Yes, no need to make messes up there

The moon is very sensitive

@@HistoryShell1786 Elon Musk has been sending capsules full of millionaires' crap up there fir a while. It's to preserve their treasured items. One woman sent up a capsule full of lipsticks. Entitled cretins.

Not the astronauts, they littered plenty, least put poop in bags.

Dewdrop, the surface layer of dust will leave footprints, and will be blown by rocket blast. However, underneath the first inch or two is a layer of much more compacted regolith and rock. And, they didn't easily put the flag pole into it either. It took a lot of effort.

People who think Kubrick faked the Moon landings know as little about Kubrick as they do about the Moon.

@@paulbeardsley4095 exactly. He'd have demanded to film on location.

@Practical Skeptic Yeah, why trust the evidence?

@@paulbeardsley4095 Actually, NASA did fake the moon landings, with Kubrick's help. The only problem was that Kubrick was such a nit picky stickler for detail that he insisted on faking the moon landings right on location in the Sea of Tranquility, the Ocean of Storms, the Valley of Taurus Littrow...

@@michaelwhalen5058 Yeah, I think your heart is in the right place, but this joke is so old and overdelivered now.

Brie, or Swiss?

Swiss of course; the lander would have sunk into Brie (also explains the craters)

American. What else would it be made of? :-)

Well, it certainly isn't pepperjack!

then why didn't they land on a puddle of delicious melted cheese eh ?? touche moonlandist

The low atmosphere on the moon results in a low moisture content milk (from when the cow jumped over the moon) meaning the Moon is actually made from Halloumi cheese and doesn't melt.

Don't you guys know anything???? Green cheese dosn't melt like your liquefied soft cheeses. It tends to crumble. Moreover the better green moon cheeses have a much higher boiling point. Im surprised she didn't mention that.

Many people through out the years have mentioned that the moon was made of cheese. This has been mostly a myth however the truth is that just the interior is made of cheese the surface is made of a milky type substance. Neil Diamond when he landed on the moon sang us a song about how good it tasted. You have heard of moon pies, right? Now you know everything science has learned. In order to learn more we have to go again to the moon again but NASA has lost all the data tapes and pictures so we'd just be doing it all over again from scratch. Nobody likes to do work over again and only get credit for doing it once. One great singer, Frank Sanatra sang a song that went like this, "Fly me to the moon and let me play among the stars. Let me see what things are like on Jupiter and Mars." No one at NASA ever let Frank go to the moon, why? It's hard to say, maybe because of his age or maybe because he drank too much. You can't be drunk and be an astronaut, that place is taken by Buzz. In fact that is how he got his name, Buzz, get it. It took me a while too but I laughed and laughed pretty damned funny isn't it. No much is funny about the moon unless you are talking about the moon car and why even the astronauts The rest of the facts about the moon and astrophysics can be found out by googling Jake the Flat Earth Asshole, He puts out great videos that will aid your search greatly. Good luck and never let a good lie lay.

Speaking of fakes; Buzz Aldrin was a fictional character. He was named after Mr Lightyear from the Disney films. Im no jeanyus but I figured that one out right away.

No, you are wrong, Buzz got his nick name because he was an alcoholic.

Thrust is based on pounds or Newtons. Force. They are calculating the 3000 lb thrust for the moon. The engine wasn't powerful enough to lift the module on earth. So it was never tested.

The thrust of the engine would be independent of the strength of gravity, but the apparent thrust, or the thrust relative to the force of gravity, experienced by an astronaut would be different if the engine was being used on earth from being used on the moon.

I think she was trying to illustrate that the engines only needed 3000lbs of thrust because the LEM weighed less than 3000 lbs on the moon. Thrust is independent of Gravity but, Gravity will determine how much ( or how little ) thrust you'll need.

@@jasonsmith8210 The Lunar escape engine was never tested, either. It was a one shot rocket. The exhaust was so corrosive that, once you turned it off, it wouldn't turn back on. They didn't even know if it would work at all because, they couldn't test it to see if it worked without having to completely rebuild it.

@@Thumper770 3000 pounds during the touch down? A leaf blower has 5 pounds of thrust. So if you point 600 leaf blowers on sand nothing is gonna happen?

What's really amusing is that there literally isn't an alternative narrative.

@@paulbeardsley4095 This is a hardware invented for only one software

Lol you just got a sub. I don't care if you make videos, that comment, I'll never forget. 😆 take care good luck

It’s not, there were several other moon landings so by your logic the US government decided to fake several more moon landings for no reason

There sure a LOT of reaction to debunk "crazy no science nonsense...." CTs :) Many have said engine shut before landing so still dust, false 5 seconds after.

Welcome to the new age of spaceflight. Humanity's pushing for it once again!

To Bad it was all total Bullshit...

@@TheRoguelement exactly, this vile lying shill of a woman in the OP video is just one of their kind. Someone who values money over people, and surely loves it vastly more than honesty. Masonic lucifarians almost exclusively comprise the teams of these ACTORS doing the dastardly. They have been telling lies for multiple decades now and these SCUM that think we are too silly to be able to debunk that amount of lies are absolutely exactly what they accuse others of. Like over the course of my lifetime so far I have managed to debunk about 1000 lies in the mass/alt media...yet little super shills like the greedmonger in the OP video have yet to even debunk ONE since they were born....how's that for apt? We went to the same types of schools, yet ONE of us was intelligent, knowing there are MOUNDS of liars on the planet (CRUMB I used this word UY that bothers me AS I KNOW that word SUX and this is THE EARTH yet see how even after YEARS of knowing the truth the childhood programming SUX) and so therefore there must be LOTS of lies that these narcissistic types are spreading...so I set about learning the truth...also it's like knocking a domino over...if they LIE about something simple like that for ZERO reason, then you KNOW they are surely going to lie about stuff that matters. It is just part of their make-up...I believe (could be off some) that about 50% of people are pretty much evil (liars) and 50% are pretty much good (truth tellers)...yet these asinine people seem to think that everyone who works at nasa OR the mass/alt media is just super honest and their friend...more interested in TRUTH than they are about earning their grubby paycheck from their globalist (mindset) corporation...yeah those globalist b-ches are real peaches, hahah! (jk)

@@TheRoguelement @Michael Laverty exactly, this vile lying shill of a woman in the OP video is just one of their kind. Someone who values money over people, and surely loves it vastly more than honesty. Masonic lucifarians almost exclusively comprise the teams of these ACTORS doing the dastardly. They have been telling lies for multiple decades now and these SCUM that think we are too silly to be able to debunk that amount of lies are absolutely exactly what they accuse others of. Like over the course of my lifetime so far I have managed to debunk about 1000 lies in the mass/alt media...yet little super shills like the greedmonger in the OP video have yet to even debunk ONE since they were born....how's that for apt? We went to the same types of schools, yet ONE of us was intelligent, knowing there are MOUNDS of liars on the planet and so therefore there must be LOTS of lies that these narcissistic types are spreading...so I set about learning the truth...also it's like knocking a domino over...if they LIE about something simple like that for ZERO reason, then you KNOW they are surely going to lie about stuff that matters. It is just part of their make-up...I believe (could be off some) that about 50% of people are pretty much evil (liars) and 50% are pretty much good (truth tellers)...yet these asinine people seem to think that everyone who works at nasa OR the mass/alt media is just super honest and their friend...more interested in TRUTH than they are about earning their grubby paycheck from their globalist (mindset) corporation...yeah those globalist b-ches are real peaches, hahah! (jk)

I'm a geek, I love space and all things nerdy. I love Star Trek and the idea of exploration, but unfortunately going to the moon in 69' was bull excrement, an IQ test to separate the sheep.

