Comprehensive coverage

Fox movie: NASA Fiberke landing on the moon

The TV network "Fox" claims that the first man on the moon walked in elaborate television studios and not really on the lunar soil; On the net, people are wondering how the US flag waved in the wind and why no stars were visible in the background?

23.2.2001

The moon scam
The moon scam

Was the immortal phrase "one small step for man one giant step for mankind" said on the moon? Or in Hollywood production studios? In an investigation conducted by the American television network, "Fox", it was claimed that Neil Armstrong and his "Apollo 11" crew members never set foot on the soil of the moon, but on the floor of highly sophisticated studios in the USA.

The sixties were mainly characterized by the race to the moon. The Soviet Union sent a team of cosmonauts that managed to approach it, but not land on it, and was close to sending another team to complete the mission. The Americans who wanted to win the battle, invested a lot of money for this noble cause, and worked around the clock to send the first crew to walk on the moon.

In 1969 it succeeded, the Apollo 11 space shuttle astronaut team led by Neil Armstrong, stood on the planet and raised the United States flag, which became one of the most important events in history and symbolized the victory of the United States over the Russian Empire.

At Fox, they don't buy the photographs and recordings that NASA distributed to the world and claim, there never were things. The United States wanted to win the competition, but knew it was far from victory. According to the publications, it is claimed that it was decided to stage the first landing in order to remove the Russian threat and act without pressure to carry out the mission. The investigators who rely on old claims of scientists raise some points for thought. The first claim is that the flag of the United States as captured by NASA cameras was photographed waving in the wind, the scientists claim that there can be no wind on the moon. A second claim is that in the photographs you cannot see stars in the background and the question asked is how? Whereas the third claim concerns the shadow that appears on the ground which the scientists claim is not positioned at the right angle.

The head of the Israel Space Agency, Prof. Avi Haravan said in an interview with Gali IDF that "the allegations are not serious", according to him at that time 30 thousand employees worked at NASA, therefore it is impossible that the matter was not leaked until now. Haravan believes that in 69 the means of directing were not as sophisticated as they are today, and that there may have been ghosts on the moon.

NASA also denied the claims and said that the 350 kg of rocks brought from the moon constitute convincing proof, which cannot be denied.

The moon hoax sparked a campaign against anti-astronomy

Avi Blizovsky

Avi Blizovsky

The editor of the knowledge website (editor@hayadan.org.il)
For all the author's articles

169 תגובות

  1. And do you trust their word in front of the Creator? If I ask why you think the earth is a round sphere, you will tell me that NASA sent satellites and took pictures, but everyone knows that the pictures are fake and in every picture the size of the continent looks different, or they copy the clouds from a previous picture. How exactly does everyone believe that the earth is a sphere if it is written in the Torah that the earth is flat? Only the Creator of the world will give us back the times. The first shall be last and the last shall be first. We are also part of this fraud not only the US. Our whole life is based on scams because those above do what they want and control what is written in the newspapers. Hint: when you fly, look out the window and you'll see that there's no curve, not only that. Activate Level on your phone or take Level with you on the flight and you will see that the only time the plane tilts is during takeoff and landing, even if you are flying to the other side of the world there must be a curve, and there isn't. Be healthy, you believe that everything has a stamp on it.

  2. In the USA live the "scumbags" of humanity and it is not impossible that they invented grandmother's stories when the (late) Soviet Union was their competitor... and what have they done since then? Nothing and nothing and nothing

  3. Someone

    Well the cellars are holding the comments again.

    All you have to do is google oleg oleynik (the author's name) and you will find several explanations for the errors in the link you provided.

    Next time, please look up answers yourself, now that I've explained how, you're already a big kid who knows how to use Google. No?

  4. Someone
    So you're saying that there are six spaceship bases, three vehicles and a lot of other equipment, and all of this is part of a conspiracy program involving tens of thousands of people, including 24 astronauts?

    And you say that the Russians are also complicit in this conspiracy?
    And Australia is also a partner?

    And all this, when there is not a single piece of evidence that supports your opinion?

    interesting…

  6. What evidence did you bring exactly that they took you to see when you were a child?
    That's exactly the point, what they showed you.
    Just because there's equipment on the moon doesn't mean man was there

  8. Someone
    Every "evidence" you brought has been refuted. On the other hand, you failed to disprove any evidence that man was indeed on the moon.

    What else can be said about it?

  9. There is nothing to explain. The whole point is not whether there is a landing vehicle or not. The point is whether a human foot stepped on the moon or not. Probably not.

  10. Someone
    What you see in the image of Apollo 15 is not the mountains in the great distance at all, but a nearby hill.

    And regardless, how do you explain the fact that a satellite orbiting the moon today photographed the base of the lander, exactly at the same landmark on the moon, where the spacecraft "supposedly" landed?

    Food for thought….

  15. Someone

    pane andov Search on Google if you want, neither a cosmonaut nor a watermelon (and not a watermelon either), according to the nonsense of this financial genius you should have been dead for two years or so.

    how did you know? I really need glasses, I just went to buy some today.

  16. I saw a code in a movie that said Jesus was a flying fish with horns and that the whole universe was a fake eggplant that God Martontone wouldn't eat for dinner because it was in black and white and not color.
    Walkley
    You need glasses...also a hearing aid...
    The nonsense you wrote can be said about any lousy movie.
    What you see in the spark can only be said of Kubrick's genius.

  24. Golem

    It is interesting that after reading the comments you noticed that the respondents did not provide an answer to Israel's question when Israel actually said that he did receive an answer to this question.

    I claim that Nissim gave an answer to the question because he did so. The edited quote is an answer to this question. If you want, you can see the source in two comments of Nisem at the beginning of the thread. Do you have reading or comprehension difficulties that prevent you from seeing that this is an answer to Israel's question about the flag?

    If I were Israel I would be sorry that someone like you supports me. You are the embodiment of the things he complains about.

  25. Golem
    I saw several times the film of the landing and the laying of the flag (including live). In the film, you can see that the flag is waving during the lowering since the supporting pole is placed firmly in the ground. The flag is still flying because there is no air resistance to restrain the movement. There is a horizontal pole above the flag so it is clear why it remains hoisted.

    In the debunkers of myths there was a chapter where they performed an experiment - they placed a similar flag in a vacuum chamber. You see the same movements as in the landing film.

    No serious person takes this thing seriously, neither the NASA spokesman nor the former director of the space agency Prof. Har-Evan.

    I said all this a long time ago. What's wrong with that?

  26. walking shit
    Israel's question was about the flag.
    I was also interested in the answer.
    After reading the comments I noticed that the commenters did not provide an answer to his question.
    It is not clear why you claim that this idiot Nisim gave an answer to his question. I would appreciate it if you would present here a satisfactory answer regarding the question presented by Israel.
    thank you and good luck.

  28. Someone

    It seems to me that this is the film that Nissim was talking about earlier.

    I saw a code in a movie that said Jesus was a flying fish with horns and that the whole universe was a fake eggplant that God Martontone wouldn't eat for dinner because it was in black and white and not color.

  29. Israel

    I am going against the orders of the Defense Ministry that ordered me not to respond to you for asking this but so be it.

    If it's completely clear that X just didn't understand what you were writing, how can you be saying things directly and in the clearest way?

    By the way, if you bothered to pay attention to things at the beginning and remove the quotes from Nissim's words with the content, (instead of hunting for offensive words), you would find that in his first responses you received an answer to your first question. (Nisim, I apologize in advance for trending editing)
    "The flag does not wave in the wind. When the pole is stuck, the flag flutters because of the movement, and because there is no air to restrain the movement. He stabilizes after that and doesn't move an inch. The flag hangs from a horizontal pole."

    And that's even before I answered your question. If you weren't so eager to get answers to your second question you might have noticed.

  30. Yaron

    I am happy for you that you found the answers to your questions. Asking questions is great and super legit, it's hard to get answers without asking questions. You should also always remember to be open to listening to answers, and be ready to delve into things that are not necessarily easy to understand in a simple intuitive way.

