The Moon Landing Hoax, Explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 май 2024
- Uncovering the Truth About the Moon Landing.
If you’re struggling, consider therapy with our sponsor BetterHelp. Click betterhelp.com/johnnyharris for a 10% discount on your first month of therapy with a licensed professional specific to your needs.
I wanted to know why so many people still believe the moon landing never happened, so I looked into it.
My next video is live on Nebula NOW! It's about how Facebook fueled the genocide of the Rohingya people in Myanmar. Watch now: nebula.tv/videos/johnnyharris...
Check out all my sources for this video here: docs.google.com/document/d/1y...
Thank you to the experts we spoke with that helped with our research in this story:
- Sean Potter - meteorologist, science writer, weather historian, and former NASA Media Relations Specialist - seanpotter.com
- Dr. Jack Singal - astrophysicist and physics professor at the University of Richmond
- Dr. Roger Launius, former chief historian at NASA - launiusr.wordpress.com/
- Bill Barry, former chief historian at NASA
Apollo 11 Resources:
- Live feed of photos being taken: apolloinrealtime.org/17/?t=12...
- History.com overview: www.history.com/news/moon-lan...
- Apollo 11 Mission documents: history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/a...
-- Video Chapters --
0:00 Intro
4:17 Lead Up
10:56 Skepticism
18:42 Hoax
22:16 Real Evidence
24:39 Credits and Outro
Correction:
8:50 Mission Control was in Houston, TX, while the launch took place in Cape Kennedy, FL
Check out my new channel with Sam Ellis - Search Party: / @search-party
Get access to behind-the-scenes vlogs, my scripts, and extended interviews over at / johnnyharris
Do you have an insider tip or unique information on a story? Do you have a suggestion for a story you want us to cover? Submit to the Tip Line: docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FA...
I made a poster about maps - check it out: store.dftba.com/products/all-...
Custom Presets & LUTs [what we use]: store.dftba.com/products/john...
The music for this video, created by our in house composer Tom Fox, is available on our music channel, The Music Room! Follow the link to hear this soundtrack and many more: • Moon Landing | Origina...
About:
Johnny Harris is an Emmy-winning independent journalist and contributor to the New York Times. Based in Washington, DC, Harris reports on interesting trends and stories domestically and around the globe, publishing to his audience of over 3.5 million on RUclips. Harris produced and hosted the twice Emmy-nominated series Borders for Vox Media. His visual style blends motion graphics with cinematic videography to create content that explains complex issues in relatable ways.
- press -
NYTimes: www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/op...
NYTimes: www.nytimes.com/video/opinion...
Vox Borders: • Inside Hong Kong’s cag...
NPR Planet Money: www.npr.org/transcripts/10721...
- where to find me -
Instagram: / johnny.harris
Tiktok: / johnny.harris
Facebook: / johnnyharrisvox
Iz's (my wife’s) channel: / iz-harris
- how i make my videos -
Tom Fox makes my music, work with him here: tfbeats.com/
I make maps using this AE Plugin: aescripts.com/geolayers/?aff=77
All the gear I use: www.izharris.com/gear-guide
- my courses -
Learn a language: brighttrip.com/course/language/
Visual storytelling: www.brighttrip.com/courses/vi...
The music for this video, created by our in house composer Tom Fox, is available on our music channel, The Music Room! Follow the link to hear this soundtrack and many more: ruclips.net/video/BkA8K8SZtaI/видео.html
Kind of sounds like Minecraft music
Tummy reveal
Hmm
Thanks for this video Johnny like always your videos are Great I’m currently 21 years old in college studying engineering science astronomy and I’m dreaming of becoming astronaut it’s my dream to do moon mission
You must make a video about the world economic forum
I applaud conspiracy theorists for being naturally skeptical and questioning everything in their life... The issue is they usually throw that same logic out the window when they find something that either confirms their baises or makes them feel "smarter" than everyone else... Shame.
That's the answer, they just want to think they are smarter than everyone else.
I am willing to think either way but I highly doubt they went considering what was at stake at the time and the untrustworthiness of the US government.
They are not sceptical, they are contrarian.
@@Splarkszter 100%... It's easier to convince a narcissist into believing a conspiracy theory than it is to convince a narcissist that they have been mislead... It's these beliefs that they know something that ultimately gives them meaning in life and makes them feel of importance.
Thanks for this video Johnny like always your videos are Great I’m currently 21 years old in college studying engineering science astronomy and I’m dreaming of becoming astronaut it’s my dream to do moon mission
Once you realize that the moon is a GIANT SUN REFLECTOR then you understand why there are no stars in moon photos. To put it more technically, the moon's asphalt-colored lunar dust reflects 12% of sunlight that hits its surface. Imagine pointing your camera at something 12% as bright as the sun. You're not gonna see any stars.
Thanks for this video Johnny like always your videos are Great I’m currently 21 years old in college studying engineering science astronomy and I’m dreaming of becoming astronaut it’s my dream to do moon mission
Modern digital cameras have MUCH better dynamic range (ability to resolve detail in bright and dark areas) than analog film cameras did/do. @@BenReynoldsDIY
@@BenReynoldsDIY we have the technology now to take multiple different exposures at once and combine them in a single image that's what every modern phone does so what you said can be done in this way.
Not odd at all, that astroid was/is so much more futher away than the moon is to the sun and is so small compared to the moon. It's like comparing a baseball on a clear sunny day and a tenniscort that's all white, which one do you think reflects more light at the same distance... Just saying @@BenReynoldsDIY
@@BenReynoldsDIYyou are slow.
The fact that people still cant beleive it is kind of flattering to NASA. What an incredible accomplishment.
People still can't believe in Santa Claus either, but that doesn't mean it's flattering to him. He doesn't exist, same as the moon landings, LOL.
@@scoobtube5746 haha you seriously believe its a hoax?
@@AyayronBalakay Does a bear shit in the woods, LOL?
@@scoobtube5746 so you think they faked the landing site pics too?
@@AyayronBalakay Of course they did. The "landing site" was inside a Hollyweird studio, LOL.
The guy who got punched by Buzz Aldrin use to hang at my local coffee shop butting in conversations about the moon hoax and he’d be very aggressive and then try to sell his book. He totally had that coming for a loooong time.
prove?
This is kind of an innocuous story to demand someone prove.