When calculating trust, the force of gravity is factored in. The force is actually in Newtons, which are the same anywhere, but you multiply it by the local force of gravity to translate that into pounds. Pounds tend to be easy for people to picture in their minds, so that's why it's used.

But the engine doesn't care if you measure it in "Earth-Pounds" when you are on Earth or "Moon-Pounds" when you are on moon. It will always produce the same amount of thrust.

The same amount of thrust in Newtons, yes. But a pound on earth is 1/6th pound on the moon

Ok, you're right with that one of course. However it doesn't explain why an engine firing with the same force into the ground should produce a smaller crater, because the gravity is lower.

I think I made a mistake. Newtons is also a measurement of weight

LOL..my thoughts exactly, I knew I couldn't be the only one asking that question amongst our selves..this whole bullshit story is actually very concerning (not just this blast crater horse-shit, but all of it or even just any of it ), how is it believed by so many people ??? They really need to get some help..ASAP

The unused fuel in the descent stage was vented prior to the ascent stage lifting off. The two sources of fuel in the ascent stage (main thrust and RCS) were transferrable both ways (and transferred both ways on various missions).

Vented. And that's why the flag waves may deniers rest in piece of shit.

Yes

+darkjedi351 haha that's actually not a bad one

How about the one where the moon is a hologram. That's probably my favorite one. It doesn't involve landing but if you believe the moons a hologram you'd have to also believe we never went there.

billy mccabe Holographic LEMs!

It was the sixties after all :-)

TurboCMinusMinus No, it most certainly is not.

Sucktion. The 'pressure' in u r butt is actually sucktion.

beans?

Why can you see footprints but not rocket thrust crater? Why is there no dust on lander pads? Too much BS in explanation!

Dennis Burke There is a rocket thrust crater under my chair!!!!

because you blasted a lot more than 3000lbs of thrust...

YOU SAID: "The LEM only had 43 seconds of fuel on board." == Where would you get such a stupid idea? YOU SAID: "How many tries did it take them plus the return lift off?" == Each landing took one try.

Hi White There were two separate engines on the Lunar Lander. The descent engine and the ascent engine. The descent engine got them to the surface and that was all she wrote; never used again. The ascent engine used the descent stage as a launching pad. This is why the complete craft is so tall -- it's really two separate spaceships. Neil Armstrong manually took control of the landing from the computer, because the computer didn't know about the enormous boulder-field it had been programed to land them in. In flying beyond it, he used an enormous amount of fuel reserve, so when he finally touched down, they only had about 40 seconds of fuel left. But the ascent engines were still full.

that is a good one, never hear of one before X-D

Nice one. He wanted Neil to say, "One small step for man, one giant leap for Johnny".

That's like the David Wright joke about the guy who came home and was freaked out because all of his furniture was removed and a duplicate set was replaced exactly like it was before.

Steven Wright you mean? "I got pulled over for speeding once and the cop asked me why I was going 80mph and I said, I didn't want to be out that long." That guy?

LOL. Yep, Steven Wright. He was a funny dude. Weird jokes, right up my alley. He said; "You know that feeling you get when you tip over on the back of your chair and catch yourself before you fall? Well, I feel that way all the time."

Lol yeah and 2019 we all died . Opps another KNOWN HOAX

Well there exist really only one reality, the truth wow what a stupid girl. This is really the most stupid explain away I ever heard The film showed they used trust. It gives no meaning at all, the dust is also 6 times lighter and the kinetic energy is the same as on earth.

Mass is the important thing, the mass is the same always! Amy Shira Teitel is far from stupid!

That about covered it. :)

***** People see what they wanne see, purely led by the emotional. There's reasoning utterly reflect that.

Like she said it should disturb the dust. So why can't I see that ?

If you want to believe that the landing was faked, you’ll start to see “suspicious” things.

thats because we didnt...

@@bennybooboobear3940 thats because your eyes are open and you can judge for yourself.

@@maxpower9848 🤣

This comment section is cringe in a nutshell

Because they walked

Because they still have weight on the moon witch it just enough to leave footprints on the moon (also there life support suits are *Very* heavy)

Exactly. Apparently according to this bozo lady, an astronaut walking can leave a footprint but 3000 pounds of thrust-according to her, is not enough to disturb the ground LOL

​@Tony Yes, Nasa leaves blues clues for us deliberately.

@@Tony-uy2bd It is like being in a very very bad film screening. Better you leave your seat and go to the exit. Moonlanding is one of the worst horror stories. I don't understand, how anyone can believe in this shit nowadays. It is like brainwashing or gaslighting.

you know he conning ya?

00Billy No he us being legit he actually thinks that

Silas Mayes okay ... when you say US.... you mean humans landing on the moon...or just any thing. Things have made it to the moon from usa missions...ie the laser reflector. But, it doesnt necessarily prove usa humans made it there.

You can't be serious!

This is a *science* teacher?

Hah wrong video. Been going through theses too fast 😂

Great points, although one addition. The LM descent engine was throttled down to less than 30%, so the F-35's engine actually pushes at more than 10x what the descent engine was running at. And as you said, even that engine doesn't gouge holes, and it has the advantage of trying to do so in an atmosphere, which keeps the exhaust contained in a column. The LM engine didn't have that. It's a pity that the deniers don't understand what you wrote, but then again if they did they wouldn't be deniers.

​@@critthought2866lmao, you've missed something that proves you wrong😂😂😂😂

Ever seen a helicopter land in a dusty field? Now multiply that by about 2,000. Damn you guys pretending to be smart...😂😂😂😂

@@jaybird4756 Oh please, do explain what I missed. Why would you multiply that by 2000? Do you think a helicopter's downwash has 2000 times the force of an F-35 or the LM descent engine? If so, I'd love to see your calculations on that. And see if you can do it without the emojis. They make you look like an idiot.

Yeah, but that's the typical "science" of hoaxers. They don't understand it, therefore it could not have happened. Instead of looking into how they made it work, hoaxers would rather remain ignorant. It's easier on them.

That's like proving that the Saturn V couldn't take man to the moon by strapping a bunch of skyrockets to a chair and setting them off and having it not make it to the moon. PROOF!

+USWaterRockets Exactly. I'm dealing with an idiot right now who doesn't understand Newton's third law, therefore rockets can't work in space! Ugh.

The reason spacewalks are done in pure oxygen at 5.8 psi is because of the *bending* of the glove. Mike Massimino has talked of how just manipulating tools was like working a hand exerciser.