    There are usually pretty clear warning signs for unfounded theories on the internet.
    They come in movies accompanied by dramatic or mysterious music.
    Claims are presented as self-evident and indisputable facts.
    Often citations of some source that supports the claim comes without a link to the source.
    If sources are shown, a quote appears out of context (usually when you look at the quote in the source you find that it doesn't say what the movie says it says in the movie).
    Something is shown and the interpretation of it is very far-reaching compared to what it says, and you can easily think of a number of things that would have been much more logical to think about before the conclusion that the film reaches and asks you to reach it with it.
    The filmmakers are making a few more films where additional theories appear that are often inconsistent with the theory (or in general with each other)
    YouTube starts recommending you things that sound more and more delusional in the recommendations for you.

    I must have forgotten some other common signs, but if the theory is common enough, sometimes it is enough to write the name of the movie or the theory, add the word debunk and search and get an explanation for the distortions presented there.

    Great, now the site has released all my comments from the cellars and the comments look like I spammed everything.

  31. Golem

    Your response embodies what I've been feeling here lately, but there's no point of irritation here. It's a shame that the laxity towards the violent and violent led to such a drastic drop in the quality of the discussions on the site.

  33. As they say: great minds think the same way..
    So the great minds retired from the site. And only the small minds remained (which it turns out also think in the same way. A way that is opposite to the big minds).

  34. Israel
    Anyway, it's a shame you got upset. They are not worth it. The ones that were worth it are no longer on the site (as you mentioned).

  35. Israel
    In the previous response I explained why you are right. But it seems that someone has no interest in presenting it this way...

  39. Miracles

    There is a video of the US flag flying on the lunar surface.

    Many people will think this is a strange sight. The question is legitimate and I'm not the only one who asked it. I also mentioned that there is certainly an explanation, I just wanted to know what the official explanation is, especially since the article mentioned spirits on the moon.

    The NASA spokesperson did not address the flag question in the article.

    I made the mistake of asking a simple technical question.

    So far it's simple. facts.

    Enter Nissim, omniscient, with a big ego and a small mind.

    My simple technical question immediately turned into a quagmire to dig into, a violent crusade accompanied by insults and curses.

    And if there was any content in it. But it is quite clear that the little illiterate and dyslexic simply did not understand what I was writing, and the whiskey vapors that filled him revealed his true face, as they say, wine goes in and a secret comes out.

    I have no problem writing this because I know no one will comment on the style and violence. This is because the science site has turned into a garbage can in recent years, and the violent psychopaths and the madon stalkers have taken over it. All those zeroes whose interest is not the articles or the comments, but the commenters.

    Open any article in the last year and see the language of the market that has taken over the discussions here. the insults, curses and violence. Compare this to the discussions that were here a few years ago, even before all the gentle and kind intelligent commenters fled the site.

    It is known that there are websites where you can get viruses. In the case of the scientist, this also includes rabies and foot and mouth.

    Attention Avi Blizovsky, if you read or care at all what becomes of your site.

  40. Miracles
    I don't remember that anymore. If I'm not mistaken, I saw the movie at the Palm Cinema in Shikon Babylon

  43. Israel
    calm down 🙂
    You wrote "The flag looks as if it is waving... raises many questions... the NASA spokesperson who addressed many questions did not address the question". Wondering about the truth of the space program? Wondering about the integrity of the NASA spokesperson?

    Couldn't you spend 5 minutes checking the topic? Or 5 minutes of thought? Does this really seem "strange" to you? Did you even watch the movie?

    I apologize for referring to your words. Won't happen again.

  44. Miracles
    One of the three supposedly dead astronauts manages to escape (if I'm not mistaken it's the actor Bill Cosby), stays for a while in the desert in Nevada, manages to survive and through friends arrives at the memorial service for him and his friends "for the flight". Naturally, it causes quite a commotion and then those who were responsible for that alleged failure were revealed and this is where the film ends. Since you are born in the USA, you might be able to confirm my hypothesis that the dark days of Edgar Hoover are felt in the film.

  45. Miracles

    The fact that you are a hard-to-understand idiot does not make me an intellectual.

    I wrote: "The flag looks like it is waving. Also in our article the explanation is presented as if there were perhaps spirits on the moon, which raises many questions. It is clear (at least to me) that there is a logical explanation for the flag phenomenon and I was looking for it, because the NASA spokesperson who addressed many questions did not address the question or I missed his answer."

    I have control over what I write, not what is understood from my words.

    And even if you didn't understand, or understood something different from what you believe, or I say things you don't like, does that give you the right to start yelling and cursing? Have you thought about what this means about you and your kind?

    It's good that you showed your true face. Behind the facade of a know-it-all intellectual hides a warm, primitive little brain just waiting for the right moment to erupt.

    You are not the only one who can play this game, and you should apologize now and open a new page.

  47. Life
    I remember a similar movie, maybe this is it. In the movie I saw the astronauts cooperate in the beginning. They sit in the studio and play the take-off process at the same time as launching an unmanned rocket.
    The rocket explodes on launch, and the astronauts realize they are in trouble…..

  48. Miracles
    I remember that years ago I saw a movie called "Cupricon 1". I guess you know him. In this movie, the US was supposed to send an expedition to Mars. For technical reasons the launch was cancelled. The astronauts were forced to abandon the spaceship before launch and were transferred to one of the Hollywood studios where they supposedly staged a landing on Mars. The problem with that movie is that a model of the Apollo spacecraft lander was used and such a spacecraft would never have survived entering the Martian atmosphere for one reason only. It has no aerodynamic structure. It is possible that this film was the basis for those various conspiracies and all the nonsense they invented from here until a new announcement that there was supposedly no landing on the moon. A film also needs to be built in a believable way.

  49. Yaron
    I agree that the page is more interesting 🙂

    As a child, I was privileged to grow up near the Parkes receiving station where the Apollo 11 broadcasts were received, and we were taken from school to see the landing live. It was an amazing experience, and an amazing time.

    And now comes a wise man like Israel, and in his special way, says that there are unclear points in the story. He does not see the irony in the flag claim, ignores known refutations of this nonsense, and is even surprised that the question remains open in this stupid movie.

    Yaron, if you think something is a conspiracy, check Wikipedia. It is not the Bible, on the contrary - almost everything written there is well-founded and reliable.

    I once heard evidence that Stanley Kubrick directed the landing: in the movie "The Spark" part of the movie is filmed in a hotel, in room 237!!!!! Amazing, isn't it? After all, the distance to the moon is... 238,000 miles!!! All you have to do is add 1, and multiply by 1000, it can't be just a coincidence, right? And there is more conclusive evidence! For example, the word All is used there. It must have been an allusion to A11, i.e. Apollo 11.

    Hope I didn't make the page boring...

  50. Miracles
    There are people who weren't born in 69 and there are those whose English is foreign to them, etc. But that doesn't make them idiots, or fools, or weeds. The title of the page probably required a discussion for those people who really don't know the subject. That's all.
    I did not act innocently, it was important for me to exhaust a topic to the end. You will agree with me that the page is much more interesting today.

  51. Yaron
    I still write gently compared to what I feel :). Look at it this way: there is conclusive evidence that they reached the moon. A dubious person writes a low-level book about it, several films full of inaccuracies, taking things out of context, and even blatant lies, supposedly confirming the book - and people actually choose to believe the refutable nonsense described here.

    A fair person would check himself, before taking a position, especially when this position damages the credibility and honor of a large group of people.

    You probably acted out of innocence, but I think you could have expected more integrity from a smart person.

  52. Wookie
    I carefully read all the material that you linked me to. It is absolutely convincing. I admit that I had my doubts. But now I am definitely convinced. I went to the extreme with the questions in order to exhaust all the answers and this is completely legitimate. . Maybe apart from the fact that I firmly stated that you can't cross the belts (admittedly by mistake) all the other questions that, as I said below, are a bit tricky, I think should have been asked. What is certain is that the average surfer will come to the page the next time he will have all the answers.
    I managed to drag 111 responses….that's beautiful.
    Thanks.
    Nissim, stop ranting, it's disrespectful.