14:55 Aerospace Engineer here! In regards to the astronaut’s movements, another reason that they move so unintuitively is because the suits are pressurized, so moving limbs in the way what we would normally move them on Earth takes a lot more effort than people realize (think of yourself being stuck in a human shaped balloon that is made out of tough fabric instead of the thin rubber balloons are typically made of). Humans are also really good at adapting their movements to take less effort overall as well, so with the Moon being 1/6th of Earth’s gravity, the astronauts naturally took the approach of just hopping and drifting around instead of walking because it was just simply more efficient to move that way.
I wonder if the same would be the case in large pressurized modules or corridors that are big enough to walk in, like when bases start being established. There would be no motion limitations of a suit, walking normally would take less effort than on Earth, but would it still be the best or most efficient option is interesting to think about.
And then there was the very attractive lunar regolith getting stuck in the joints of the spacesuits. On top of the clunky spacesuits in 1/6 of Earth's gravity, astronauts also had to deal with magnetic, radioactive soil.
If the space suits were so restrictive than how did they take such perfect photos.?
@@sparch3683 tripods
@@sparch3683how do restrictions of a suit affect the quality of photos? I am obviously completely missing your logic.
This is weird for many of us who aren't americans. We never doubted the moon landing growing up. Actually I would even say the theory was only recently imported from the USA to other countries and I still didn't meet as single person in my country debating the moon landing. We actually routinely bring it up to emphasize human will an knowledge to motivate our own citizens, our children...
😂😂😂
Our states have wildly different average incomes and educational standards. Our population is so spread out and culture so fragmented that you end up with a lot of fringe groups like this. People in some subcultures don't trust people in others - especially when they feel like the "elite" don't care about them.
I'm sorry this stuff escapes our borders. Not exactly the kind of "cultural exports" that I'm proud of lol
you can't just say that and not tell what your country is 🙄
@machfivefalcon2405 you speak like a college student that hasn't experienced anything yet. Somehow blaming demographics that you don't truly understand.
@@elYoko337 I'm not claiming to have a complete understanding of conspiracy theorists or the communities that they come from. I have a lot of sympathy for people in communities that feel ignored or despised by the wealthy and powerful.
I just believe that poverty and education systems gutted by politicians are major contributing factors to the fear and underdeveloped critical thinking skills at the core of conspiracy theories.
I just found your channel a couple days ago, and honestly, I am so glad I found another channel like Why Files that I can call home, I absolutely love your delivery and ruthless examination towards these topics 🤘 thank you for existing and gifting us this amazing content 💜
TWF is quite different, less biased towards an agenda and more about fostering discussion and critical thinking between both sides, rather than a lot of Johnny's work which serves more to make his point.
Exactly. The Why Files always delivers both sides and let's you decide.
Johnny is good, but be wary as he crafts his biased narrative.
Thanks for the kind words. Glad you’re here
It is incredibly difficult to be 100% unbiased in everything you report on, imo. I think Johnny does great and if you think he's biased then arm yourself with that knowledge and then allow yourself to take in his points made and research them yourself to ultimately make your own decisions.
If you think about, if they faked the moon landing they absolutly add stars to the background and would do everything to not forget them
Yep
Nope. The theory is that by seeing the stars it would show where the astronauts where in relation to them. So if they show part of the constilation Orion, but based on the time of day and moons relative position, Orion would have been some where else, it would be tangible evidence that would disprove it. So they show no stars.
@@MrMrbrianbechtel do you actually believe that the moon landing was fake?
@@MrMrbrianbechtel That is right.
So they wouldn’t be smart enough to add some stars to make it seems like they are in the right place? And just say: fck it! We’re going starless 😂
Imagine being a scientist or engineer on one of the biggest projects of your life. Only for people to call your achievements fake. 😢
Happened to me when I invented the cure for world hunger, nobody believed me so I didn’t release it
Wow. That never occurred to me. I'd be so broken. Thankfully, not everyone has fallen for the conspiracy.
They knew it was faked - so why would it upset them?
Actually the argument hundreds of thousands of Nasa employees and contractors must have been in on the deception seems a weak one. Surely even the flattest of earthers would acknowledge there was a space programme with rockets and satellites, so most of those people wouldn't have been in on the 'secret'. You'd just need the key players acting it out in Nevada and a few others higher up. I mean, did Nixon even know Watergate was being bugged?
But of course I don't think the moon landing was faked. If the first landing was faked, what about the others? And if I was one of those engineers I don't suppose I'd be concerned about a few tin hat nutters on the Internet.
Take it as a compliment that it’s so unbelievable that people deny it.
Only if you live a life where you care about the opinions of silly people.
The biggest problem is that the Soviets would have had to be in on it, and exposing a USA fraud would have been a massive win for them
That's how secret societies work.
@@troyrager1352 aha, so the cold war was a hoax. lol.
@@ronald3836 that's you trying to put words in my mouth, have you ever once in your life looked into the secret societies these "leaders" joined? That their families joined? You're really just going to pretend to know everything because you saw it on TV news? Cool story.
The old Russia and America aren't partners conspiracy theory only they are partners in space exploration. 😮
@@ronald3836the comment section always delivers 😂
Great music choice of “Midnight, The Stars and You” for the outro. Sounds old-timey, references stars, and - quite fittingly - was popularized when used in Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining.”
I was *just* about to comment about that. I like his nod to The Shining also by wearing the same Apollo sweater Danny wore.
This was one excellent video! My main hobby growing up was Astronomy, which culminated in a four-year degree in 1970. I watched the moon landing as it happened in the house of one of the many engineers who worked on the lander, and I gotta say that was the most exciting event ever either before or since - the City of Los Angeles went up with a ROAR that went on for a good long time and the world was celebrating for weeks on end!
Nothing since has even come close, and by the way, it only took 66 years from the first powered flight in 1903 for this to happen!
Didn’t happen sir.
@@michael-cd7zb L take
@@michael-cd7zb lmfao
How do you deal with conspiracy theory nutjobs? You're probably a senior citizen, and I'm genuinely asking for life advice. Whichever forces or gods moulded me blessed me with many things but the patience to deal with morons is not of them. I could use the advice.
@@rustomkanishkaa quote to live by “it’s difficult to argue with intelligent people, but it’s impossible to argue with stupid people so don’t argue with them” - someone on the internet
The best answer to this question came from my beloved history teacher who said “The best evidence as to that the moon landing was real is that the Soviets stopped their moon landing missions.” If they had ANY doubt of it, ESPECIALLY at the height of the they would have exploited it.
