way to measure very small pressure. And, your "10^-" quotation demonstrates the exact opposite as what you're trying to assert. That's not an amazingly large number, it's an amazingly small number. The "-" means AFTER the decimal point, not before it. Basically, you're just completely backward. The "air pressure" on the moon is a trillionth of Earth's (so close to zero that you have a difficult time even knowing about it), not a trillion times Earth's.
I will add... not only do you fail to understand what Tor means, and what 10^- means, which resulted in getting your math completely backward... but you cannot even manage to multiply your own [wrong] numbers correctly. 131,000,000 x 14.7 isn't nearly 2 trillion, it's nearly 2 billion. You managed to even botch the 3rd grader portion of the math. You botched the rest of the math also, but, if your mind is so ruined by whatever your substance of choice is, such that you can't do basic multiplication, maybe it's time to try to kick the habit, eh?
@@rockethead7 LOL
Wow. Your engineering knowledge is really bad!
Astronaut #1: What a view!
Astronaut #2: It’s ABSOLUTELY UNREAL!!
Me: FINALLY! They admitted it! Sorta... 17:30
Would you like to look at the moon dusts yasharala777
At 17:30
@@proclusyellioupolos197
@@proclusyellioupolos197 triggered by morons who know too little of science and technology to realize that THE MOON LANDINGS WERE REAL.
@@proclusyellioupolos197 and these aren't live television signals, boompus, this was filmed the old fashioned way with a camera and a roll of film inside it. Nobody saw any of this until they returned to earth. And these films have been digitally remastered. You are so dumb not to catch on to small things like that, yes?
@@proclusyellioupolos197 What is your point? Have you ever studied the specs on the Saturn V rocket or the command module or the LEM to understand the size of these craft? Your lack of knowledge is not a legitimate proof of anything but your own ignorance. What you say is impossible because of your lack of understanding is achieved by men who do understand.
I think 1970's was more exciting than today's era.
I'm finding all these covid lockdowns and restrictions fascinating, don't you?
Trust me Ashish, they were.
My personal favorite is when they are on the way back to earth 🌍 and the cloud formations are hall the size of the entire earth. How many times have you seen clouds that big down here on earth?
When have you ever been able to see half the planets sky at one time?
ruclips.net/video/VrFFbyuQqt4/видео.html
@@paulloveless4122 in California, we get days of seeing not a single cloud in the sky. For days even, just clear skies. I moved to Texas and out here it’s rare when we have a clear sky
@@RJCH88 That's all well and good and certainly believable - but the person I am respondingnis making a remark about nearly 1/2 of our planet!
When has he or she ever seen HALF of the planets sky?
Lots. Been in planes
Can someone explain how man gets past the Van Allen Radiation Belt?
Ask Van Allen himself and he'd tell you it was no biggie. Its all a case of where you go through them.
Spirit Of Light with the shielding built in and the short time they were in the belt, it was proven the radiation they were exposed to was no more than getting an x-ray on Earth.
Through the thinnest part
Can someone explain how Unshielded Camera Film, gets there and back with not a single TRACK?
They flew. In rockets.
Profoundly sad how many people commenting here are living in fear.
Fear alright... Fear of knowing that NASA kinda mislead the world perception. Illusions are created to deviate one's mind into believing something which may or may not be the truth. But here again...what is the truth...it is what ever peoplecwant to believe. I have shown people something right in front of them.. They put their hands over their ears... Lalalalala... Funny
@@Mooseracks Don't be thick.
tell me lies tell me sweet little lies . . tell me lies tell me tell me lies
I thing that always gets me is how slow the space rocket looks as it moves upwards with so much thrust!
Baloons with cgi
Have you watched the Saturn liftoff? How slow is that movement for the first 60 seconds?
Haha. Moves just as fast as an oversized weather balloon.
Comments like this I believe are placed to try and make us that know they never landed look silly. None of us that know they never landed have ever denied they took off in rockets. Just who's side you on????