  54. last part

    Example: One of the claims made is that the US faked the moon landing in order to gain political capital and scare Russia. Russia and the USA during this period were in the middle (if not the peak) of the Cold War. At that time the USA and Russia had spies in every hole left and right. Russia would make a huge propaganda profit from exposing the moon landing fake, and the likelihood that if there was such a fake they wouldn't have discovered it tends to zero. Why, according to the conspiracy supporters, did Russia not expose the forgery? They have no answer for that. you know why? This answer does not interest them because it does not support what they want to perceive as truth. There is a lack of readiness for minimal critical thinking here.

  55. I'll give you an example. One of the claims made is that the US faked the moon landing in order to gain political capital and scare Russia. Russia and the USA at this time were in the midst (if not the height) of the Cold War. At that time the USA and Russia had spies in every hole left and right. Russia would make a huge propaganda profit from exposing the moon landing fake, and the likelihood that if there was such a fake they would not have discovered it tends to zero. Why, according to the conspiracy supporters, did Russia not expose the forgery? They have no answer for that. you know why? This answer does not interest them because it does not support what they want to perceive as truth. There is a lack of readiness for minimal critical thinking here.

  56. So it's not. When you get into the depth of the matter, you find that the claims against them are not at all as weighty as the scholarly explanations. When you look deeply at these counterclaims, you find inconsistency, a very serious lack of understanding, chronic ignoring of details, and taking data out of context and presenting it in the wrong way. You see people who don't want to hear answers but just want to preserve their perception at any cost. The reason these theories are easy to grasp is because they do not use complete data, do not require an understanding of the subject, and ask the person who lacks the background and knowledge in the field to reach conclusions based on so-called common sense in places where it does not serve him at all.

  57. So it's not. When you get into the depth of the matter, you find that the claims against them are not at all as weighty as the scholarly explanations. When you look deeply at these counterclaims, you find inconsistency, a very serious lack of understanding, chronic ignoring of details, and taking data out of context and presenting it in the wrong way. You see people who don't want to hear answers but just want to preserve their perception at any cost. The reason these theories are easy to grasp is because they do not use complete data, do not require an understanding of the subject, and ask the person who lacks the background and knowledge in the field to reach conclusions based on so-called common sense in places where it does not serve him at all.

    I'll give you an example. One of the claims made is that the US faked the moon landing in order to gain political capital and scare Russia. Russia and the USA at this time were in the midst (if not the height) of the Cold War. At that time the USA and Russia had spies in every hole left and right. Russia would make a huge propaganda profit from exposing the moon landing fake, and the likelihood that if there was such a fake they would not have discovered it tends to zero. Why, according to the conspiracy supporters, did Russia not expose the forgery? They have no answer for that. you know why? This answer does not interest them because it does not support what they want to perceive as truth. There is a lack of readiness for minimal critical thinking here.

  58. Armstrong is not ready to swear on your heart and collect 5000 dollars in a second for the same reason that if you go to a Nobel Prize winner and demand that he swear that he did not steal his research, he will not do so (yes, even if you offer him a sum of money that he does not need anyway). For the same reason, any self-respecting person will not take money to swear that he did not rape his sister. (If it's not clear to you, tell me and I'll explain)

    He also did not say that the American taxpayer is not entitled to an answer, he said that the provocateur in front of him is not entitled to an answer. He had already given his answer enough times that those who wanted to listen had already heard it. He did not hide his answer to the question from the public, so where is the part here where the public supposedly has no right to know?

  59. Armstrong is not ready to swear on your heart and collect 5000 dollars in a second for the same reason that if you go to a Nobel Prize winner and demand that he swear that he did not steal his research, he will not do so (yes, even if you offer him a sum of money that he does not need anyway). For the same reason, any self-respecting human being will not take money to swear on the obvious. (If it's not clear to you, tell me and I'll explain)

    He also did not say that the American taxpayer is not entitled to an answer, he said that the provocateur in front of him is not entitled to an answer. He had already given his answer enough times that those who wanted to listen had already heard it. He did not hide his answer to the question from the public, so where is the part here where the public supposedly has no right to know?

    So it's not. When you get into the depth of the matter, you find that the claims against them are not at all as weighty as the scholarly explanations. When you look deeply at these counterclaims, you find inconsistency, a very serious lack of understanding, chronic ignoring of details, and taking data out of context and presenting it in the wrong way. You see people who don't want to hear answers but just want to preserve their perception at any cost. The reason these theories are easy to grasp is because they do not use complete data, do not require an understanding of the subject, and ask the person who lacks the background and knowledge in the field to reach conclusions based on so-called common sense in places where it does not serve him at all.

    I'll give you an example. One of the claims being made is that the US faked the moon landing in order to gain political capital and scare Russia. Russia and the USA at this time were in the midst (if not the height) of the Cold War. At that time the USA and Russia had spies in every hole left and right. Russia would make a huge propaganda profit from exposing the moon landing fake, and the likelihood that if there was such a fake they wouldn't have discovered it tends to zero. Why, according to the conspiracy supporters, did Russia not expose the forgery? They have no answer for that. you know why? This answer does not interest them because it does not support what they want to perceive as truth. There is a lack of readiness for minimal critical thinking here

  60. Second part

    Armstrong is not ready to swear on your heart and collect 5000 dollars in a second for the same reason that if you go to a Nobel Prize winner and demand that he swear that he did not steal his research, he will not do so (yes, even if you offer him a sum of money that he does not need anyway). For the same reason, any self-respecting person will not take money to swear that he did not rape his sister. (If it's not clear to you, tell me and I'll explain)

    He also did not say that the American taxpayer is not entitled to an answer, he said that the provocateur in front of him is not entitled to an answer. He had already given his answer enough times that those who wanted to listen had already heard it. He did not hide his answer to the question from the public, so where is the part here where the public supposedly has no right to know?

    So it's not. When you get into the depth of the matter, you find that the claims against them are not at all as weighty as the scholarly explanations. When you look deeply at these counterclaims, you find inconsistency, a very serious lack of understanding, chronic ignoring of details, and taking data out of context and presenting it in the wrong way. You see people who don't want to hear answers but just want to preserve their perception at any cost. The reason these theories are easy to grasp is because they do not use complete data, do not require an understanding of the subject, and ask the person who lacks the background and knowledge in the field to reach conclusions based on so-called common sense in places where it does not serve him at all.

    I'll give you an example. One of the claims made is that the US faked the moon landing in order to gain political capital and scare Russia. Russia and the USA at this time were in the midst (if not the height) of the Cold War. At that time the USA and Russia had spies in every hole left and right. Russia would make a huge propaganda profit from exposing the moon landing fake, and the likelihood that if there was such a fake they would not have discovered it tends to zero. Why, according to the conspiracy supporters, did Russia not expose the forgery? They have no answer for that. you know why? This answer does not interest them because it does not support what they want to perceive as truth. There is a lack of readiness for minimal critical thinking here.

  61. Yaron

    Well, let's try in parts

    I am supposed to understand from your silence that you went to his sources to see if they say what he claims they say, and saw that they did not, and you agree with me on this point, or did you not bother to do so and therefore there is no point in answering?

    A conspiracy theory because the claim is that there is a conspiracy by government officials and NASA to hide from the public the truth about the missions to the moon. What else is it supposed to be called when someone presents a theory that claims there is a conspiracy about something?

    The things in this long video are very far from being scholarly (unfortunately, it is much easier to appear scholarly than to be one), they are simply a repetition of the same silly things that have already been brought up countless times to me by conspiracy theory enthusiasts regarding the landing on the moon, to which there are answers in the link I brought you. Did you read the stuff there? Do you need me to find you the same things in videos?