If thats the “best” answer, its pretty weak imo
@@rockylocey4984 if the moon landings were fake, then why didn't the Soviets fake their own moon landings? Lets be honest any dictatorial state loves a bit of propaganda to boost it's own image. The Soviets had no hope of launching their N1 rocket into space so they could have pretended that it did and save some face.
The Soviets stop cuz, them run out of money and fall as a powerful country. Hello, look like you fail ur history class
The second best answer are the pictures of the Chinese moon landing where they captured images of the USA buggy and lander. China is as motivated as Russia to show lies from the USA, but China confirmed USA landed on the moon.
Soviet moon program via the N1 rocket wasn’t cancelled until 1974, we’ll after the success of Apollo. The cancellation was also not due to “losing the race” as they had continued the project with the intent of constructing a long term moon base. Rather, It was cancelled due to the rival of the original architect of the project coming to power and shutting down the program after 4 failed launches.
My teacher in 6th grade (12 years old) showed us the Dark Side of the Moon mockumentary as an exercise in critically examining the information you are presented with. He just played it with no commentary, and then asked our opinions afterward about whether we believed the moon landing was faked. Most of the class were at least a little skeptical. And then he walked us through the lesson on critical though, dissecting what we are presented with, the strategies that can be used to convince viewers to believe the story. And that lesson has stuck with me ever since, to this day. It was such an important lessons about not believing everything you see, and actually critically examining what you are presented with - even before the days of the internet (and disinformation) being common. I've always been grateful for that lesson, I just wish it was something more people had a chance to be taught.
Edit for clarity - the mockumentary Dark Side of the Moon is a film that presents all the conspiracy theory "proof" that the moon landing was faked. The film is trying to convince you that the moon landing never happened. It's an exercise in how convincing disinformation can be, how presenting info in specific ways can make it believable, in how there's always a purpose to media and you have to examine that critically.
Wow.
That should be taught compulsorily in every school, with the rise of misinformation critical thinking is necessary
as said here: that's a lesson, even a course, that should be a basic part of every curriculum (except Florida? sorry...)
Blessed
Thank you… like the Illuminati and satanism! And the paranormal are evil demons and spirits or spiritual satanic rituals on TV and concerts!
"Sir! I have made all 6,000 fake photos of the moon landing as requested."
"Excellent work, Jenkins! I hope the stars look great in these fake photos."
"Uh..."
"Don't tell me you forgot to put the stars in!"
"I um..."
"Oh well, don't worry about it. This will be good enough for the biggest hoax ever."
In all fairness, they aren't really conspiracy theories. They are conspiracy hypotheses, because a theory actually already established some facts that support the theory. A hypothesis is an idea that hasn't even been tested yet, and therefore has no evidence to support it. And let's face it: while almost anyone with an imagination can dream up a conspiracy hypothesis, most people don't have the ability to genuinely investigate a possible conspiracy. They don't know how to investigate, they lack the information needed to properly follow a paper trail without getting lost, they usually have no real expertise in the various technology disciplines needed to build a working rocket, plot an orbit, let alone navigate in three dimensional space where there are no GPS beacons to help out. So when someone tells them something, they have no ability to know if it's the truth or a lie. And since they are already inclined to believe in a conspiracy, no matter how improbable, they tend to throw out the data that disagrees with their biases. Add in the fact that many people have developed a false distrust of science and scientists, and they start displaying an attitude of "if a scientist says it, it's a lie". Which is counter-productive on multiple levels.
More accurately, they are unfounded conspiracy cult nonsense.
That works in reverse as well. When NASA tells you something, you have no ability to know if it's the truth or a lie. You just gobble down whatever they tell you and get upset when other sheep don't follow you off the cliff, LOL.
Looking at all the mistakes that governments did around the world during COVID. No quarantine of the sick population during Covid, that would of stopped the spread. You cannot trust the government, look at all the lies that the US government has told over the years. Gulf of Tonkin, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Pentagon Papers, Watergate Iran / Contra, That inflation is only 3.1 percent. All lies all the time. @@scoobtube5746
There was no blast crater because it was the descent.And they cut the engine 10 feet before they landed gently
@@scoobtube5746well, experts are called experts for a reason. As in, generally, they would know more about that field than Susy from the supermarket. As in why I am going to a hospital while I’m sick. And so on and so on.
As someone who has walked in 1/6th gravity, it's hard . You have to retrain your whole way of thinking. You jump super high even if you're trying to walk forward. It's very easy to lose your balance and get off kilter. Oftentimes, you end up jumping in place because you can't move forward. I went to space camp as a kid, so I feel what they felt when walking on the moon. It's a relatable experience that I won't forget.
Did you guys learn to roll around in the moon dust so you can absorb more heat from the sun?
I assume the 1/6th gravity was simulated by a pulling mechanism? In that case you didn't feel exactly how 1/6th gravity feels, because all of your body is still being pulled down by 1g, you're only being mechanically lifted up by a force of 5/6th of your weight. To get an exact feel and simulation of what 1/6g is like, you would need to go to one of these parabolic flight aircraft also known as the Vomit comet where for a short periods of time they can simulate microgravity, or any low gravity like lunar or martian. That's what Mythbusters did in one of their debunking episodes.
This sounds so fun!!
How did you experience that? Was it in one of those planes that dive down at a certain angle to mimic different gravity?
how did you get to walk in 1/6th gravity?
That one British sketch unironically gave a great reason why it couldn’t be fake:
“So since we’re faking the moon landing we’ll need to build and launch a giant rocket”
“Wait I thought the point was we didn’t have to do that”
“Well yes but when we say we landed on the moon the first thing people will ask is how we got there, so we need to show them we launched that giant rocket”
“Huh, well how much will that cost?”
“Most of our budget, the rocket is pretty much the whole cost, the rest is just catering for a week or so”
“Well in that case, maybe it would be cheaper to just send up a camera with them and film the fake moon landing, on the moon”
There have been many think pieces in the past about how ludicrously expensive faking the moon landing would be with the technology of the day.
I'm not sure about that, a rocket that was meant to just get outside of the atmosphere (and publics eye) and explode or drift away would probably be quite a bit cheaper than a fully functional rocket.
@@jprice_ except it wasn't 1, but multiple rockets over the years.
@@joshanderson3961And they all got there without a hitch unlike the space shuttle. Gimme a break!
@@jprice_ "Drift away"? Do you have any idea how gravity works? That thing would either splash back down or be stuck in orbit forever.