@@kencombs9098 I think you need to go back to school as none of us that know they never landed have never doubted about the rockets taking of. You are thinking of the rockets you let off on bonfire night. Watch one of them in slow motion. They don't just go. They start slow then overcome gravity and go faster. Even us that know off the big bull shit know this.
Boy, that "Earth" is tinier than the Moon.
Yes, the Earth from the moon should of looked substantially larger than the moon from the Earth ! Hmm 🤔. The Earth’s diameter is over 8,000 miles and the moon’s diameter is 2,000 miles (approx). Once again, Hmm 🤔 ?
Paul R or, the moons the wrong size using the math of the universe that’s been presented... if fundamentals are wrong then everything is
Just produce some pictures of Moon, photographer from Earth with the same type of Camera, so we can compare.
Gang Of Four thats really ridiculous, the orbit of the moon is eliptical, not perfectly round, so just like the moon looks bigger to us and sometimes smaller, its the same looking at earth from the moon
OMG am I the only person here that has seen the footage that clearly shows them faking the shot of the earth from aboard the ship through the window by blacking out all but a round circle of the window and flipping all lights off? Only problem with their attempt was that they forget to turn a light off and you can clearly see what they were doing! It's time to wake up to the truth people!
6:40 why don’t you tell me what to do there John, uh Ok! 😂😂😂
The lunar atmosphere is sooo carateristic, so crystal, so neat, and so irreplaceable.
As REM sang" if you believe they put a man on the moon"
I work with Americans... Most of them don’t know where “moon” is, and the few that claim they do, believe it’s in Europe somewhere 😂😂😂
Ha ha ha cartoons...I needed a good laugh.
Took 4 rovers to the moon but forgot to take a telescope!?
Why a teleskope???
I'd like to meet the cameraman.
Meet Ed Fendell, NASA.
YOU SAID: "Took 4 rovers to the moon"
== Um, no dummy. They took 3 of them. Not 4.
YOU SAID: "but forgot to take a telescope!?"
== Um, no dummy. They had a telescopic camera to take photos of the stars on the very mission that this video is about (Apollo 16). They also had telescopic lenses on one of their Hasselblads on each of the later missions.
@@rockethead7 Well thanks for clearing that up dickhead7, much appreciated.
My foster father, a Jewish man with a wicked sense of humour, used to ask me, “Do you know why the Americans got to the moon & the Russians didn’t? It’s because the American’s Germans were better than the Russian’s Germans”.
I’ve always wanted to believe that explanation.
I fear it’s that “The American’s spooks had more chutzpah than the Russian’s spooks”.
I would give up all my material belongings to be able to be blasted off the Earth and walk on the Moon. What an incredible experience it must have been for those 12 lucky astronauts. :)
what did they said when they wake up from a dream?
nothing...they did nothing ang go nowhere,,,the only thing nasholes sent to the "space" is your imagination...
sad. but …"we didn't go there..." - Buz Aldrin They never left lower Earth orbit. There is proof and strong evidence for this.
ruclips.net/video/4O5dPsu66Kw/видео.html
@@sandmanbeaches565 yet another deluded conspiracy theorist with no evidence whatsoever just seeing what they want to see and ignoring any evidence that refutes their silly ideas.Go get your tinfoil hat on,
In response to a question asking why we didn't go back. Context 1, Sandman 0.
After watching this, I realize how well they did the casting for Hidden Figures. Wow I could have sworn I saw the actors sitting in that room.
It sad that no matter how much anyone tells you it was real, you still won’t believe it…
Why?
Because you have no education and your parents probably never gave you attention.
@@kowen5499 believe what? Believe the moon landing happened? I definitely do! Working on my bachelors degree right now and have very loving parents by the way! 👍
@@dudybug oh I’m so sorry! I though you were saying that they were all actors. Congrats by the way! Once again I’m so sorry.
@@kowen5499 while I'm not a flat earth person ad hominem attacks against them only makes them stronger. I see many round earth believers calling flat earth people stupid, ignorant etc etc. Its Sad that flat earth people are more kind than round earth people.