    Why, by the way, do you choose to believe this theory and not those who maintain that there are alien buildings and spaceships on the moon and therefore stopped the flights to it? These also exist and there are quite a few videos about them on YouTube (the same goes for intelligent life and buildings on Mars and huge spaceships that fly all over the solar system). Their level of seriousness is no different at all from that of the videos you show.

    What does it mean that he is talking about extreme radiation? It was the same 55 years ago. He doesn't say it as something new.

    He talks about collecting data for Orion specifically. Ask Israel to explain to you about taking things out of context and why when you do that you misunderstand things?

    The dangerous radiation was also dangerous in Apollo, it does not change the fact that it is still dangerous. Nothing renewed. Why and how do you hear that there is something new here? This is a video intended to explain to people without a background. You might be surprised, but a lot of people know nothing or almost nothing about it. Do you want him not to explain to them the challenges facing the Orion conspirators?

    Yes, they do have to solve the problem of passing through the Van Allen belts for the Orion, this is a new vehicle, designed and redesigned for new and different missions, and part of this design and planning also uses knowledge gained from the Apollo program.

    Subaru solved the problem of how to produce a vehicle that would travel 100 km/h several decades ago. For some reason they are still designing and planning different new vehicles. Air resistance is a challenging problem even now when designing and planning a car. It's not that the designers and planners come and say to themselves: "Oh, no problem, we already solved it 30 years ago. We have no need to change anything or test anything new in our new design because it's a problem we've already solved." They still have to consider wind resistance data when designing a new vehicle. That doesn't mean they haven't overcome the problem before.

  62. Miracles

    You surely meant that I always say things directly and in the most obvious way, but hot-headed and impatient commenters always read half a sentence and draw wrong conclusions which they use to show how smart and understanding they are when in reality they only reveal their stupidity.

    And as proof of the sentence I wrote earlier: "When I saw the film for the first time, I thought it was easier to land on the moon, and even on the sun (if you come at night) than to concoct such a complex conspiracy." Is it possible to understand it in a different way than what I meant?

    I guess my statement about the spacecraft's propellers getting tangled in the Van Allen belt is also an anti-scientific statement?

    A bunch of idiots. And you have the audacity to use expressions like idiot, moron, stupid, liar, lazy..

    Aries is happening before your eyes.

    On second thought, it's a shame to waste a beautiful saying. You won't understand anyway.

    Knows a righteous soul in his death.

    Oops.. once again a waste of words.

  63. Israel
    It really doesn't seem right to me - thanks!

    Israel, you didn't say that directly. You never say things directly, but always in a crooked way so that you cannot be quoted...

    Israel, the "reasonable person" can understand from your words that there is a certain justification in the conspiracy idea. Do you want to tell me you don't see it?

  64. Ok miracles, I understand you didn't find anything.

    Tomorrow, when you're sober, go through the comments again.

    A moment of Hebrew: not "to burn" - to burn.

  65. Israel
    You told about the engineer Bill Keising .. I understand that he is an authority in your eyes on space matters? It's a shame you don't know that the guy isn't exactly an engineer... but he's definitely an authority with you!

    You are always dumb and don't take responsibility for what you say. Instead of checking the flagship story, like you didn't check your source, you're just implying that there might be something to it after all….

    You just ask questions, don't express an opinion, don't say anything, and don't pay attention to what you are told.

    Instead of trying to burn the stupidity out of the world, you justify it. Skepticism has a place, and you, in my opinion, do not know what that place is. Too bad.

    You have no real reason to doubt the Apollo program. There is nothing behind this stupidity and you should know that. But, instead of fighting the phenomenon, you reinforce it, as if there is any doubt here.

    I'll say it again - instead of checking the issue of the flag and silencing those who believe in conspiracy nonsense, you "ask an innocent question", and emphasize a quote that you know is irrelevant. And you do it again and again and again.

    So you're not calling astronauts liars, you're just raising the possibility…..

  66. Wookie

    I didn't want to confuse anyone. If you messed up, you did it yourself.

    Nissim is currently busy trying in vain to find the quote from my speech, which he says "hurts people I value very much." Without any justification." It seems to me that when I despair, he will come to his senses and return to being my business.

  67. Israel

    I don't know what you're talking about in terms of psychology. If you wanted to confuse me, you succeeded. In any case, Nissim has worked with people who deny the work of the people involved in the Apollo project. Therefore, if you are one of them, then he did succeed in you, and if you are not one of them (which I understand is your position), then he did not succeed in you.

    I don't even understand why we bother with this. I just want my response to Aaron to get out of the basements but it seems the site doesn't intend for that to happen.

  68. Miracles

    Try to get over the dyslexia and ADHD for a moment and find me the quote from my speech that you say hurts the people you value so much.

    I'm waiting.

  69. Wookie

    Psychology major.

    If you didn't understand, I asked a technical question about the flag. I mentioned beforehand that I don't buy the conspiracy theory.

    close matter

    It seems to me that in the interview with Gali IDF, the Raben talked about the solar wind hitting the moon, and from there it evolved into the moon winds.

  70. Miracles

    The option that Israel is just annoying/playing games was my starting point.

    I don't think you should worry about this company so much. It doesn't seem to me that they really let such things bother them (whether in the grave or in the air).

  71. Israel

    Okay, sorry. From getting to know you I understood/assumed that you don't really think like that or mean it seriously and that you are just playing games.

    If, as Nissim said, you really mean and meant to say - "wait, maybe they are lying, maybe they are a bunch of scoundrels who have misled and deceived the world because of personal impulses, money, publicity, blah blah blah..." - Oh, something like that, so I repeat what I said that you were not fooled.

  72. Israel
    Did you read the link you gave??? Write a name:
    (The wind exerts a pressure at 1 AU typically in the range of 1–6 nPa (1–6×10−9 N/m2.

    The pressure of our atmosphere is about 100,000 pascals - 10 trillion times the wind that you claim, so to speak, makes the poor flag flutter...

    walking
    I retract my last response, because it contradicts what you said. So - (perhaps) there is a third option - Israel is just annoying 🙂

    And yet, he hurts people that I value very much. without any justification.

  73. Wookie

    Nissim has already answered you.

    Miracles

    You are right, I did do all those things.

    And the answer to your question: greed and malice! That's why I produced the movie with Fox in which I defamed all those wonderful people!

    There is now a sale at Walmart, I heard that they sell everything at half price. Shouldn't you run to get a number?

  74. Israel
    I'm curious, in your opinion, you don't deserve freedom of speech, only you.

    Newton developed a theory that described the world as he saw it. Einstein developed a theory that described the world as he saw it. No one is lying here.

    24 people claim (or claimed) that they reached the moon, and thousands followed them with sophisticated equipment.
    Now, Israel comes and says "wait, maybe they are lying, maybe they are a bunch of scoundrels who misled and misled the world because of personal impulses, money, publicity, blah blah blah...".

    But does Israel do it? He brings a "quote" from some small article, and tries to show that the professor is also a fool (the fool thinks there is wind on the moon....). He brings some tiny point of doubt, which was disproved years ago with some (so-called) waving of a flag.

    Israel - you are hurting a wonderful group of people. Either you're stupid, or you're evil. Choose, and leave me alone.

  77. Israel

    The answer to the first question was easily within your reach, the effort to find it was really minimal.
    In fact, you managed to turn the innocent and technical question into a reason for frustration and a fight because you avoided making this minimal effort, and in doing so you actually created the situation for receiving an answer to the second question. But it still doesn't seem to me that anyone has even picked on you or even fought with you, so I don't really understand what the point is.

  78. We return to the matter of freedom of expression. No interest.

    Newton claimed that a force acts on a body in free fall. Einstein said no.

    They can't both be telling the truth.

    Can you tell me which of the two, Newton or Einstein, is a poor liar?

    Yesterday when I wrote the comment, I was interested in two questions:

    1. What is the technical explanation for the video of the flag waving in the moon.

    2. How long will it take until one of the boring know-it-alls and brawlers turns this simple and technical innocent question into a reason for a fight.