An average civilian who went to the cape to watch the launch might not be able to see where it went once it was over the horizon, but the Soviet Union would be able to see it on radar and track where it went. They would be able to use radio direction finding to locate where the radio transmissions from the crew were coming from so if they were nowhere near the moon, the soviets would know.
And if they're making a multi-stage rocket big and powerful enough that can rise its orbit high enough to do a trans-lunar injection, then THAT'S A SATURN V AND THEY MAY AS WELL DO IT FOR REAL!
Back in the 1980's I had to explain to an astronaut the atmospheric physics of why stars _must_ seem dimmer when seen in space (or from the moon). He was a shuttle pilot. He had the experience of landing a shuttle at night. He stepped out of the vehicle after landing, looked up, and noticed the stars all seemed much brighter than when he looked at them from orbit. Back then, he could not use Google to find out why. _You_ can.
@johnnyharris you mention that you did months of trying to photograph the galaxy and learned a lot, I would love for you to do a nebula OG tips and tricks about that, I am just getting into it. Thanks from a nebula sub!!
My dad was one of the many, many people who worked in the 1960's on the moon landing program. I recall he didn't sleep well when Apollo 13 nearly blew up.
My Dad worked on the fuel cells used on the Apollo spacecraft. They had nothing to do with the tanks they used. The only time I ever saw him do home work was when he brought home some gold plated circuit boards and had to practice soldering and then bring them back to work. He was tested and had some sort of certification.
my dad worked on the cameras they filmed the fake moon landing with
Poor guy missed a night of sleep! RIP your dad.
@@AlexWheely-bx7pkand my dad was George Bush
And my dad was ...
MY DAD 😱😱😱
Johnny Harris and his team do incredible work. Keep up the great job. Your channel matters!
He has zero credibility! The Apollo 15 photo of Japan Selene is highly questionable. A black and white photo in 2008 with cross marks? It looks like the other NASA Apollo photos 24:08.
@@bobweiram6321🤦🏻♂️
@@bobweiram6321 you could use the Internet and look up why it is that way? Or would that ruin the narrative for you?
4:35 The voice over was amazing! More of this
@@bobweiram6321found the crazy. Please.dont procreate
I love how they act like there was only one moon landing and ignore the Soviet Union looking the other way for the “hoaxes.”
You can’t expect these conspiracy cultists to think clearly with a cue ball brain…
Read some Antony Sutton and maybe you won't make such stupid comments in the future, LOL?
@@scoobtube5746 I don’t waste my time reading moon hoax fictions.
@@Ivan.A.Trulyuski If you like worshiping fake moon landings, why not read about them as well, LOL?
@@scoobtube5746 You are so completely lost, it's astonishing.
Love that you used the music from the end of the shinning at the end 😂
Johnny, I teach a Flight and Space class in Middle School and will be showing parts of this to help answer the conspiracy theory questions that inevitably come up. Thank you! This is so well crafted although I would love to see the full edit!
Explain the extremely delicate camera film they had at the time. How did it survive -500 to + 500 degrees and radiation that would strip the flesh from your bones? Refrigeration? Lead shielding? Enlighten us all please?
@@newsoftheday420The same way engineers captured slow-motion high definition close-up images of a nuclear fireball in 1955: technology. Science and technology in the past was significantly more advanced than many give credit for. Radiation strong enough to destroy film would kill human beings.
@@theussmirage So they had a hi definition digital camera that also captures slo mo in 1955? Okey dokey. A telephone exchange was a bunch a ladies sitting in a room changing plugs to connect calls in 1955. Either this is bull or we have all been robbed of serious high level technology and drip fed the tech we are allowed to have.
@@theussmirage Kodak Ektachrome EF FILM SO-168 (ASA 160), in 16mm and 70mm; Kodak Ektachrome MS FILM SO-368 (ASA 64) in 16mm, 35mm and 70mm; and 70mm Kodak Panatomic-X recording FILM SO-164. FILM FILM FILM
@@newsoftheday420Yes We are “drip fed” technology. The public is YEARS behind in technology. Always has been & will continue to be So. This is Common Knowledge.
Shocked about the 20% stat. While I don't believe it's necessarily bad to question things, the issue arises from confirmation bias when people only seek out information that supports their current view.
Most of the people who can confirm if this landing happen are already dead
No one can be 100% sure if this landing happen or not
More importantly they like having an opinion that is shocking and immediately draws attention to themselves. They don't really care one way or another and their repeated statements of stupidity when confronted with the truth are proof of that. they just want to make it all about themselves. I had an argument with one of these hoaxer idiots was standing at my elbow as I was literally looking through a telescope and wouldn't look through the actual stuff but ran on and on about this fcking nibiru planet or whatever and obviously it was all about drawing attention to herself and not about understanding the universe. One of the few people who I was unable to get to put their eye to the eyepiece of my fcking 10" dobsonian telescope. I was like literally "lady check it out there are planets right here through this eyepiece" but no she wanted to talk about the imaginary ones because the whole discussion was about her.
The important difference between skepticism and willful ignorance.
The 20% one also included people who were doubtful which is not a bad thing. It is one thing to actually believe it’s fake, but to be doubtful never hurts.
Stop it. 🛑 You do it too, don't lie. 🧐✋
The Apollo sweater is a nice nod to Kubrick if you're familiar with Room 237.
@johnnyharris it's quite amusing how not too many people caught the Kubrick Apollo 11 sweater from The Shining. What a fantastic nugget...a stellar Easter egg, if you will!
Hey @johnnyharris
I found your channel just a day ago and now binge watching all your videos!
You are really Great job! Intresting content with best quality!!
Could you please bring a video on your editing tools ! And softwares you use for editing!
We eagerly want to know them
Kudos to your work from myside ❤️❤️
The biggest plot hole in conspiracy theories is, if the moon landing is fake, wouldn’t it be the Soviets who would be the first to point that out? You know, since they’ve already been to space, they could probably easily see if a rocket from US headed for the moon or not. Or if the US flag was there or not when the soviets later on landed on the moon.
Yep, Soviets should be the first in line to debunk USA that the moon landing is fake. They have a very reason to argue but they themselves not judt believed but verified since they also manage to land probe in there. Soviets arent dumb.
Even Russian now arent arguing US that moon landing were fake. Heck China now can deny that moon landing but they themselves do acknowledge that US got there first. Remember these are competitors of US and has a reason to deny US achievements if they want to.