Robert Destree Been there, done that. No air to press on so the rocket won't work. Arrgh! That's so frustrating!

To answer the question of the Van Allen belt radiation; the trajectory of the Apollo spacecraft took it through the thinnest parts of the belts, the astronauts didn't stay within the belts long enough to sustain permanent damage to their bodies kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mLKkmrZjxNfcep8.html As for the dust, the LM landed at an angle that blew dust away from it; and, since the Moon's gravity is 1/6 of Earth's gravity, there wouldn't be enough dust left in the area to be visible to the naked eye.

@@AndrewSmoot then why is the surface undisturbed, but the footprints are so we'll defined with no lubricant to hold the form. If you watch the first 12 seconds of this video she nails it. The rest is Amway sales.

@@chriscrocker6783 YOU SAID: "then why is the surface undisturbed" == Pffttt. Who said it's undisturbed? Other people who know just as little as you? Here, take a look at this photo as an example: www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5921HR.jpg Notice anything? The 1-2 inch dust layer is virtually gone. All that remains is the layer of compacted regolith and rock underneath. You see radial striations. OBVIOUSLY "disturbed." But, some internet dummies said the surface wasn't disturbed, so that's what you went with. You never verified this for yourself. YOU SAID: "but the footprints are so we'll defined with no lubricant to hold the form." Pffftttt. The conspiratards love to compare lunar dust to beach sand, expecting the same behavior, that dry sand won't form crisp footprints, but lunar dust does, therefore the moon photos are faked, and/or they think there should be a wet substance to help hold the sand together. But, the lunar dust isn't beach sand. It's not the same thing at all. Here's an example of lunar dust: factsc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Lunar-Dust-Under-Microscope.jpg It's very jagged and has lots of angles and stuff sticking out, very easy to catch together with other pieces of lunar dust (especially in 1/6th gravity), and is able to hold its shape. Here's an example of beach sand: static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/11/10/16/Seychelles%20caramel_0.jpg Millions of years of the churning of ocean surf smooths the edges of the beach sand, so they are far smoother than moon dust. Beach sand cannot hold a footprint shape very easily. It's too smooth. The Soviets even sent unmanned probes to the moon that scooped up some lunar dust and brought it back to Earth. Guess what; same exact properties as the Apollo samples. See, this is the problem with you conspiratards: you think you have all of these "gotcha" moments. But, not a single one of you knows what you're talking about. You're completely ignorant of the sciences that you're blindly rejecting. And, in amazing irony, you people always assert that OTHERS are not skeptical enough. Meanwhile, you'll swallow every stupid claim that supports your delusion, with no scrutiny whatsoever. Who's the gullible one here? Who's the one who isn't skeptical enough? You blindly swallowed these dumb concepts that the lunar dust wasn't disturbed under the landers, and that the lunar dust should behave like beach sand. Both of those concepts are easily dismissed by just a few moments of scrutiny. But, if the conspiratards' claims support your delusion, you don't scrutinize them at all. You blindly accept them as "fact," no matter how wrong they are. No, dummy, we're not the ones who lack skepticism. You are.

@@chriscrocker6783 is 1/6 of earths gravity, even with that reduced gravity, the LM still weighs thousands of pounds, which would press into the Lunar surface, and compact the Lunar Dust enough to leave footprints. The Lunar surface seems "undistrubed" because the LMs landing blew away any of the loose dust particles leaving a compacted surface that, aside from the LM's footprints, wouldn't show any disturbance from the LMs landing.

@@AndrewSmoot you know you and this attention seeker nailed it in your first statements. There is no blast crater under the rocket exhaust. It's undisturbed. Geeze dude eave the crack alone.

LMactans Maybe the legs aren't covered in dust because most of the dust was already blasted away from the landing site? On the moon, where there's no atmosphere to suspend it, dust flys in a ballistic arc just like any large rock.

By using a rocket.

rockethead7 he is probably one of those that think Newton second law of motion magically stops working in space;)

We have real relic of the cross here, you think we should exhibit it more often?

It was by collecting all the bits of the cross that Noah was able to build the ark.

You would think by now they would have tourist trips around the moon, but they don't. Amazing how we did it 60 years ago with 1/32 of the technology we have now, but still no tourist trips around the moon.

Wouldn't Noah have been able to build two arks with all the bits from the cross?

" 50 " years ago and, I don't know, say £5 billion for the trip. May go wrong ( Apollo 13 ) etc. etc. That's why we're not doing it. And that's a late 60's £5 billion ! " Why don't we go back ? " I'm sorry but what a fucking stupid counter - reason to fill your conspiracy colostomy bag with !

Nasa has Armstrong on tabe saying "touchdown , engine off " Shows engine running right up to and inc touchdown .

@@noviceangler8084 yea, cause he has to deal with the guidance computer malfunctioning, he landed it by hand

They never even tested it on earth. Their lighter mockup kept crashing on earth.

@@jasonsmith8210 they didn't fly it on earth dipshit, it weighed 33000 lbs and the engine put out 10000, they did in fact fire the engine on earth, it just didn't fly, if you're referring to the Flying bedstead then you will be amazed at the fact that that was not the lunar lander

@@dylansynowic2829 that's what I just said. And stop calling people names.

It was one of the first things Neil Armstrong noticed after stepping on the lunar surface. Why not just add the blast crater if your going to fake it? Same thing with all of the manned lunar flights.

The dust layer was 1-2 inches thick in most areas. It varied, of course. Below the dust layer, the compacted regolith and rock layer is about 15-20 feet.

Armstrong didn't cut the engine until actual touchdown. He was supposed to cut off the engine 5 feet above the surface, but didn't.

I'd appreciate it if you could provide us with some written data on that. Maybe a NASA certified transcript. Or a video of Neil or Buzz saying so. I admit that when you hear Aldrin say "Contact light" it takes a second or two for Armstrong to confirm engine stop, but that doesn't prove anything. Neil could have simply delayed his confirmation that the engine was shut down. Or, the engine was indeed cut off a second after confirmation of light making it 5 ft. Or, Armstrong was "hovering" at the contact light level for a second or so before he cut off the power.

Neil Armstrong has said that he left the engine on all the way to touchdown. Also, in a lot of these videos, there are a couple of other guys who post a lot, who had posted the exact engine shutoff time for each mission (how long before or after touchdown), and the source of that data. Now, the problem is that I've watched so many interviews... it's doubtful that I'd remember which one(s) of those interviews included those comments. But, I'm pretty sure it didn't come from any time I've spoken to the astronauts myself, so yeah, it's probably in videos that you can find online. And, well, scrolling back through the comments to find the exact comments about that... yeah... that will take a while. But, for grins, I just googled the phrase "neil armstrong left engine running until touchdown," and a few entries down on the list, you can find the quoted words, "As we approached the ground, I still had a left translational rate which made me reluctant to shut the engine off,' Neil Armstrong is quoted as saying in the annotations to the radio report. `We actually had the engine running until touchdown."" You might try to dive into that. This was the first time I've seen that quote... my knowledge of this came from elsewhere... but it's a nice source to answer your question, maybe?