    I must state that I received complete answers to both questions.

  79. Israel
    I explained why I am aggressive - I am sickened by the ease with which amazing people are turned into wretched liars.

    Maybe instead of "stupidity" I should have used the word "evil". But – I prefer to use Hanlon's razor….. (everyone runs to Wikipedia……)

  80. Miracles

    What you say is true about the company that spreads the theory and tries to make money on it. Less about the lazy innocents who listen to them, due to psychological problems, or any mental needs.

    Israel

    A doctorate on decontextualizing Nissim's words
    Quotes 1-4,7-8 - a fairly accurate description of the things described
    Quotes 5-6 - expressing an opinion

  81. Miracles, you broke your own record.

    Here, in just one response:

    "The stupid movie"

    "this nonsense"

    "idiotic story"

    "Bad experience"

    "The man is stupid"

    "The man is really stupid"

    "this nonsense"

    "a bunch of liars"

    Tell me, in addition to dyslexia, shouldn't we also start working on this issue of aggression?

  82. walking dead
    In my opinion, most people who believe in this conspiracy are not innocent. This stupid Fox movie is not the source of this nonsense. On the one hand we have an idiotic story about a flag moving in the wind, and a lame attempt to quote the director of the Israeli Space Agency as if he thinks there is wind on the moon. On the other hand, there is countless evidence that they did land on the moon. I can think of two reasons why someone would continue to believe there is a conspiracy here. One - man is stupid. Two the person is really stupid.
    It's not just that conspiracy believers believe in all conspiracies.

    Forgive me for seeming like I have no patience for this nonsense. Especially, when what is being done here is to turn the bravest people in the world into a bunch of liars.

  84. Yaron

    Well, second attempt at a response

    I am supposed to understand from your silence that you went to his sources to see if they say what he claims they say, and saw that they did not, and you agree with me on this point, or did you not bother to do so and therefore there is no point in answering?

    A conspiracy theory because the claim is that there is a conspiracy by government officials and NASA to hide from the public the truth about the missions to the moon. What else is it supposed to be called when someone presents a theory that claims there is a conspiracy about something?

    The things in this long video are very far from being scholarly (unfortunately, it is much easier to appear scholarly than to be one), they are simply a repetition of the same silly things that have already been brought up countless times to me by conspiracy theory enthusiasts regarding the landing on the moon, to which there are answers in the link I brought you. Did you read the stuff there? Do you need me to find you the same things in videos?

    Why, by the way, do you choose to believe this theory and not those who maintain that there are alien buildings and spaceships on the moon and therefore stopped the flights to it? These also exist and there are quite a few videos about them on YouTube (the same goes for intelligent life and buildings on Mars and huge spaceships that fly all over the solar system). Their level of seriousness is no different at all from that of the videos you show.

    What does it mean that he is talking about extreme radiation? It was the same 55 years ago. He doesn't say it as something new.

    He talks about collecting data for Orion specifically. Ask Israel to explain to you about taking things out of context and why when you do that you misunderstand things?

    The dangerous radiation was also dangerous in Apollo, it does not change the fact that it is still dangerous. Nothing renewed. Why and how do you hear that there is something new here? This is a video intended to explain to people without a background. You might be surprised, but a lot of people know nothing or almost nothing about it. Do you want him not to explain to them the challenges facing the Orion conspirators?

    Yes, they do have to solve the problem of passing through the Van Allen belts for the Orion, this is a new vehicle, designed and redesigned for new and different missions, and part of this design and planning also uses knowledge gained from the Apollo program.

    Subaru solved the problem of how to produce a vehicle that would travel 100 km/h several decades ago. For some reason they are still designing and planning different new vehicles. Air resistance is a challenging problem even now when designing and planning a car. It's not that the designers and planners come and say to themselves: "Oh, no problem, we already solved it 30 years ago. We have no need to change anything or test anything new in our new design because it's a problem we've already solved." They still have to consider wind resistance data when designing a new vehicle. That doesn't mean they haven't overcome the problem before.

    Armstrong is not ready to swear on your heart and collect 5000 dollars in a second for the same reason that if you go to a Nobel Prize winner and demand that he swear that he did not steal his research, he will not do so (yes, even if you offer him a sum of money that he does not need anyway). For the same reason, any self-respecting person will not take money to swear that he did not rape his sister. (If it's not clear to you, tell me and I'll explain)

    He also did not say that the American taxpayer is not entitled to an answer, he said that the provocateur in front of him is not entitled to an answer. He had already given his answer enough times that those who wanted to listen had already heard it. He did not hide his answer to the question from the public, so where is the part here where the public supposedly has no right to know?

    So it's not. When you get into the depth of the matter, you find that the claims against them are not at all as weighty as the scholarly explanations. When you look deeply at these counterclaims, you find inconsistency, a very serious lack of understanding, chronic ignoring of details, and taking data out of context and presenting it in the wrong way. You see people who don't want to hear answers but just want to preserve their perception at any cost. The reason these theories are easy to grasp is because they do not use complete data, do not require an understanding of the subject, and ask the person who lacks the background and knowledge in the field to reach conclusions based on so-called common sense in places where it does not serve him at all.

    I'll give you an example. One of the claims made is that the US faked the moon landing in order to gain political capital and scare Russia. Russia and the USA at this time were in the midst (if not the height) of the Cold War. At that time the USA and Russia had spies in every hole left and right. Russia would make a huge propaganda profit from exposing the moon landing fake, and the likelihood that if there was such a fake they would not have discovered it tends to zero. Why, according to the conspiracy supporters, did Russia not expose the forgery? They have no answer for that. you know why? This answer does not interest them because it does not support what they want to perceive as truth. There is a lack of readiness for minimal critical thinking here.

  86. Israel

    In the film, there is almost no direct reference to claims or opposing positions. For most claims you get, if at all, a general statement and not just as focused as for the flag claim. The voice that can be challenged on claims by the right of the theory does not add up to even 5 minutes of screen time.

    As I said before, from the segments with the NASA spokesperson, it seems that he was not asked to address any of the claims at all, and that he was simply filmed for no more than five minutes giving some kind of general statement from which they edited in segments here and there that do not directly refer to anything.

    It is not clear to me how you expected to receive any proper explanation for any claim in such a situation. It is not clear to me how only the lack of reference to the flag claim bothered you when there were many other claims that received the same treatment.

    I don't know what Avi HaRavan meant, and I have no intention of discussing it, it doesn't really matter to me if he was joking or wrong. Both cases are not relevant to the matter.

    But if you want, we'll finish with a joke (which probably someone will one day use to prove that they didn't land on the moon). The flag moves because the dangerous and deadly radiation from the Van Allen belts moves it.

  87. Israel

    In the film, there is almost no direct reference to claims or opposing positions. For most claims you get, if at all, a general statement and not just as focused as for the flag claim. The voice that can be challenged on claims by the right of the theory does not add up to even 5 minutes of screen time.

    As I said before, from the segments with the NASA spokesperson, it seems that he was not asked to address any of the claims at all, and that he was simply filmed for no more than five minutes giving some kind of general statement from which they edited in segments here and there that do not directly refer to anything.

    It is not clear to me how you expected to receive any proper explanation for any claim in such a situation. It is not clear to me how only the lack of reference to the flag claim bothered you when there were many other claims that received the same treatment.

    I don't know what Avi HaRavan meant, and I have no intention of discussing it, it doesn't really matter to me if he was joking or wrong. Both cases are not relevant to the matter.

    But if you want, we'll finish with a joke (which probably someone will one day use to prove that they didn't land on the moon). The flag moves because the dangerous and deadly radiation from the Van Allen belts moves it.

  88. Wookie

    In the original film, the explanations of the NASA spokesman and other experts were given for most of the claims. The technical issue of the flag was omitted for some reason, and the explanation you provided is sufficient.