What if the soviets were faking it too? What if the banks were more powerful than governments and the fighting is a part of a bigger scheme? There are no facts - just probabilities. One important question that never gets brought up is how difficult it would have been to leave the moon. Look how much fuel is needed to leave the earth... If we could get to the moon, how would be be able to launch again and get back? 1/6 the gravity, indeed, but wouldn't we need approx 1/6th the fuel, or something sizeable?? I don't know what happened, but I almost never believe the official story after seeing so many official stories turning out to be false.
No one has.
So tell us, Ace, 'coz we all want to know; is the US flag still there. I mean; NONE of us are dumb enough to watch NASA videos anymore, but I bet you have seen some great photos of that 54 yr. old flag up there!
"Nobody can lie or steal": the entire argument for believing in the moon landings 😂
As Tyson said: Hollywood crews found the technical challenges for the faking so complicated that they decided to shoot on location
Mike Tyson is a very wise man.
@@mrrodriguezHLP He even owns the largest chicken processing company!
@@mrrodriguezHLP you funny guy hahahahah
@@mrrodriguezHLP indeed. He is said to have licked frogs and found it.
Without details, that's a bullshit, stupid argument. In fact, Mythbusters proved that scenes allegedly from the Moon, could be shot right here on Earth.
Great video. It looks like some stock footage of an Saturn 1B launching snuck it's way into the video at 9:25.
Yep! Good eye! There were a few other minor errors but overall a good video for sure. 😊
What about the Van Allen belt, and why was the Artemis I mission an important step towards understanding the impacts to life beyond the Van Allen Belts by flying model organisms around the Moon and back.
What about the Van Allen Belts? The only people that have an issue with them are the incredulous, scientifically illiterate and dumb online conspiracy theorists that tell their followers what to think.
Artemis 1 not only sought to validate and test the performance of the onboard Orion systems during traverse of the belts, but also coinciding with a solar maximum gain more understanding of the radiation in cislunar space.
The mannequin that you appear to be referring to was equipped with the first-generation Orion Crew Survival System suit - a spacesuit astronauts will wear during launch, entry, and other dynamic phases of their missions. It was fitted with sensors to record gs and acceleration in order that engineers could compare Artemis I flight data with previous ground-based vibration tests with the same test dummy, and human subjects, to correlate performance. Accelerometers inside Orion yielded data for comparing vibration and acceleration between the upper and lower seats. It also evaluated the integration of the newly designed systems with an energy dampening system that the seats are mounted on.
In terms of radiation, Orion is a completely different craft to Apollo designed for longer duration and distance The longest Apollo mission was Apollo 17 at 12 days - in comparison, Artemis 1 was 25 days (42 originally) and unlike Apollo reached an apogee around the moon of 40,000 miles. The mannequin was also testing a new radiation shielding vest, called the astrorad. Also, as explained, coinciding with peak solar activity provided a tremendous opportunity to gain more data in respect of the crew cabin and its systems.
I remember vividly being nine years old in 1969, witnessing the Apollo 11 moon landing. It was an era defined by the intense space race with Russia. Given the geopolitical climate, if the moon landing had been fabricated, the Soviet Union would have had every incentive to expose this. Yet, there was no challenge from their side. This silence speaks volumes about the authenticity of the moon landing. We achieved something extraordinary, and the lack of dispute from our then-competitors underscores this historical truth.
Exactly. Even Pravda had a story acknowledging the landing.
Yep! ❤
No. No it doesn’t. Not one countries. Keep each other secrets. Don’t be so naïve. Such crap. You guys just wanna believe so hard.
Thank you finally someone who gets it. When will ppl realize that they are all in on things together. People will believe anything that the government shows and tells them. And they know this which is why they keep doing it because they know most of the public is stupid. I can go on and on about so much other bs that is not true and a hoax its insane.@@MethodiousMind
@@eightiesbaby1980 basicly "if there's no evidence at all, it's because everyone else is in on it". this is fucking crazy talk.
One small correction regarding shadows. The reason the shadows go different directions is because the moon isn't completely flat. The shadows follow the contours, and that's why the shadows go different directions...
Thanks, I felt like Johnny didn't explain that clearly enough. When I heard his explanation I thought, "Gonna have to do better than that, Johnny boy".
Maybe he skipped the "flat" references for obvious reasons 😂
That's another reason and probably the main reason but his reasons were valid too.
I might be wrong but I think the moon is way too big for that effect to materialize? You're also assuming that the area is perfectly round without rocks etc?
So the earth is completley flat then and that's why we have normal shadows? 😅
Johnny Harris, thanks for your beautiful speech and choice of interesting and informative topics and research! Hope to meet you one day in person! 💖🌸
What is the bit of music at 18:34? I feel as if I recognize that somewhere.
When I was in second grade one of my classmates grandfathers came in to do a demonstration. He was one of the engineers of the lunar rover and brought in various parts that he had partaken in engineering, including a rover tire. He was able to borrow these from his work to bring in and show us. It was one of the most astounding and inspiring things I experienced in my childhood, and one of the drivers of my unwaivering belief that we landed on the moon, on top of all of the scientifically logical reasons you mentioned in this video.
Love your channel, keep up the great work.
Did anyone in the class think it was fake?
@@Gluteus.Maximus well no because 7 year olds cant really think things like that
Hey Navi; telling 100,000+ people that they are working on a small part of a space vehicle is EXACTLY HOW this BS fantasy of outer space became a thing.
see even the teachers were in on it!!!!
My uncle worked on the tractor that brought the rocket to the launch pad.
First time I heard someone argue that it was fake was mid90s. And I'm telling you he sounded like the craziest illusional person. Rest of us sitting with him almost felt sorry for him. That was the situation before social media and everything
I was just thinking how fringe conspiracy theories used to be, like a titillating fantasy at best. Now it's totally mainstream.
Ever stop to think that maybe you’re the delusional one and you’ve used google as your main search engine to try and debunk what you call “conspiracy theories?”
It's a false belief that has no real world consequences though. People falsely thought a pizza shop was involved in child trafficking and a guy showed up there with a rifle. People who think the moon landing was fake haven't caused anything to happen to anyone.
@@cloudiershark4684No
@@cloudiershark4684 ya and what do you use?
Is there any movie clip showing capsule coming back from space, not on the see level but going through the atmosphere?
There are Apollo Reentry videos that have a view from the capsule as it enters the atmosphere. The camera looks out one of the cabin windows, so you get a view to the side or aft. The heating of the air around the capsule can be clearly seen.
I don't think there are videos that show reentry from the ground.