Also, by the way, side note, it's pretty unlikely that they'd hover after the contact light. I mean, ok, it's possible. But, keep in mind, the throttle didn't work the way most people think. It was really just a selection of how fast you want to descend, in feet per second increments. If you're coming down at 10 feet per second, you click 3 times, and it lowers your descent rate to 7 feet per second. Click 5 more times, and the computer lowers your descent rate to 2 feet per second. They didn't use a throttle lever like an airplane. You told the computer what descent rate you wanted, and it did the calculations, because with the fuel draining so quickly (lightening the load every second), and in 1/6th gravity, it would be really easy to accidentally ascend instead of descend. So, instead, they built the system so that you told the computer what descent rate you wanted, and it did the calculations for what exact throttle should be used for the remaining weight. If I remember correctly, the LEM burned 18,000 pounds of fuel on descent (double check this, please). So, a throttle position of [whatever] would have a dramatically different effect every second that went by. So, they computerized that part. Bottom line: it's pretty doubtful that Armstrong would put the thing back into "hover" (0 feet per second descent rate) after the contact light was on. Not that it wasn't possible. I just don't think so, and the video doesn't support that idea either.

Rockethead7: I find this an interesting topic because it involves one of the most, if not the most momentous accomplishment by human beings. It's amazing to watch and listen to the Apollo 11 audio and video. It never gets tiring. I just want to know more about the details of the last minute before touchdown. If you state you've seen or heard videos where Armstrong or Aldrin stated they kept the power on until or almost until touchdown, I have no way to argue with you. That is why I wanted to see something that describes the event. I've heard that Armstrong touched down so softly the legs on the LEM did not fully compress thus making the last step on the ladder to the surface extra high. Maybe that's because he touched down with power. NASA didn't want that because they were afraid the thrust plumb might reverse back up into the engine and cause problems. Also, it was widely assumed there were about 17 seconds of fuel remaining after touchdown of the Apollo 11 LEM. I heard later that NASA recalculated the amount of fuel and determined there were about 40 something seconds left. To this day I still don't know because I see conflicting answers. Many people will say "who cares"? Well, I do as a matter of history and space science and as one of the millions of young kids back in the day who wanted to become astronauts. As far as the hovering issue, it's not that far out. When Armstrong took over part of the autopilot system and manually flew over the crater and boulder field, his flight path actually took the LM from a descent to level flight to a slight climb before he began to descend again. So it wouldn't be a far stretch for him to have hovered for a second or two just after Aldrin called "contact Light". But I have no proof for this at all and I don't want to start a rumor. I'd really like to see a reference to the video where Armstrong describes the final touchdown. I'm going to try to find it. My hope is someone will direct and describe how high the LEM was when the engine was cut off or how much fuel was really left in the tanks after touchdown. If I come across any evidence, I'll be sure to post it here. I hope you will do the same. Be well.

The Earth is not the moon. In the day here, the sky is blue due to difusion. How is it that in a black sky above the moon there is no light? Isnt light opposite of darkness. You believe, I don't . The moon landing requires faith. I only have fatih in one, that's Jesus, and He tells me it will take faith. I need facts for the moon landings, not a TV broadcast.

@@barcoxx "The moon landing requires faith." No, it doesn't require faith, it requires understanding.

@@paulbeardsley4095 I understand that light is the opposite of darkness, and if I cannot see fireballs in the darkness, and you can explain it away, then I'm not stupid, you have left science, and are selling a religion. Admit it.

@@paulbeardsley4095 there are billions of stars (fireballs) there are planets, how convenient that we cannot see ONE of anything on the atmosphere-less moon. Keep "believing".

@@barcoxx Well to start with you need to work on your English. Get back to me when you've learned to express yourself coherently. That might take some time.

Play KSP with the Real Solar System mod.

What's KSP ?

+Schizophrenic Enthusiast Kerbal Space Program

trekky0623 Just checked it out.. looks really cool

+trekky0623 Okay I started playing it and I have to say I got addicted real quick

This chick has no clue what she is talking about... she getting her crap from proven liars like Jay Windley and Phil Plait

Every one of her videos is crap

Epi Endless: Wow, that explanation is probably the best one I've seen for how/why her statements are so confusing about that particular comment. I'm embarrassed that I never thought of that reason.

@@xismxist, ok, this means you know everything right, so tell me how Jay Windley and Phil Plait know about antimatter and it 's interaction with matter. tell me why do we exist at all as in empty space there are many matters and antimatter particles annihilating with each other releasing energy and still getting the amount of mass in space and the charge of space to be zero , I am simply asking why do we exist? if you cant answer that that all you say is crap and nobody should believe you.

Pounds is not mass. It's force. Another measurement for Newtons.

In a vacuum, most dust will just blow outward. There's no air for dust to swirl around, linger, and fall back down. The dust particles in a vacuum will just follow the same trajectory as any rock you'd throw. Very little dust can shoot straight up into the downward rocket exhaust and find its way onto a landing pad. But, yes, some does. www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS14/66/09234.jpg tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS16/processed/AS16-107-17441.png tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS16/processed/AS16-107-17442.png tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS17/processed/AS17-134-20388.png www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/47/6904.jpg www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/47/6905.jpg www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS14/66/09269.jpg tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS11/processed/AS11-40-5917.png tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS11/processed/AS11-40-5925.png www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5926.jpg tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS11/processed/AS11-40-5918.png www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS14/66/09235.jpg

@@rockethead7 Ah ya, of course. Wasnt thinking clearly. Ty

IcantSee It was blown past them.

Correct - in a vacuum the dust'd be moving at exhaust velocity - maybe 10,000 ft per second - it's for sure not going to be billowing up around the landing pads.

Look more closely. There is a dusted patch under the lander. The engine was shutdown 6 to 10 ft before the pads touched down.

Gas is matter, imagine shoot a rock 1km above to the moon surface rock diameter 10 cm ,imagine a molecule of rocket gas does the same

@lalybum They all have a little. Who cares?

Great rack too.

+Michael Witkowski I like that her clear voice and fast paced voice keeps me from spacing out. And the shortness of the video; on audio, on radio, there's the radio StarDate and Earth&Sky. Anyone who can read this can find it, or else contact me.

"sexy" is also what's between the ears :)

Wouldn't the dust stay suspended longer on the moon because their is little gravity to bring it back down? The lunar rover kicks up plenty of dust when it is moving around.I would imagine just a small rocket blast would have sent clouds of dust into the air. On another note who did the video of the module departing?

Yes. considering gravity alone, lower gravity would mean that dust would get kicked up farther and be slower to come back down. But the lack of atmosphere means that even the smallest speck of dust would come back down at the same rate as a giant boulder. Even if one kicked dust up 100 meters (330 feet) it would all be back on the surface about 22 seconds after getting kicked up. Getting prepped to get out of the lander would give plenty of time for any dust kicked up by the landing to fall back to the lunar surface.

I agree turbo, a small blast would send copious amounts of dust into the air and it would stay suspended for some time.I have studied this moon landing issue for years , I don't think it is possible today let alone in 1969.

interman 77 Again, there is no "air" for the particles to be suspended in. Anything kicked up by the blast would follow a simple parabolic trajectory up then down again. A dust particle massing 1 microgram would fall back to the surface just as fast as a boulder massing 1 trillion times as much (1000 kg).