    I still haven't understood what the story is with the ghosts and demons of the Raben. Nowhere is it implied that this is a joke. What would old Nathan Pooh say about that?

  89. Miracles

    It is very easy for people without a background and understanding of photography (for example) who see the claims about the photographs in the film to make a mistake and assume that they are being presented with things that make sense. Anyone who has a little background in photography and understands a little more than nothing quite easily sees the absurdity in the claims. If you are convinced of something due to lack of knowledge and understanding, it does not make you an idiot. If you take things as they are and do not try to find out if they are indeed as presented, even when you are told that things are not true, it makes you lazy and maybe indeed even an idiot.

    Israel

    Obviously no explanation was given in the original film. That would destroy the whole point. To say about the film that it does not take a position for or against but only presents a theory, when only the claims are presented without seeking to present the existing and accessible refutations to these claims, is an injustice to the truth. The film only chooses to present the theory. He does not say whether it is true or not and he does not really bother to show the other side of the arguments against this theory. This choice is taking a stand.

    Fox's choice to air such a film is taking a stand. This position is probably to appeal to the taste of the idiots who feed them, but it is still taking a position.

  91. Correction: Well, it did exist in 2001.

    Vendors

    I already wrote to Wookie that the explanation he brought is reasonable. I was just surprised that no explanation was given in the original movie. The matter is closed.

    I will only point out that in my opinion Fox did not bring a trending article, but brought up a subject that interests many. Like the history channel that brings articles about Nostradamus.

  92. Israel
    Turning to Walla - http://news.walla.co.il/item/43462

    There is no room for interpretation here. You are now inventing explanations - there is no reason to think that what he meant was more than a joke, and it is not interesting either.

    My point is that the whole story of the landing conspiracy is dumb. That's how you want it.
    This is true for Kamtrailz and true for the "twins" and true for the vaccines.
    Complete stupidity.

  93. Israel

    Regarding the flag matter, the explanations for Nipnouf are reasonable. It doesn't matter what different people said in the media, people can make mistakes even if they are experts. Besides, the media sometimes distorts the words of the experts, so it is not certain that what you heard in the media from a journalist is what the expert said.

  94. Miracles

    I didn't see a smiley.

    Your interpretation, like the explanation of the quote from "Walla" (which did not exist yet in 2001) is yours alone. I don't know what the explanation is, and I believe you don't either. He may have meant wind from tiny meteorite dust grains or something else. Do not know.

    In any case, we have no debate about the truth of the conspiracy, but only about technical details and style of expression. be concise.

  95. Linguistic correction

    The original name of the landing vehicle was eagle. I translated it to the name Nesher because it is an accepted translation into Hebrew, it was also the translation in the Hebrew media in 1969.

    In retrospect, I checked and it seems to be a wrong translation. The correct Hebrew translation of the name eagle is Eyt, and in general this is an old linguistic error since the days of the Talmud or so (according to what I've read now).

    None of this is particularly important. But I didn't want to leave my linguistic error uncorrected.

  98. Israel
    Do you claim that Prof. Har-Evan claims that there is air on the moon? Yes or No? Do you know what the barometric pressure is on the moon?

  100. Israel
    You quote a sentence that is not even a quote. Your last sentence is correct. Unequivocal.

    Do you really think that Professor Har-Evan doesn't know that there is no air on the moon? Really Israel?

  101. Miracles

    It's okay, you can also write in Turkish.

    you say:

    "Regarding the wind on the moon... is like arguing about what cheese the moon is made of."

    Not that I want to spoil a good argument, but how does it fit with what is written in the article:

    "The head of the Israeli Space Agency, Prof. Avi Haravan said in an interview with Gali IDF that "the allegations are not serious", according to him at that time 30 thousand employees worked at NASA, therefore it is impossible that the matter was not leaked until now. The Raben believes that in 69 the means of directing were not as sophisticated as they are today, and that it is possible that there were spirits on the moon.

    So maybe also Prof. Avi Haravan is an idiot and a fool?

    Or what is more likely: Israel the idiot and fool took things out of context as usual, and Prof. Avi Haravan meant this jokingly.

  102. Israel
    Hebrew is a difficult language … not my mother tongue 🙁
    I gave my explanation - it solves all the problems. What is wrong with him?
    To refer to the wind on the moon... is like arguing about what cheese the moon is made of.

    Did you see the episode discussing the issue in "Myth Busters"? They set up a flag in the vacuum and see exactly what you see in the NASA film.

    I really and sincerely think that the whole messing with the flag, and this conspiracy in general, is stupid. I have described enough evidence that it is all true, and all I hear in response is about this stupid flag.

  103. To correct - the landing vehicle (entirely) is called eagle in English - and "Eit" in Hebrew.

    The eagle consisted of two parts. One part remained on the moon - the other part eventually crashed after being left in orbit around the moon. Just a curiosity - the flag was shot down by the jet stream of the "Eagle's" takeoff component.

    It is interesting that in the small details they are accurate, but deny the whole whole 🙂

  104. Miracles

    When I first saw the movie, I thought it would be easier to land on the moon, and even the sun (if you come at night) than to concoct such a complex conspiracy.

    On the other hand, the flag question was not answered in the movie, or I didn't notice. You can learn that this is a legitimate question from the answer that is different from yours given by Prof. The father of the Raben.

    So maybe you will answer already (only for the fifth time): what about the moon spirits? Is there anything to the claim?

    And try not to use the nicknames "the lover" and "idiot" that are so dear to you. And on that occasion, shouldn't we also work on the issue of dyslexia?

  105. Correction to my comment here.

    The "Eagle" lander did not return to the mother spacecraft. What returned to the mother spacecraft is a small capsule that was included in the "Eagle".

  106. walking dead
    The vehicles they drove are still on the moon. The bottom of the lander is still the moon. There are stones from the moon. There are reflectors on the moon. There are photographs from the moon towards the earth. The flag does not flutter in the wind. The shadow in the photos is real. The astronauts' jumps on the moon are suitable for low gravity. The Russians confirm that the Americans were indeed on the moon. I personally know a small part of the technologies of the project (mainly the training systems, and also the suits) - and there is nothing in this program that is beyond the technological capacity of the sixties.

    Anyone who is not convinced by all this is an idiot. Why deny it?

  107. Israel
    Come on, after you put the flag up it doesn't fly. It does flutter during positioning - precisely because there is no air to restrain the oscillations.
    Enough with the straw man claims... please.

  108. Miracles

    You understand that when you write - "And maybe I'm actually wrong..." - with people's reading comprehension and context abilities, they will still be able to understand that you are saying that you are wrong about the fact that there is nothing mysterious about the waving of the flag, instead of the fact that you are wrong and everyone will understand it.

    I don't think those who think they didn't land on the moon think so because of a lack of intelligence. They think so out of lack of knowledge, ignorance of the subject and laziness.

  109. Vendors

    If you have seen the film and read the article, it raises many questions about Bill Keising who was an engineer in the company that produced the Apollo spaceships. By the way, Fox does not take a position for or against, but only brings a documentary film about a theory in which every fifth American believed.

    The question of the flag is a central and legitimate question in the film and in the article, because it looks as if it is waving. Also in our article the explanation is presented as if there were perhaps spirits on the moon, which raises many questions. It is clear (at least to me) that there is a logical explanation for the flag phenomenon and I was looking for it, because the NASA spokesperson who addressed many questions did not address the question or I missed his answer.

    Miracles

    Halas rant. Do you have a hard time without fights? How many times have you been asked about the moon spirits and not answered? It puts you in a ridiculous light, especially when you write "this discussion is getting ridiculous".

  110. safkan

    "Regarding the flag, there is some kind of explanation, but according to what I understand, there are still a number of questions"

    What is this rant? What questions are you talking about? Is there any explanation? There is an explanation point. He is completely clear. You are welcome to try to reproduce the behavior of the flag on the Internet without computer graphics. You have exactly zero chance of doing that.