Yeah they stationed a hovering hyperdrone in space 250 meters away from the exact point location of re-entry. The stationary drone filmed the re-entry in 4k footage before leaping into action, following and tracking the Apollo capsule at matched speeds of 24545 mph, before breaking away and returning to base. The footage was received from the hyperdrone’s 256GB capacity U3 speed class SD card.
i was sitting and thinking about some random technical stuff the other day (i have three electrical engineering roommates so it's hard not to) and all of a sudden kinda was hit by how fucking insane it is to not just put a thing on the moon, but LIVING PEOPLE, and then GET THEM BACK. fucking insane, but a testament to humanity.
These are the type of videos I miss from you Johnny, please more of these.
I’ll bite. Which are the videos you won’t miss?
@@hippopotamusboschno biting in the comments
@@brunolondinese5857😂
@@hippopotamusboschDo you have rabies? 😬
I'm also interested? I feel like all his videos have been great lately?
This is the first I felt that Johnny Harris sounded sad, or exhausted. Excellent work as always of course.
Yes! Johnny Hair knows I am coming for him when he does stuff like this. He's scared.
Reading about conspiracies tends to do that to people that care about the truth. That so many people have devoted so much time and effort into conspiratorial delusions can be really disheartening. Conspiracy theorists must believe that all of mankind's great achievements are lies. What cynics.
he is a RUclipsr, he knows how to engage and even "feel sad" to make people like you believe ...
@@danielbroomhall8882 i know right. Even triggers other people too. Makes him a great storyteller.
Because he couldnt debunk it
13:22 The pinwheel galaxy, M101. Nice shot, I hope you didn't stop there. Andromeda's even easier, lol. I've been shooting galaxies, nebula and dark dust clouds for years. My RUclips pic is the Helix nebula and I plan to add more integration time to it this summer. It does look good full sized, but more is always better. I subscribed, by the way, after watching a couple videos... I'm impressed.
This channel is quality. How quality? So quality that I felt like yelling into the void that is more than 15,000 other comments. Cheers man, thanks for the quality.
I always get stuck in these counter-counter arguments...for example instead of countering "why are their no stars" with the science of photography, I counter with "why would someone faking the landing not put stars in the background to make it look more convincing?" Instead of countering "Why are there shots from the surface of Armstrong FIRST getting off the lander" with evidence of the cameras on the lander itself, I counter with "what kind of director going for realism would put camera's somewhere camera's hadn't been put yet?" People trying to trick other people, rely on what those people expect to see/hear...not something confusing to them. Film makers break the rules of physics all the time to make something seem believable, and we believe it! Why would they do the opposite at such a critical moment.
This is an underrated point.
Man I've had similar conversations as this so many times. Thousands of people in on this hoax and not one person considered that it might seem a little sketchy to have a camera outside showing them descending the ladder onto the surface? If you go look at the comments on any video that mentions the moon landing, you will see thousands of upvotes on things about the camera, as if that was just some oversight by all of NASA and apparently Stanley Kubrick, lol. That's the most likely scenario in their minds, that thousands of people just didn't think about that subtle detail, but Hank from Gulf Shores, Alabama ain't no fool.
@@BiosynchroYeah, I'm going to try that. The science arguments never work on those people, they always put you on the defense answering questions.
@@kennethmartin1300 The gloss over these questions just as easily as anything else. "Oh, they got careless." "Oh, got sloppy." "Oh, they didn't think of that." "Oh, they got arrogant." "Oh, they have so much power they just like rubbing our faces in the fakery."
But like all online rebuttals, the point is not to convince the nutter. The point is to provide calm rational points for the vast majority of silent people in the middle who might think the nutter was onto something. So yeah, from that point of view there is value to this approach.
But it this video he said and show that we can see stars.
Stuff like this always comes back to the same quote;
"It's hard to win an argument against a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person."
Basically you’re saying your beliefs is what dictates your intelligence?
@@rockylocey4984 that is literally not at all what I just said.
😂😂
The Apollo Mission sweater and closing music was a nice touch 😉
If anyone has the chance, visit the Kraft Mission Control Center in Houston. It was such a special experience about Apollo 11
For me it almost always works to ask: What would change your mind? If they can't answer this then it's going to be a complete waste of energy trying to have a dialogue with them.
exactly. right into the solution.
Same for religious debates.
The CIA coming out saying they killed Kennedy would help, the government not being the biggest liars on the planet would help, or being honest about "aliens" and what they know would help, you know metaphysics would help, do you know metaphysics?
Show a video of a toilet flushing in outer space and yes I know if ain't water and show a video of a rocket from launch to landing from the out side of a rocket that has the film quality of all things done on earth.
@@tommosher8271 And your point is....???
You and your team should be very proud of this video. Excellent music, editing, writing, presentation, pacing... everything is just super high-quality. Well done and thank you!
They are very good. They make good productions
Production in this video was great as always, the evidence was presented was beyond subpar
It’s a repost. He’s made this video before
His only evidence is a lot of people wouldn’t lie & a photo from NASA? This is weak 🙄
@@ryangilles4837 Watch the several hours of footage from Apollo 11 to 17, and get back to me. The burden of proof is on you to tell me it's all fake. I'm waiting...
If NASA now says they cannot get through the Van Allen radiation belts how did they do it in a foil wrapped tube frame with the computing power of a calculator?
NASA does not say that though.
also it's not a tube frame. and the simplicity of the AGC (still way more powerful than a calculator) made it completely immune to the VABs.
@h.dejong2531 an astronaut did in a 2007 interview
@@jasonroberts6080 No. In 2007, the US did not have a manned spacecraft that could be launched on a rocket with enough energy to place the spacecraft above the van Allen belts. That does not mean they don't know how to get through the van Allen belts. We do know how to do that, because all the information we need to do that is in public archives (scientific papers from 1958-1962 by James van Allen).
@@jasonroberts6080 there no longer was a rocket powerfull enough to make that happen. The saturn was massive. The shuttle was small in comparison and could only push things to orbit.
I guess technically you are correct that in Houston Texas, the location of the control center, it was sunny but the Apollo 11 launched from Cape Kenedy in Florida. :)
SOOOO good man. Johnny you and your team really put together some magnificent work. This is so well done and produced it really is impressive. You all do extremely top notch production, kudos!
the cinematography or the information?