+Jqbogus I was using "air" as a figure of speach ,the miniscule gravity would cause everything to be suspended longer is what I meant.

Attempt in 1969, landed in 1970

+Adamast I assume that you are referring to the video posted of Ron Howard which is an except from a COMEDY show..

Peter Loftus No, I had the Lunokhod programme in mind but there is Luna 9 before that.

Yes, I meant a Soviet manned moon mission.

There have been no Soviet manned moon landings, however the first man made object to land on the moon was the Soviet Luna2 Spacecraft in 1959. Several unmanned landings have been made by Russia, America and China. Only America has put men on the moon in the years 1969-1972

You can if you like, the rest of the world uses pounds for thrust.

Then we are good :)

aqueousone Yep, In my opinion there is one; it is just not deep due to the low thrust and low pressure of the exhaust plume. And it is not circular due to a small amount of sideways motion, so not symmetrical. It can be a little hard to spot. But the tin foil hat brigade want something that looks like Meteor Crater in Arizona.

StJohns River66 I am not sure how either of those separately or together proves anything to be a fake. A little more explanation may be required. Either that or it is a poor troll.

actually there is a rather OBVIOUS craters and if you actually pay attention even a slight bit of trenching to the crater. But an ignorant tinfoil wearing true believer like you can't deal with facts so...in your own parlance. "U DUM FUK IS REAL". sincerely, someone way smarter than you.

+1978ajax Let us be honest, the primary problem with StJohns River66's argument is he (?) starts with a bad assumption. And as we know, assumption is the mother of all F@#k ups. StJohn assumes that dust will behave the same on the Moon as it does on Earth. However the Earth has an atmosphere and the Moon does not. On the Earth one would expect that the dust would be kicked up, the atmosphere would slow it down. The dust would be suspended in the air near the landing for seconds to hours and the wind would blow it onto the pads. On the Moon, when the dust is kicked up, it is thrown away from the lander in projectile motion. There is no air to slow it down and it will settle at a distance from the lander. There will be no dust to settle on the pads. So StJohns River'66's argument comes down to "The dust on the moon did not act the same way it would on Earth, therefore this is absolute proof that this was been done of Earth". To you and me, this is a nonsensical argument and is actually further proof that humans landed on the Moon. But to StJohns, who appears to be incapable of critical reasoning or rational thought, this is absolute proof that the Moon landings were faked. Either that or he is a poor troll.

daffidavit Good observation about the rocket exhaust plume in the upper atmosphere. The Jack of Realms That's about 1 pound per square inch of thrust. Rockets thrust by fuel gases pushing off the inside of the rocket, not involving anything outside the rocket. There is _no need_ to push off the vacuum, since the fuel gases have already done the pushing _before_ they even leave the rocket.

all of those foot prints they show you right around the lem in dust that looks to be about 4-5 inches thick it would have produced a lot of dust which would and should have fallen on the landing pads which where dustless from the moon dust which they say drove them crazy because it stuck to everything.

@@theonewiththeeyeoftruth884 are you a crack baby?

The thrust of the LM engine is a 3000lb spread over several hundred square feet not inches. The engine shut down 10 feet above the lunar surface (if you look at the landing footage you can see the probe rods shadows below the landers pads). The forces involved were like a one foot drop on earth cushioned by the struts compressing. The gas forces were about on a par with a sneeze at the surface. The designers were expecting a much softer surface with the engine bell possibly hitting the surface. (Hence the separate ascent stage).

@@allangibson8494 that's completely ridiculous. The lamest stupidest defense of an already proven to be faked perpetuation of total bullshit I've ever heard. A fucking SNEEZE. REALLY YOU MORON? The astro-nots boots kicked up dust, but this sorry ridiculous contraption made out of duct tape and curtain rods doesn't? You try to sound intelligent as you regurgitate some NASA nonsense you saw on TV and read in some NASA textbook. LMAO. No one has landed on the moon and no one ever will because it's IMPOSSIBLE. A fucking sneeze. Wtf?

the moon's vacuum would result in a wider blast crater but a crater none the less would still be made - where is it?

***** there is no blast crater visible or fluid marks in any of the Apollo photographs as per the title of this video - stop making things up

Thrust is plenty to displace dust on alleged moon landing, we can see the consistency of dust from their boot prints in the dust right next to tinfoil covered landing gear, we could see dust being easily kicked up from them walking, and kicked up from rover. "didn't make massive creator" It didn't make ANY displacement of dust. Thrust should at least blow dust on tinfoil. So, this video DOSE NOT explain away anything.

Prove it

And why isn’t the 10,000lb module leaving an impression in the dust? It didn’t sink in at all yet footprints from the astronauts are all around. So funny

@@hurpaderpp don't forget the paper thin aluminum and Milar that was airtight in a complete vacuum 🤔🤦‍♂️🤣

@@hurpaderpp A) because it's only 1600lb in the moons gravity B) there were 4 large landing pads (about the size of 20 boot prints) dissipating 400lb equally C) each landing pad had a probe which indicated contact prior to touchdown which further dissipated impact force. D) Lunar regolith only goes down a certain amount prior to bedrock. E) They did leave a significant imprint in the regolith - This once again proves to me that people who don't think we landed on the moon, know next to nothing about the moon landings.

@@michaeljamieson3582 so nearly weightless astronauts left footprints but a massive lander didn't? makes no sense

@@hurpaderpp They did leave an imprint, maybe not as significant as you would expect, but significant in 1/6 gravity. There is an inch or two of lunar dust and then a more sturdy regolith underneath that. So the landing pads made significant imprints in that top layer (which is easily found with a quick google search) but were supported quite well by the harder regolith beneath. You'll also note the contact probes dig right into the top layer, which absorbed most of the impact. You can find a million videos debunking all of these conspiracy myths, you're looking for something that just isn't there. EDIT: Also take into account the landing pads were concave at the base. Quite visible here with the landing probes (11aaEagle.jpg (1600×1472) (bp.blogspot.com))

You're right. Pound is actually a misleading unit for thrust. In earth gravity, a piece of matter with the mass of 1 pound (or more exactly 0,453 kg) exerts the the force of 4,45 Newton. So 3000 pounds of thrust equal to 13350 Newton of force... wherever you are.

+alexf76 has it right. Thrust is completely independent of gravity. 3K pounds of thrust is 3K pounds of thrust on the moon or on Jupiter.

I stopped listening as soon as she said this bit...Clearly her or the researcher behind this don't have much of an idea of physics. If they can make a statement as dumb as this and not notice then it throws the whole video into disrepute. As other replies have said thrust is thrust regardless of other forces. Its not helped by them using "pounds" which is a bit of a vague unit, Would have been better to use the correct newtons figure, Its possible they didn't as most Americans understand stuff in pounds, In this case its hard to tell weather the units used simply caused confusion between pounds in weight and pounds of thrust, or if the units were used to confuse other people when giving out this bogus bit of information.