@@kowen5499 no human being ever past the exo layer of earth where satellites and net-working are present . Let that science you taking sink in. Analogy incoming... We are in a box, investigate whats deep in the box (oceans) then outside the box, you alien.
Thank you NASA, thank you RUclips
What a people! what a story! I am so glad that I can return here and watch it from time to time.
This story will keep you upbeat no matter what you do.
@@scottyboy2400 Ironically, people who take your advice and do the research that you only TALK about actually DO believe in this stuff. You're 12, I get it. It seems like ancient history. But we need to remember it because YOUR generation isn't going to achieve a damned thing. And before you tell me that my generation is causing global warming, let me just agree with that. We f**ked up. WE HAD TOO MANY CHILDREN. You're the problem. But all that aside, what kind of prick attacks a guy who posts a heartwarming comment about how happy watching this video made them feel? Feel good about yourself do you? What a jerk.
@@GeoffInfield this story is bullshit!! nothing to do with that, no matter what you say
@@crowntour4990,
What in the HELL makes you think anybody has to PROVE anything to an idiot like you? What makes you think anybody with an IQ above 50 gives a shit whether or not you believe that the moon landings were real? I am growing bone weary of you silly foil-headed numbskulls, who think, "Da government ALWAYS lies!" How much evidence do you idiots need?? How about the 500 MILLION eyewitnesses (including me), the testimony of the 24 men who actually WENT to the moon, the 450,000+ mathematicians, engineers, scientists, and technicians who made it happen, the 1,400+ Hasselblad 500C, 2 1/4" (70mm) square photos, or the 6,000,000 feet of 16mm film? Do you call ALL of these people LIARS? Did NASA FAKE all of that film? Why in the name of God would they do that, just so some idiots like YOU can claim to be smarter than anybody with the slightest modicum of intelligence?
@CHRIS SAVAGE : so you have located this magical studio that is in vacuum and only 1/6th G? Where is it - on the moon?
@@scottyboy2400 Mr. Spicoli, kindly sit down and shut up.
Welcome to the adult cartoon show.
Tell a lie long enough people will believe the lie.
I really hope your comment is a sarcastic joke and that you are 'pretending' to give an opinion of an idiot, instead of giving an opinion of an actual idiot.
The dust fell back to the ground so fast, for it to be weightless, and no wind..
Name the timestamp?
*for it to be weightless*
Who said it was weightless? You know kiddo that moon has gravitational pull too.
@@tgstudio85 no. he doesnt know that. people just think everything floats in space. idiots
Look let's get this straight.IF and it's a bloody big IF ! A Camera,which is 240,000 miles away from the earth-40 years ago could be remotely controlled with as much skill (camera angles-panning-point of view and focusing) as this then I would have feared for the livelihoods and jobs of ALL outside broadcasting camera men/women and other OB staff .However that hasn't happened.To me,if you believe they were remotely controlled from the earth then you've watched too much Fireball XL5/Space Patrol.
Mr Bazzabee
What would the problem be, to remotely control a Camera via the rovers parabolic antenna and transmitter/receiver? Ed Fendell just pushed the ”tilt up” Button at about T minus 2 Seconds. The distance to the LM was chosen to keep it in frame during the ascent.
It's called planning and simple mathematics.
Love the fireball XL5 reference
If that were so, then nasa would be able to show us a new REAL picture of the earth everyday instead of throwing us an admitted CGI of it! They don't have a camera on the moon and they never have and never will!
If anyone looks deeply into it and still thinks we went to the moon they are blind to say the least!
Good day lad!
@@scottyboy2400 The veracity of the moon landings does not depend on nor does it rely on your acceptance.
who was the photographer on the moon who filmed the landing and take off❓
Landing: Charlie Duke.
Takeoff: Ed Fendell.