@@patrioticmisinformation7184 I meant the editing and the cinematography, but really the total package…
Nvidia actually had an amazing lighting demo based on the moon landing that explained the lack of stars and strange shadows. It's awesome because they go through all the different ways of recreating accurate light (I'm not sure if they were strictly using path or ray traced light, but it wasn't exactly a complex demo, so they could have been at the time), and you can turn off certain aspects of the simulation to see what the scene would have looked like had said physical aspects of the lighting were gone.
nvidia can't even render crysis in 40K 6fps back in it's day. Heck let alone a voxel.
The big problem is that the astrounauts have told they are visible and not visible depending on who you ask. And sometimes they cant remember haha.
@@martinsv9183 Nah, those are quote-mines. Full context for the specific, glare-filled activity (glare obscures starlight) they were asked about:
"Reporter: '. . . And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?'
[. . .]
Armstrong: 'We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall _during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona_ what stars we could see.'
Collins: 'I don't remember seeing any.'"
People then take this, omit the context, and turn it into not remembering if they could see stars at all. Either on purpose or by repeating the claim without actually watching the full press conference three weeks after getting back that this is from.
@@maskonfilteroff3145 No its because Don Petit said.. oh yeah.. you can see stars everywhere.
You cant just watch videos like this if you want to understand anything.... Of course they are going to try and prtray it the wrong way... as always.
All this including these interviews are in the videos. They are not consistent whatsoever.
@@martinsv9183 Of course, that is in agreement with everyone else. Pettit was on the ISS and saw plenty of stars while in the Earth's shadow on its night-time side. Just like how Armstrong said, when passing into the moon's shadow, "the sky is full of stars, just like the night side of Earth", and Al Worden described the same sight as “awash with stars”. They are all in agreement: bright light, like the daylight sides of the Earth and moon, obscures starlight. It's just how optics work.
The quote from the press conference that I posted above is where the claim that any astronaut ever said anything to the contrary comes from. If you do believe any astronaut has stated that they never saw any stars *at all*, or that they can't remember if they saw any stars *at all*, I implore you not to brush this comment off and look for it to confirm your beliefs. I know the common response is "I'm not doing your homework for you!" But I'm not asking you to show it to me. I'm simply saying, if you believe this, please test that belief. Do it for you and only you.
Apollo was not launched from Houston. Launched from right here in Cape Canaveral.
Command and Control was in Houston. Johnson Space Center.
13:48 Mythbusters also showed that topography has effect distorting the shadows
While I appreciate the intention and fully agree that there’s overwhelming evidence that the moon landings happened, the picture at 24:11 is NOT one taken by Japan’s Selene orbiter. It’s a photo taken by the astronauts who were a part of that mission while they were on the moon. The point of the Selene imagery is that Japan’s orbiter reconstructed the moon’s topography from their satellite imagery and it matches up with the hills shown in the background of the astronaut’s photo from the surface.
Yeah, I about had an aneurysm when I saw that picture. I was gobsmacked I hadn't seen that image, and wondered how it could even have been taken by a probe. Then I also noticed the astronaut in the picture.
Yes theory is obviously going to follow msm narrative.
It will of course show up in moon hoax videos as NASA presents fake photo, claims Japan took it. All mistakes made by anyone saying the moon landings are real are jumped on by moon hoax people as NASA said: ______.
#AdamNisbett I thought you were about to say the footprints of the astronauts are very deep while the obviously heavier car's doesn't even exist in that photo. Isn't weird ?
@@aychingao no it’s not weird. The lunar rover was designed to be as light as possible to save on fuel costs, so it was only 210 kg (460 lb on earth). The astronauts with their space suits on weighed close to that same amount though a bit less. But the astronauts tended to bounce around when “walking” which would also add additional impact force compressing the lunar dust, and then separate in a mostly vertical direction leaving the footprint undisturbed. The rover on the other hand had rolling contact, which wouldn’t have as much impact force, and would often smudge its own tracks as the wheel rolled off. Plus, the rover has four large tires to spread the weight over, while the astronauts weight is over a much smaller bootprint area, particularly if they alternated bouncing on one leg then the other. From other photos, the tracks of the lunar rover are visible, they’re just a lot more subtle than those of the astronauts.
I first came across the arguments denying moon landing when I was watching Interstellar. I thought it was a neat trick pulled by nolan to make the threat seem more real by showing how far humans are going to keep peoples interests low in science. It took some time time to realize that there are real ppl who believe in this...I mena wtf, the fact that we went to the moon fills me with pride and I am not even american. The opening monologue in Transformers DOTM with Nixon's speech is among my most inspiring moments till date.
I'm pretty much binge watching this channel at this point. Nice work, John Harris!
I still am confused why people would want it to be fake. What's the benefit of not exploring space? I would be HIGHLY disappointed in humanity if the moon landing were fake.
Because they want to be special, to have insight that the normies don't have.
Not only that, it would be politically catastrophic if the moon was fake. To add to that, the Soviet Union would've called out the US for it. As a result, NASA's creditability would be forever altered.
@@stephenh5944 I think people question because the US government lies soo much when they want to push a certain narrative or Agenda. Look at all the foreign wars the government has engaged in that are all based on false premises. If you can lie about something that will cost American lives & $ what more about a moon landing
They don't wish it to be faked. In fact , it's a catastrophe that it was. Bart Sibrel explains it, and the proof is there, unfortunately.
Would be great if Johnny did a couple similar videos on the 9/11 conspiracy and the JFK assassination.
Agreed. Your examples are a little different from flat earth or the moon hoax conspiracy. Most of the world believes that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone, and most of the world does not believe Al Qaeda acted alone. The majority of the world does not believe those 2 stories, while flat earth and the moon landing are virtually accepted everywhere.
I would suggest watching Lemmino's video on the JFK assassination
My Geoeconomics teacher in Mexico teaches 9/11 conspiracy theories as a fact lol
How did these 2 buildings collapse just like that? ... we see pictures from war affected areas with buildings blasted by bombs and they are still standing....
@@LorimerAlex it was 3 buildings. And one was never hit by a plane.
The photo that you credit to Japan’s SELENE was take during Apollo 15 (clue: there’s an astronaut in it).
Japan’s SELENE was an orbiter that collected detailed data about the terrain on the moon, and it captured information about the Apollo 15 site detailed enough to build a 3D recreation of the site which matches the landscape of those Apollo 15 photos, so it did confirm that those photos were real in that sense, but the photo in your video was not taken by the orbiter.
Thank you.
8:49 hi great videos! I just reacted in that NASA do not launch from Texas. They launch almost exclusively from Cape Canaveral Florida but flight control an NASA HQ is in Houston.