If anything, the force of those 3000 pounds of thrust would have a 6 times higher effect on the moon, than it would on earth.

Don't they actually mean pounds per square inch, said in short "pounds" ? lb/in^2 is a unit of pressure and depending on how big the surface on which the thrust is applied, you can figure out the magnitude of the exerted force.

I saw plenty of dust getting blown from under the lunar module as it touched down. What video were you watching? (link it here)

assault and battery Um... you are aware that there were multiple cameras mounted on the exterior of the module on _all_ of the moon landings, right? You do know that, right?

assault and battery Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were one of those moon landing conspiracy fruitcakes. Here's the definitive _PROOF_ that your radiation objection is complete crap: www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm It contains _ALL_ the math that actually demonstrates the invalidity of the "Moon Landing Conspiracy Nut-job 'Van Allen Radiation' Objection". Now, I don't for one second think that you will actually look at, let alone come close to understanding, the math or any of the rest of the information in this document nor will you even consider that you could be wrong. That's the hallmark of a conspiracy fruit loop. Then, there's your problem of there being so much information out on the Internet that debunks all these whack-job conspiracies that anyone who _honestly_ wants to know the truth about the moon landings literally can't avoid seeing them. So, the only option left to the conspiracy dumbass is to completely ignore all of it. . *The moon landings happened, deal with it, get over yourself.* . As I do not entertain the fantasies of conspiracy freaks, these are my last words in response to you on this subject. Thanks for playing and have a great day.

You do understand that multiple other countries confirmed these missions both at the time and since then, right? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings Radar tracking, directional radio communications, images taken by orbiters, and the list goes on. And we aren't talking about a few friendly countries that wanted to cheer the US on. The USSR pretty much hated the USA and confirmed the moon landings with their own gear. And those guys even managed to land a probe on Venus just to show up the USA.

Take a look at his link and state what exactly is wrong with it.

Your 8th grade Chinese Physics student is wrong. Pounds can be a unit of mass or force depending on context. Look up Pound (mass) on Wikipedia if you don't believe me. However, that doesn't have anything to do with Martin's comment, which was spot on.

@Sam Mencia I believe we landed on the moon, but you are just simply wrong. Lbs are a unit of force, so Martin is correct in what he is saying.

How dare you use logic in here? @Martin

Lmfao dude people ain't gonna get it bro@Robert Prometheus

Plus you can see in the footage of the moon landing that the rockets barely blow the dust around underneath it.

xandarian It _was_ controlled, by Ed Fendell at Mission Control. Also, the video was transmitted to Earth, not recorded locally on some film. It's as if the world's top engineers actually planned how to do this.

Well in 1969 they had sooooooo much more advanced technology. Haha I know rite?

That’s a remotely operated camera mounted on the LRV ..it was operated from Earth …lemme guess ..Apollo 17’s liftoff ascent from the moon??

Not a conspiracy theory, but I like that the cover up implies the Soviet Union was in it. I mean, if the lunar landing was fake, the Soviet Union would have love to embarrass the United States, right?

​@@ArthurbeaslieYes, you probably couldn't even comprehend how an electric motor works, and that is 19th century tech, bird brain.

From what I remember the LEM was around 30,000lbs. In 1/3rd gravity that's 10,000 actual on the moon. You wouldn't need very much of s burn to make a big difference, especially as there is very little momentum to overcome at the final descent speed. Just 'blipping' the motor would be enough even at that low power setting. Amy will hopefully correct me if any of this is wrong. Best regards.

Forgot to add. Thus very little dust kicked up.

Hosed that up. 1/6 grav = 5000lb weight. Sorry. So basically even less of a problem.

TheCapri48 Gaming: YOU SAID: "Ok so even though they used 3000 lbs of thrust that's still pretty powerful right" == Your car weighs 4000 pounds. That's 4000 pounds of force on a tiny little surface area of 4 tires with only about 1 sq foot each of surface contact area. Yet, your car isn't leaving massive craters when you drive across dirt. Point is, people see this big number, like 3000 pounds of thrust, and think it sounds like a really big number, but it's actually not (relatively speaking). YOU SAID: "why isn't there any dust all over the moon lander can you explain that" == Um, because it got blown away. I mean, it also depends on a lot of factors. It varied from mission to mission, and we can talk about the different amounts of dust on each mission. But, somehow, I think you're not worth the effort. I mean, all of you conspiratards repeat the same scripted talking points over and over and over. You ask questions, but it seems that none of you nutbags actually want answers. 99% of the time, you're just asking questions thinking that it's some sort of "gotcha" moment or something, expecting that there won't be a valid answer. But, the plain fact is that, without an atmosphere, dust will get blown from under the lander, sure, but it's not going to linger around in the air, and get all over everything, like dust does on Earth. That's because THERE IS NO AIR TO LINGER IN. In a vacuum, the dust gets blown, then falls wherever it falls, and that's it.

How about 3K lbs of force in a vacuum blowing almost all of the dust out of the area???

Ah yes, John Glenn and Operation Dirty Trick

Absolutely - I was 12 at the time so was old enough to remember the years leading up to this - Gemini - the drama of the first dockings in space - the first spacewalks - the first satellites coming into commercial operation - the loss of three men during the Apollo 1 test, the year or more delay after that, the incredible Apollo 8 first flight around the moon at Christmas and the reading from Genesis. Apollo 13.

You didn't miss anything by having a B&W TV. The TV cameras for the early Apollo missions were B&W. The film cameras used both B&W and color film.

I agree. NASA has found that comets are NOT dirty snowballs. kzfaq.info?search_query=thunderbolts+67P

@@PersonalStash420 *,InGliche¿*

You probably believe in religion too?

They were doing maintenance on the bottom of the lander

Occam's Razor certainly applies to this theory.

would it not be the other way around, if the 3000 was measured on earth, on the moon it would be like 18000,

Yeah. I imagine when they say 3000 pounds, they mean 3000 pounds of force, which is the same anywhere in the universe. Definitely a yikes moment hearing Amy say that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)

Don't know why she brings in the lower gravity, she could have expressed the thrust in newton to express that. But thrust is thrust be it outside the solar system or here on earth.

Well, it is confusing how we have two different unit systems (weight pounds which depend on gravity, and force pounds which don't) but refer to both as pounds. Amy seems to have read a number in force pounds and assumed it was in weight pounds.

+Adamast yes, she should just have said that the lower gravity meant that less trust was need then would have been needed on earth

Huh? The landers weighed about 2,700 - 3,000 pounds at the point of touchdown (depends a bit on the particular mission, but, in that general weight). Where are you getting this 800 pound nonsense? And, what held up the lunar module was Newton's 3rd law. The force of the expanding hot burning gasses leaving the engine nozzle is exhibited on that very same engine bell in the upward direction. This is in the exact opposite direction as gravity's force.

Here ya go, dust on the landing pads: www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS14/66/09234.jpg tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS16/processed/AS16-107-17441.png tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS16/processed/AS16-107-17442.png tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS17/processed/AS17-134-20388.png www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/47/6904.jpg www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS12/47/6905.jpg Want more photos of dust on the landing pads? How about looking for yourself, rather than just trusting other conspiratards just as clueless as you are? As for a blast crater, are you insane? Why would anybody expect one? You think that engine with its 20 sq foot (cross section) is going to cut a crater into compacted regolith and rock? Um, no.