    "It's hard to believe that NASA doesn't have a film of the landing, including films about the stay on the moon - that look and sound of acceptable quality"

    Well, you're right, why didn't these suckers just take their iPhones and take pictures with them? Why weren't there iPhones then?
    You are welcome to check what photography equipment was available at the time they had to take in order to get the quality of photography you are asking for. To remind you, the space on the spaceship and also the amount of energy to spend on the batteries is extremely limited.

    "An explanation of poor film quality due to distant communication is not convincing"

    Amazing. Maybe because that's not the explanation at all?

  111. safkan
    In the 16s, film photography was done on XNUMX mm film, and indeed there is not bad photography at all that was taken from the spaceship. Video cameras were on the face then - and there was no ability to broadcast in NTSC format to the Earth. The spacecraft had recorders in a format called SSTV, which was also the broadcast format. Conspiracy people like to hang on to the fact that these films are no longer around. They were deleted by NASA after landing, due to a severe shortage of film at the time.
    The broadcasts themselves were converted to the accepted broadcast formats and even recorded on film.

    I'll say it again, there is nothing mysterious about waving the flag. Any ordinary person who looks at the film will see it immediately. And maybe I'm actually wrong...

  112. Israel

    Regarding the flag, there is some kind of explanation, but according to what I understand, there are still several questions.

    One of the questions that bothered me at the time is that the film's photography quality is extremely poor. You can barely see silhouettes moving here and there and the sound quality is horrible.

    It is hard to believe that NASA does not have a film of the landing, including films about the stay on the moon - that look and sound of acceptable quality. I have never seen a film of acceptable quality (maybe I missed it but I have never seen a film of minimal quality). If so - why are they hiding a movie of tolerable quality from us?

    An explanation of poor film quality due to distant communication is not convincing, because a high-quality copy of the film could have been kept on the camera or on the "Eagle" lander that returned to the orbiting satellite.

  113. walking
    I once saw a film edited by Stanley Kubrick, in which he describes how he fabricated the entire landing film. Excellent movie.
    But it's all one big lie.

    I don't understand why we are talking about this. There isn't an intelligent person in the world who thinks they haven't landed on the moon.

  114. Israel

    I missed the part where the NASA spokesperson in the movie refused to answer this question or didn't address it? Maybe they didn't even bother to ask him about it specifically? Maybe they edited his answer out? From the clips with him, it seems that he was never asked to address any of the allegations, and that they simply filmed him for no more than five minutes giving some kind of general statement, from which they edited in sections here and there that do not directly refer to anything. They create an appearance of objectivity as if they supposedly gave an equal voice to all parties.

  117. Israel

    Too long for the conspiracy leaders? Okay, choose the explanation that is good enough for you. They are quite similar.

    The flag is held out in the unfurled position by an extendable rod running through the top of the flag, so that it can be viewed unfurled, and you can see the unnatural rigidity this gives to the top of the flag in the picture. The rod creates the effect of a breeze blowing the flag into that position. Without the supporting rod the flag would just hang limply down and would not reveal the stars and stripes. Flags are designed to be blown into position by the wind on Earth, so the support was added to replicate this, as there is no atmosphere on the Moon. The rod is not extended the full width of the flag and it looks like a breeze is causing a ripple in the flag.

    It has also been claimed that some video clips show the flag waving in the breeze when it was planted. Not so. The movement of the flag is only because when astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil. Without an atmosphere it takes a while for this movement to dampen down. There is not one video clip showing the flag moving when the astronauts are not holding it, a fact never mentioned by the hoax believers.

    Do you really think that an errant breeze blowing through the set causing the flag to wave in what was supposed to be a total vacuum would not have been noticed? Such an obvious fact could not escape the notice of an entire film crew, besides which they would surely have called upon the services of experts to oversee operations to guard against this very sort of 'error'. They would simply have done another take.

    Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will "wave", since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.

    New stuff added March 1, 2001: Many HBs show a picture of an astronaut standing to one side of the flag, which still has a ripple in it (for example, see this famous image). The astronaut is not touching the flag, so how can it wave?

    The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.

    Sure it does. The flag had a stiffening rod on the upper side so it would stand out from the staff. When the astronauts moved the pole, the free corner lagged behind by simple inertia. The flag actually flops unnaturally quickly because there is no air resistance to impede it.

    The flags "wave in the breeze" of an astronaut touching and manipulating the flag and flagpole. Notice in each example of the flag waving, the astronaut is still moving it or has just finished adjusting the flag. The flag wobbles for a moment as the force applied to the flag and pole damps out and then it comes to rest. There is a film from one of the liftoffs from the LM cabin which shows the flag waving in the breeze of the rocket exhaust as well (and perhaps you can see the flags move in the rocket exhaust from the rover TV cameras, but those are far away and the cameras tried to follow the ascent stage...).

    The flags look as if they are waving in the breeze when not being adjusted or blown by the ascent engine thanks to a metal rod that runs along the top of the flag that holds it out as if being blown in the breeze. This is a well documented piece of equipment.

  120. Wookie

    Can you show me where in the link the technical effect of the waving of the flag is explained? Please just this. Without a responsible adult and other vegetables.

  123. Miracles

    If your explanation is also NASA's explanation why don't they say that? Or maybe they are? And why the head of the Israeli Space Agency, Prof. Avi Haravan says that "there may have been spirits on the moon" if your simple explanation is correct? Why complicate the matter?

    Vendors

    Fox News is the most popular station in the USA and the most sympathetic to Israel. Don't forget that the article and the film are 14 years old. The question is not whether there really is some kind of conspiracy here, but what are the technical explanations for the technical questions raised in the film, of which the question of the waving flag is one of them.

  126. Miracles

    But what makes him tick? Dhahaha

    Did you see a movie?

    Like I said, surely there is an explanation, but why isn't it brought up? Do you like the explanation about the winds on the moon?

  128. Miracles

    A flag without air and wind folds and falls down.

    Obviously there is an explanation, but why didn't they bring it?

    What about Prof.'s explanation? Abi Haravan? The one who maintains that "there may have been spirits on the moon"?

    The conspiracy with Tower 7 on 9/11 is more successful.

    poker.

  129. Israel
    Yes - very suitable for Fox to broadcast nonsense.
    I don't understand what the problem is with the flag. He doesn't flap in the wind - what a bunch of nonsense!!! When the pole is stuck, the flag flutters because of the movement, and because there is no air to restrain the movement. He stabilizes after that and doesn't move an inch.

    bullshit …. Unbelievable 🙂 And of course, it is very convenient to ignore the other issues....

  130. Forgive me about conspiracies, but I saw how they drew a drawing similar to a smile on the moon, and it is sometimes erased in time repetitions but is there in a super position. Your eyes sometimes won't believe it, but there is a smile on the moon. In honor truly in honor water blows

  131. Miracles

    Please Eraf, do you think that Fox would have fooled themselves in front of everyone if there was no problem with the flag?

    I've been hearing about these conspiracies since landing, and it always bothered me that they didn't come up with an adequate explanation for the flag issue. Also in our article the only explanation is that "there may have been winds on the moon". Does that make sense to you?

  133. Nissim Hadar

    They are all cheaters, all thieves, directors, forgers and spoofs.

    So what's really the story with the flag and the jumping shadow?

    The flag flies, and the shadow moves seven feet, oh.

  134. Israel Shapira
    Both of these problems were solved by myth-busters years ago. Does anyone really think the US government is capable of keeping such a secret? 8 spacecraft reached the moon - is this all staged? the mirror? Flying away with the Russians watching like only they know how? Landings filmed? Every issue of Apollo 13 - can be staged? Fact - they even made a movie out of it 🙂

    And what about all the equipment on the moon, including vehicles, that can still be seen today?

    And what about the stones? From my garden? It's hard for me to believe - everything is under a meter of snow now...

  135. The main problem is not the radiation, but rather that the spacecraft's propellers become entangled in the Van Halen belts and the spacecraft falls.

    But what is really the story with the flag waving in the room and the shadow in the wrong places?