Nice, also how does a rocket burn in a vacume? Why did astronauts say they cant make it past the van allen belt. How did they have the fuel to come back? Why wzs there no dust on the pods after firing thruster rockets to land. How did those rockets fire in a vacume? How do guys pop up off the ground at an angle, then there ia a dune buggy throwing sand which falls just like on earth. How did that dune buggy get there, is it a transformer?
@@LarryBrooks-cf9qp
YOU SAID: "Nice, also how does a rocket burn in a vacume?"
== Rocket engines are different than jet engines. A jet brings fuel, and then uses the oxygen in the surrounding air to do the burn. Rockets in a vacuum do not have any oxygen in the surrounding air, because there is no surrounding air. Rockets contain fuel tanks, and oxidizer tanks. Then, the fuel and oxidizer are injected into the engine bell together, where the burn happens, and the high speed expanding hot gasses push the craft. Sometimes the oxidizer is literally liquid oxygen. Other times it's an oxygen rich compound. And, occasionally, it doesn't have oxygen at all, but it called an "oxidizer" because it creates the same chemical reaction as oxygen.
YOU SAID: "Why did astronauts say they cant make it past the van allen belt."
== We don't have a man rated booster big enough to lift a manned craft that high. The last one in operation was the Saturn V, back in the early 1970s. There were two manned variants of the Saturn V, both of those variants sent men to the moon nine times from 1968 to 1972 (landed six of those times). After that, the Saturn V was retired (except for one more launch, Skylab). Until recently, nobody on the planet has even tried to build a rocket that big again. But, the SLS is roughly the same size and capacity, and is in development right now. When it's done, it will send manned (and woman'd) craft to the moon again. But, right now, there is no such rocket booster in existence.
YOU SAID: "How did they have the fuel to come back?"
== Well, you're sure asking a lot about rocket science for a person who doesn't even know how rockets burn. You are obviously asking these questions straight out of a standard conspiracy playbook of dumb things to ask on the internet. But, I'll trust (for now) that you're not dumb, and that you are honestly asking these questions, and not just spewing conspiracy oriented fake questions, with no intent on listening to answers (which most conspiracy nuts do). You have not done anything but ask questions, so I completely respect that. Asking questions is 100% wonderful. Ignoring answers is 100% repulsive. So, yes, I'm on your side here, until you give me reason to believe otherwise. My advice, however, is to actually go try to learn how the science works, and not take your first line of "education" from conspiracy sources (which is quite obviously what you're doing, even if you yourself do not believe in silly conspiracies, you're still obviously taking these questions from conspiracy videos). The conspiracy people do not understand anything about this topic. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zip. Zilch. And, there's a reason why there isn't a single aerospace engineer or rocket scientist anywhere on the planet who ask these questions you're asking, and the questions you're asking are isolated to people who literally know nothing. Anyway, the answer is in thermodynamics. If you boil away all of the mechanics of how rockets work, and just cut straight to the thermodynamics, it's easier to understand. But, I'll assume you don't understand thermodynamics already, because you probably wouldn't ask this question if you did. So, even though it's impossible to teach thermodynamics over RUclips comments, I'll give the super short thermodynamic lesson. The job of the Saturn V booster is to lift 100,000 pounds of payload (command/service module, lunar module, and people) to an altitude of 240,000 miles, with orbital velocity speed around the moon still remaining. That's the energy required to do the job of getting Apollo to the moon. It's a lot of energy. Then the lander does its thing, takes two people down to the surface and back, and connects back with the command/service module to go home. The job of the command/service module is merely to break lunar orbit, with a payload of a few people and rocks. Once they break lunar orbit, they basically just "fall" back to Earth. This doesn't require much energy.
== Or, think of this another way. You need to throw a 100 pound rock to the top of a skyscraper. How much energy will that take you? Then, once you get it to the roof of the skyscraper, you break away half of the rock, leave it behind on the roof, and then simply lift the 50 pound rock over the edge of the skyscraper roof and drop it to the ground. Which took more energy? Lifting/throwing/carrying the 100 pound rock up the skyscraper? Or, tossing the 50 pound rock over the edge and letting it fall back to the ground? Well, that's basically Apollo, in analogy format. The Saturn V had the job of carrying the 100 pound rock to the top of the skyscraper. The service module just needed to lift the 50 pound rock over the guard rail on the roof and drop the rock back home.