@@rockethead7 Lol, nice one. These clear pictures of their precious smoking gun dust will be fake of course though. :)

@@JakusJacobsen You are correct. The only two rules to their game are (1) All evidence for Apollo is fake, no matter how real it is, and (2) All evidence against Apollo is real, no matter how wrong it is. You can never get around their two rules. So, yes, when they say the photos show no dust, those are "real" photos. Then, when you show them they're wrong, those pictures are "fake." All photos that help their delusion are real. All photos that go against their delusion are fake (whether they are even aware that those photos exist, or not... their conclusions are pre-determined by the two rules).

@@rockethead7 "The Moon landings are fake!!! But Hillary has a child sex slave operation on Mars (which - as we all know from that fat fuck with the biggest brain - is part of the Moon) that's run out of the basement of a pizza joint that has no basement!!!"

The thing is, it's a matter of where it was recorded from. Point being, if you're recording the conversation from the perspective of Houston, and take a specific clip, yeah, you would hear the astronauts talk from the moon, and then you hear the CapCom in Houston answer with a "normal" conversation delay (almost no delay at all). But, that very same conversation, if recorded from the headsets of the astronauts on the moon, DO have those delays. It depends on who was speaking first in whatever clip you're listening to, and which side the recording came from. The delays ARE there. Now, to caveat this, there were many shows back in the 1960s and 1970s that edited these conversations down. Every second counts on TV time, especially back in those days, and they weren't going to air some tapes with 2.5 second delays on every other thing spoken, so they clipped the delays out before airing them. Moon conspiratards often take those edited clips, and then parade them around as "proof" that the landings didn't happen. But, the original tapes have the delays, as well as SOME of the original TV broadcasts (the ones that didn't edit the clips down). Moon hoaxers also point out one or two times that an astronaut spoke very quickly without a delay (during a time when you'd expect one). But, it only happened a couple of times, and is very easily explained by the fact that sometimes, an astronaut is going to start speaking at almost the same time as CapCom is speaking. It happens in everyone's daily life also, when sometimes one person talks at the same time as another. But, with a 2.5 second round trip delay, talking at the same time ends up sounding like someone says something with no delay. It only happened once or twice, but moon hoaxers eat it up like candy, somehow incredulous to the concept that maybe an astronaut might speak at the same time as CapCom.

And you believed her...why

perpetual motion machines work fine on animated videos

exactly this thing was designed to function in this environment specifically. to claim the engines thrust dissipates before it passes the foot pads is odd considering the engine nozzle

@@ghjytffjkk Yes, this is one of the big problems in rocket design. As the main booster is ejected another rocket takes over that has been designed for best performance in a vacuum. The lander's rocket bell is NOT made like that.

@@hopeso it kind ofof is exactly completely 200% designed like that

YOU SAID: "Hmm We should just go back to the moon & take some HD pictures of all the equipment left behind." == There were 5700 photos taken on the moon, and tons of them were pictures of the equipment. Why do you want more pictures? YOU SAID: "Should be a whole lot easier" == No. YOU SAID: "& cheaper today. Right?" == When adjusted for inflation, yes, a bit cheaper. But, not by much.

@@JohnSmith-yn3eb YOU SAID: "so we shouldn't go back?" == I did not say that. I said (in a nutshell) that there's no reason to go there and take HD photos of the equipment left behind. If/when people return to the moon, taking photos of old equipment should be a very very very very very low priority. YOU SAID: "I'm not saying we didn't go but Of the 5700 photos released by NASA many had discrepancies and some were blatant lies like the Michael Collins "spacewalk" photo." == First of all, the 5700 photos didn't include any spacewalks. There were 5700 photos taken from the lunar surface (nobody calls those a "spacewalk," even though technically they were in space). If you include photos taken from orbit/transit, there were far more than 5700. I have forgotten the total, but it's over 10,000. == Secondly, I know of no Apollo photograph showing Collins doing an EVA. Collins did two EVAs during Gemini. But, he didn't do any EVAs during his Apollo 11 flight. YOU SAID: "A training photo that NASA edited and passed off as real. This is a fact." == No, it is not. If you think otherwise, give me the Apollo photograph catalog number. YOU SAID: "There is no harm in revisiting the moon w.todays technology. Yes it would be cheaper & safer." == Again, probably a bit cheaper. But, not by as much as you'd think. As for safer, how in the world can you even know? No equipment has yet to even be designed, beyond the Orion command module. How can you comment on the safety of craft that isn't even designed yet? YOU SAID: "The cell phone I'm using right now has one million times the memory and seven million times more ROM than the Apollo guidance computer." == So what? Your cell phone is going to make it cheaper or safer? How? Why? What relevance is your cell phone's memory to the safety and cost of a new moonshot program? What ARE you talking about??? YOU SAID: "So yes let's go back in Ultra High Definition." == Sure, but to go there for the purpose of taking photographs of the old equipment on the moon?? What's the point? You never answered my question. Why do you want new photos of the Apollo equipment on the moon? What possible purpose does that serve? You spew a lot of ignorance around, saying completely meaningless and irrelevant things, but cannot bring yourself to answer a simple question. And, you seem to drift off of your own topic that YOU started. You said you want new HD photos of the Apollo equipment on the moon. I asked you why. And, your response is to talk about your cell phone?? What the hell?

@@rockethead7 man you are insufferable. My point about the cell phone is how much smaller, better, faster, and cheaper our technology is in general. Yes we should "go back” and film the old equipment In ultra high definition. It's not a low priority in my book. It not only holds incredible historic significance but would provide invaluable research and data on the wear & tear of our man made materials that have spent 50 years in the atmosphere free environment of the moon. How are the electrical connections? Can the Lunar Rover ever run again? Etc.