  136. Yaron
    I asked for sources. I asked for a reference to Russia. Waiting patiently.

    Tell me, my learned friend - what exactly is the radiation intensity when crossing the Van Allen belt? It seems to me that you see yourself as an expert in the field. I want to know the power, inside the spacecraft, inside a spacesuit like the one worn by the Apollo crews.

    Please - let's move forward?

  138. 1. As for x-rays, it's clear that you live after that, but don't forget that the lids will be photographed with a layer of XNUMX cm of lead and this is a one-second photograph.
    2. In every x-ray institute there are clear warnings regarding pregnant women and chronic patients and of course the number of photographs allowed in a certain period of time because, as you say, it is dangerous and carcinogenic and we are talking about a few seconds.
    3. The intensity of an X-ray photograph compared to the radiation intensity in belts has nothing to compare to say the least
    4. Any opinion or explanation that contradicts the explanations of NASA or those on behalf of NASA or any other opinion of non-drugged learned people is immediately labeled a conspiracy.
    5 In this video there are quite convincing and scholarly explanations so why is it a conspiracy and the explanations you give me are the absolute truth.
    .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3jrLXkuKcw
    6. In this video that you have already seen at 0:44, he talks about extreme radiation no less, sorry, what is not already known from Apollo?
    At 0:50 he talks about data collection and all the details so where is all the data collected up to 72?
    At 3:05 he says Dangerous radiation but in Apollo we have already passed them....What happened that suddenly it is dangerous.
    At 3:39 he says
    we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space Excuse me? Didn't you do it between 69 and 72 12 times? twice for each task.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE
    7. Why isn't Armstrong ready to swear on your oath and collect 5000 dollars in a second, is this also a conspiracy?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VgljrAlxmU
    you don't deserve an answer
    Sorry? Didn't the American taxpayer fund your Apollo program? Why does he not deserve an answer?
    Where is the public's right to know where all democracies are?
    So with all due respect there are also arguments against and they are just as weighty as the scholarly explanations.
    By the way, this is one of the worst parables I've read...

  139. Yaron

    Did you go to his sources to see if they say what he thinks they say or do you prefer to rely on the words of someone who clearly does not understand what he is talking about and draws conclusions of what he wants to understand from them, whose business is to distribute conspiracy theory movies on the Internet?

    The person is cherry picking sentences in a completely distorted way without understanding what it is about and presents them as if they say what he says they say when they don't. Read his source and you will easily understand that he does not mean what he says he says, then read the source of his source and you will understand how ridiculous it is.

    Some of the explanations in the link I gave you show exactly how much radiation the Apollo astronauts were exposed to. They measured it. Why? Because this is the best way to know how much radiation they were really exposed to and how much it endangers their lives.
    Some of the data Orion measured is how much radiation it was exposed to. Why? Because evaluations based on models is great, but it's still only evaluations and measurements are measurements.

  143. Yaron
    I assume that like any average Israeli you were sent by your doctor to do x-rays. X-ray radiation is dangerous and carcinogenic. I assume with a higher probability that you did not suffer any health damage. To the best of my knowledge, medical subjects continued and continue to live after these tests. Try to understand why. What I wrote is a parable.

  144. Yaron
    You claim that there are dozens of sources that claim that the Van Allen belts cannot be crossed. Please bring - 5 of these.
    Thanks.

  145. Yaron
    You did not answer the question "Why do the Russians claim that the Americans did land on the moon"?
    They said this in 1969, when they followed the Apollo 11 trajectory and listened to the astronauts' broadcasts from space.

  146. Again, everything is perfectly fine, you need to check, but it still doesn't answer the question of how belts were changed 40 years ago. For every explanation you refer me to, there are ten others who explain that it is impossible.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH4IvQorjGA
    And another question without the protection of the belts after passing them how can you survive the radiation of the sun.

  147. Yaron

    At 3:12 he says exactly what needs to be checked. Where is it implied from what he says that 40 years ago it was not possible to fly to the moon?

    Today's testing standards are different from the standards back then. At the time, they probably took relatively more risks with the lives of astronauts and today they prefer to be even more prepared before sending someone into space (astronauts are an expensive thing that requires many hours of training).
    The electronic components of today are not the electronic components of that time and indeed you need to check that they will be up to the task.
    The fact that you know that a certain shielding did the job 40 years ago does not mean that it is not better to use another or additional shielding that will function better and be more effective in terms of price. Again, you're trying something new or revamped you need to test it.

    You want to understand if this was possible 40 years ago. The answers are in the link I gave you.

  148. Yaron
    Old fighter jets, like the Phantom (which was still flying in the XNUMXs) were not vulnerable to a concept called EMP. Modern planes (like the Typhoon and the JSF) are indeed vulnerable to this radiation. The problem is the miniaturization of electronics over the years. As the electronics become more modern, the sensitivity to radiation increases.

    So this argument of yours falls flat. I understand this is not your area of ​​expertise, is it?

  149. It is clear that some kind of question is needed in general, but these are technical matters of testing systems, etc. The interest of all visitors is whether it is possible to cross the belts and stay alive. This is about technology and protection from 40 years ago. This is what I want to understand. As he describes in the video the danger from the belts and it is 40 A year later then the question is asked if 40 years ago it was possible this is what I want to understand.

  152. Yaron

    How the hell do you get what you got out of it?

    Build a new spaceship, then check it before putting people in it. 0:46. To understand from this that it was not done by everyone before is simply a distortion of things.
    Even when others plan and build a new car, they check that it works properly before putting it into serial production. We are to understand from the fact that Toyota is testing their new vehicle models that a human has never driven in a car before? Does this really seem like common sense to you?

  154. Yaron

    You mean 6:12 where he says that while the flight is over there is still a lot of work to be done because the collected data needs to be reviewed?

  155. I didn't translate simultaneously but at the end of the simulation he says there is still a lot of work and a lot of details to complete or calculate.

  156. Yaron

    Where is the detailed explanation of the NASA scientist that the conditions have not yet matured to pass the Van Allen belts?

    Because that was not said at all in the video you linked to.

  157. Of course not. But when you see a detailed explanation by a NASA scientist about, among other things, the Van Halen belts and that you have to go through them twice and the conditions are not yet ripe and there is still a lot of work to be done, then above all the detailed explanations you refer me to, question marks hover

  159. Miracles

    I actually really like weeds as long as they are not in a garden or plot where I am trying to cultivate something specific or in a human format.

  161. Yaron

    If you want to know the truth, why don't you bother to read the detailed answers to your questions?

    What does it indicate that people don't read answers given to their questions?

  162. To take things for granted is evidence of stupidity. He who does not ask does not know. There are many questions regarding the Apollo program. And yes, I want to know the truth.
    By the way, according to the response, it seems that you are one of those who inhale weed...

  165. Yaron
    You are like a weed, something harmful that spreads everywhere. As a child I got to watch the landing live. They took us from the school to a place where there was a television. Anyone who thinks it was possible to stage such a thing 45 years ago is either an idiot, or Yaron, or both....

    Yaron, those who followed the most religiously after the landing were the Russians. They announced that the Americans had landed on the moon. Is there a better proof than that?

  167. Peace
    With all due respect, the public turns out not to be stupid. The answers regarding ignorance, etc. are ridiculous. Since the investigation by the Fox network, there have been several more like that of the BBC and more. The people who spoke and investigated in those programs are renowned in their field. Figures. Physicists, photography experts, etc. And they put forward weighty claims and proofs, so that if in 2001 NASA could still answer in a laconic way that is evasive today, 13 years later, no more. What about Van Halen's belts? After all, 42 years ago there was no such level of shielding to protect against radiation, it is doubtful if There is today. The NASA station does not answer and you can understand why. It is implied that the Soviets are not such suckers so that for 42 years there is no way they would not have at least equaled the achievement with the Americans. Apparently they knew that it was impossible to cross the belts and dropped the matter.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.

Science website logo
SEARCH