== Thermodynamics.
YOU SAID: "Why wzs there no dust on the pods after firing thruster rockets to land."
== Well, once again, you are obviously getting this from conspiracy videos, and not checking for yourself. There was dust on many of the landing pads. The conspiracy videos are dishonest, and only show you ones that didn't have any dust, or very little dust, or at a bad angle to see the dust. But, if you actually looked through the photo archive, rather than listening to conspiracy videos, you'll see plenty of photos showing dust in the landing pads. But, the conspiracy crowd is never honest. Never. They won't show you those, because it kills their fake narrative. But, the short answer for why there wasn't MORE dust than there was, is because there wasn't an atmosphere. On Earth, you might get a lot of dust all over the place when a helicopter lands or something, because there's an atmosphere for a dust cloud to form, swirl around, and fall back onto pads. On the moon, with no atmosphere, dust will just take the same trajectory as a thrown rock (out and away). No dust clouds. No swirling air to linger in, and fall back down. Nope, it just gets blown to the sides, and the only dust you'll get into the pads will be whatever little amount that is there when the engine is still running, and finds a good angle to bounce into the pads. It wasn't a lot, nor should it be a lot. But, yes, if you'd ignore the conspiracy videos, and check for yourself, you'll find dust in many landing pads.
YOU SAID: "How did those rockets fire in a vacume?"
== Didn't you already ask this question?
@@rockethead7 so ed is still there?
@@LarryBrooks-cf9qp
Thanks for proving yourself the idiot you apparently were. I answered your questions. And, all you did was reply with stupidity.
You land on the moon apparently, but your too tired to explore so you go to sleep. Thunderbirds is more realistic
What would make landing on the Moon during the Apollo missions not possible? Facts only please, thanks!
A) Thanks for demonstrating the universal truth that every hoax nut has the reading and writing skills of a 2nd grader.
B) They brought sleeping pills on the missions, dewdrop.
C) Apollo 16's landing was greatly delayed by a problem with the SPS engine on the service module. They nearly had to abort. And, as a result of the delays, they landed around 7 hours later than they expected. Yes, they slept instead of explored.
I loved what the final words of the Command Pilot said about America’s success!!
Quite cute. Adults believing in fairy tales. Hollywood movies look even more realistic nowadays.
You should not be asking if we went to the moon but why there was more than one reason.
The Dukes of Hazard on the moon.
Boss Hog on the moon, the lunar boars nest!
Daisy was left....
Well, there was one Duke on the moon, Charlie Duke.
Drew Thompson Good joke
@@drewthompson7457 you are the douche of hazard
Just imagine, we see so many stars from Earth and there you all are in space on the Moon, and we can't even see one star, this is worse than a low budget movie.
Astronauts landed on the Moon in 1969, so much has evolved since then, I think by now NASA should be shuttling people to the moon and back for site visits.
Might I suggest learning how a camera works - you'll know why stars are not noticeable in footage like this
Did you bother to watch the video before commenting? They show you the specialized camera they used to capture 125 images of the stars, and even showed some of those star photos. Yet, you're sitting there saying "not one star" is shown? All this demonstrates is that you don't know anything, and never lifted a finger to even find out, nor even watch the video.
As for what NASA should be doing to shuttle people to the moon and back, ok, whose fault is that? Do you think NASA wanted to retire the Apollo program? Do you think they never wanted to go back? You are aware that congress decides those things, not NASA, right? Or, have you never lifted a finger to understand how NASA's funding works, just as you've never lifted a finger to look at the photos of the stars that you don't think exist?
They didnt show the stars because star positioning can be easily caught
@@AshutoshSrivastavaTimetraveler ehh, what ?