@@JohnSmith-yn3eb YOU SAID: "man you are insufferable." == ME??? Nothing you say makes any sense. And, you're sitting there saying that NASA claims that Michael Collins did a spacewalk during Apollo and faked pictures of it and tried to pass them off as real? That's fucking stupid. No. NASA has NEVER claimed that Michael Collins did a spacewalk during Apollo 11, nor have ever produced any photographs of such an imaginary spacewalk and tried to pass them off as real. You are making shit up. Or, more likely, some stupid conspiratard made that insane claim, and you decided to swallow it hook line and sinker, and had the audacity to claim it as "fact." But, ***I*** am insufferable?? Good fucking gods. YOU SAID: "My point about the cell phone is how much smaller, better, faster, and cheaper our technology is in general." == Just computer technology. Rocketry hasn't advanced all that much overall. Rocket chemistry in particular has been at a complete standstill. Rocket assembly hasn't really advanced much either. Rocket training facilities/machines have gone BACKWARD (in many respects), in favor of price over quality. Safety records have gone down since Apollo. But, whatever, you like to look at computer technology, and just blindly assume that all technology advances at the same pace. Guess what, it doesn't. And, computers are less than 1% of any moonshot program budget. YOU SAID: "Yes we should "go back” and film the old equipment In ultra high definition." == The raw film resolution we have of that equipment is better than any digital high-def today. That's because it's film. YOU SAID: "It's not a low priority in my book." == Well, thankfully, NASA isn't paying attention to your book. You don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about, and it shows with every painful sentence you write, like nails on a chalkboard. YOU SAID: "It not only holds incredible historic significance but would provide invaluable research and data on the wear & tear of our man made materials that have spent 50 years in the atmosphere free environment of the moon." == Pffttt. OK, and that is "invaluable" how exactly? What benefit does that knowledge have for us? YOU SAID: "How are the electrical connections? Can the Lunar Rover ever run again? Etc." == Why would you use a the singular form of the word "rover" instead of plural? There are three of them up there. See what I mean? You really don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And, your opinions about what NASA should do with future moon missions are about as valuable as your opinions on brain surgery techniques. Next time you want to talk utter bullshit about NASA claiming that Michael Collins made a moonwalk during Apollo, and that they faked some pictures of it, and tried to pass them off as real, yeah, you need to come to the table with better evidence than a stupid statement like "you're insufferable." I'm not the topic here. The topic here is your painful ignorance.

@@JohnSmith-yn3eb YOU SAID: "Lol Is that why the footage looks like complete horseshit?" == Dumbass, you obviously do not understand the footage you're looking at, which parts were done with film, which parts come from the 200 line resolution TV camera, etc. All you're doing is wallowing in ignorance. Man, you're just stupid. That's really all there is to this whole thing. You seriously just lack intellectual capacity to understand things. Again, what happened to your Michael Collins "fake EVA photo" claim? Why won't you address it? You simply accused NASA of faking a photo of Michael Collins doing an EVA during Apollo, and that's it? That's all? You call it a "fact" and then won't back up your asinine accusations? I think we both know why, right? That is a claim you found on a conspiratard video, and you just automatically assumed that the claim was true. That's how low-IQ minds work, you know. This is a known phenomenon. Someone who isn't very bright will just blindly accept claims made, if the claims align with something he/she WANTS to believe. And, that's exactly how your mind operates. I mean, can you even see how fucking stupid that claim is? Can you fathom how purely dumb your claim is? Here you are, claiming that NASA presented a doctored photo and claiming that it was "real" - of Michael Collins making a spacewalk, which contradicts everything known about Apollo 11?? And, you think this is true? Did your mother take a lot of drugs when you were in the womb or something? How can you believe a claim as stupid as that one? How? Good gods, what a moron. You also insisted that the newer stuff would be "safer." Where do you get that notion from? I asked how you know it would be safer when the equipment hasn't even been designed yet. No answer. You also said that it would be "invaluable" to know if the Apollo equipment had working electrical connections and if the rover (singular, because you know so little about Apollo that you didn't know there are three of them up there) would still work if the batteries were replaced. I asked what's so "invaluable" about knowing that? Why EXACTLY should we care about whether that stuff still works? What's so "invaluable" about knowing that? No answer. See, the entire theme in this thread is your own ignorance. And, the amazing thing is that you ACTUALLY believe you're smart. You ACTUALLY believe that you have something to offer. But, you don't. Nothing you say makes any sense. And, I said it before, and I will say it again, your opinions on this matter are exactly equal in value as your opinion on brain surgery techniques. You know exactly the same amount about Apollo as you know about brain surgery, zero. Yet, for some stupid reason, you actually think you know enough about Apollo to make comments, and tell NASA what they should/shouldn't be doing... all while you believe the absolute dumbest shit imaginable, like the concept that NASA presented a fake photo of Michael Collins doing an EVA during Apollo, and told the world it's real. That's the level of stupidity you're operating at. I ask questions or challenge the stupid things you say, but you realize that you cannot answer, so you just ignore them. In one ear, out the other, declare victory, huh? That's how you operate? You spew the most ignorant nonsense anybody can imagine, then, when challenged, you either ignore it completely, or double down on your stupidity. Good fucking gods. ANYTHING besides admitting you're wrong, huh? ANYTHING. People like you will NEVER admit just plain being mistaken. Nope. In your mind, you've never just made a mistake. This is also a known phenomenon associated with very low IQ scores. Thanks for confirming your stupidity with the remaining statements you made in your last comment. I hope you're proud. Once again, the topic here isn't ME. The topic here is your stupidity, and your resulting insane beliefs, which you're happy to share with the rest of the world for some reason. I hate to use the old "back in my day" cliche, but it's true, back in my day, before the internet was a thing, dumb people were really ashamed of being dumb. They were quiet, and very few of them would ever let anybody know how dumb they were. But, for whatever the reason, with the advent of the ability to place open comments for the entire world to see, you morons ACTUALLY believe it's a good idea to tell 7 billion people how dumb you are. It's truly amazing.

Imagine try to land a 5000 lbs object here on earth in the desert (with rocket or jet engines) and then leave the surface untouched.... lol

"the engine was throttle-able? The astronauts didn't have to turn it on and off" We know it was computer controlled.......

@@charlesbaxter7405 The lowest it would go was about 2500 lbs of thrust

still very good, hammer, others used a drill in that solid rock bed.

I would point out that the reason for non metric is largely due to the source material being in imperial

Still tho

Maybe state both figures? The original stats were in imperial, but for the sake of clarity it could be converted and both figures stated. Still, doesn't really bother me, i can still imagine it in Lbs or Kg's.

Better yet yes both so all will be able to relate.

Eh. American privilege

Giant craters everywhere on the moon but only a couple of inches of dust?

exactly completely 100% true the thrust would remain the same and the load would be diminished due to the reduction in gravity

These people think we are fucking retarded. Astronauts were simply walking and kicking dirt out 2 feet with every step.

without an atmosphere there isnt anything to block the blast, the blast can only spread out when you have an atmosphere to redirect the gass, without an atmosphere the blast has no friction with other gasses so it cant spread out magically by interacting with the vaccuum of space. the only thing that the blast is interacting is with the surface, which the blast should have blasted a crator into the moon and sunk in it.

@@phoenixash3076 I don't think you know how this works, when a gas is released into space does it stay in one tiny stream? NO, as evidenced by the entire fucking history of rocketry in space, the thrust plume spreads out, like physics says, and has said since, well, the beginning of time

Think about this, when mass is ejected out a rocket engine its mass doesn't change but its weight does, that's why when youyou fire a rocket engine in 1/6th gravity, the mass of the combustion products stays the same but the weight is fractioned

That is very true. I noticed too that at least some of these channels have only comments that basically cheering and not a single comment even asking valid questions. ie. they have deleted comments that even ask, how did they do this or that ?

@@kimbalcalkins6903 Yes i had a vid in which I talked about some of the photo evidence, gone now

@@HydrogenWizard wow

Congratulations!!! You're the one billionth person to make shit up without checking first to see if you're correct. ep.yimg.com/ay/mcmahanphoto/apollo-14-lunar-module-footpad-on-moon-photo-print-5.jpg