One of the cases I litigated was when the space shuttle Challenger exploded. I have been studying about space exploration since I was eight years old. I still cannot convince the conspiracy theory crowd that YES WE LANDED ON THE DAMN MOON! As a member of the Mars Society and someone who has studied space exploration and astronomy, you did a very nice job with this educational video. Kudos
How do you really know we put a man on the moon? What is your no. 1 piece of evidence that convinces you?
I once asked a flerf what would convince him that we landed on the moon. He said "nothing. Even if you fly me on a rocket up there and let me walk on the moon and touch the lunar lander remains, i will not be convinced. I could as well be in some simulator in a studio. There is no way to know for sure"
That day, i kinda lost all hope for humanity
At least he was honest on his non open mind. That's an ideologue to a t. Will never change their mind no matter what you show them. I do believe it varies on topics though, I bet he has other thoughts on other topics that he'd change his mind on given good evidence. Usually, people will only HEAR you when they reach a point in their life that they are truly ready to hear you. Until then, it's a lost cause.
It's not about the reality of the moon landing it's about making everything about themselves that's why they won't budge because the real goal is to draw attention to themselves. You don't have to take them seriously; they don't take themselves seriously. And that idiotic statement is proof that they don't.
@@tianamarie989 wow, tia, you are not only insightful, but also correct. If a mind is closed off, no facts will change anything in that mind. It helps to see the lies early on in life.
The sad truth is, even with this extensive breakdown, you still haven’t put this to rest. And it might likely, out live you Johnny (and co.). Conspiracy theories are very stubborn
But thank you for showing us again, what humans can achieve when they put their minds together 💛☺️
RUclips shadow bans moon hoax videos.
He fails to provide the entire theory that has irrefutable points like why haven’t we returned despite having 5x the technology and NASA still receiving lots of funds yearly also noteworthy to mention we’ve been trying to return for 2 decades now but for some reason we cannot reproduce the mission like we did in 1969
@@LegalMikel There's nothing irrefutable about that. Apollo was the most expensive engineering project in history, absorbing 5% of the US Federal budget for a decade. After Apollo, NASA's funding was reduced by 90%, making manned lunar missions unaffordable for decades. When the Space Shuttle program ended in 2010, the budget freed up by that was used to start work on Artemis and SLS. With only 0.1% of the US Federal budget available for Artemis, of course it's going to take longer than Apollo did.
@@LegalMikel Or how about the challenges they are facing with Orion...drum roll...getting through the radiation belts! Interestingly, in 24:08 the video shows a purported photo of Apollo 15 site taken by Japan's Selene. Do you mean we still can't take color videos in 2008? I'll meet them most of the way, how about a simple color photo? Seriously, Japan is practically a US colony. They're not going to shit on their propaganda parade.
@@LegalMikelNASA claims it lost or destroyed critical telemetry data and documents needed to return to the moon. How can they be competent enough to land on the moon, yet incompetent enough not to archive extremely valuable data for not 1, but several missions to the moon? Come on!
🔹 List of people who have walked on the Moon:
🔸Neil Armstrong (Apollo 11)
🔸Buzz Aldrin (Apollo 11)
🔸Charles "Pete" Conrad (Apollo 12)
🔸Alan Bean (Apollo 12)
🔸Alan Shepard (Apollo 14)
🔸Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14)
🔸David Scott (Apollo 15)
🔸James Irwin (Apollo 15)
🔸John Young (Apollo 16)
🔸Charles Duke (Apollo 16)
🔸Eugene Cernan (Apollo 17)
🔸Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17)
appreciation not only to the hard work behind this but after all you did put a Stanley Kubrick soundtrack at the end ("Midnight with the stars and you" ❣️) you got yourself a new subscriber
Ive always found it insanely impressive we went to the Moon within 30 years of rockets becoming a thing.
we didn’t tho!
Hah, nah we totally did. Would have been tougher to fake it in the late 60s than to simply just go to the Moon. In reality, it's not actually as complicated as it's made out to be. While at the sametime, being very complicated.@@BlackSheepDontGrin13
@@jonny-b4954 who was already on the moon when they landed then? because it was a camera already there in the perfect position.
Hehehe@@BlackSheepDontGrin13
@@jonny-b4954 lol fr bro. think about it
Every video just gets better and better in every aspect, keep up the great work Johnny and team!
How come NASA always renders their videos and not actually record videos live on FB with a regular phone, ohh wait they cannot go to space let alone the moon, I need real life proof that I can experience not some Video made with CGI!
I can see more pixels with my bare eyes looking at the creators at night and during the day, in 32K Epic-UHD and I can see more textures on the moon than on the CGI videos Nasa renders! it looks nicer than any textures on any game of any time!
I like the wardrobe choice's nod to the Kubrick conspiracy. The Apollo sweater, an almost exact replica of what Danny wore in The Shining, is featured in many conspiracy theories about Kurbrick and his work. I wish I had that!
Does anyone know the name of the music at 24:23 ??
Midnight, the stars and you
Excellent video, keep up the great work.
Only thing I would have loved to see was some simple graphic, which you guys are awesome at making, depicting how they did it. Especially returning to earth safely is a techonological marvel of its time. I don't doubt we landed on the moon, but any seed of doubt I guess could start there. Many of the young people who doubts the moonlanding probably didn't learn enough about it.
I am also interested in how close we are to another modern moon landing as it would be really cool to follow live in high quality.
I think I remember lots of great graphics on his channel. Maybe I’m confused about the time when he worked at Vox, but yes graphics could have been cool. Also, he did not talk about how we have not gone back and how all that old technology to go to the moon got damaged and lost. I think it could be cool if he got into some deep conspiracy, cause all the ones he talks in the video have been debunked.
What makes me question the moon landing is the incredible distance to the moon, approximately 250,000 kilometers! Failure is a function of time. The time to travel back and forth was about 1/2 of a month. To do this several times without a hitch is just absurd and demands a thorough explanation.
I think this may be a topic for a whole video. I'd totally watch that!
@@bobweiram6321Apollo 1, we lost 3 guys before the first launch
@@Captaintrippz Precisely! It failed sitting on the launch pad.
Much needed video, thanks for this! Keep this up and there will be hope for us in this insane age. :)
You showed a birdseye view of the buggy tracks, but in the photos afterwards there were no tracks. Even in the photo of the rover, it had no tracks behind the wheels.
24:08
The lack of LRV tracks at times is due to the surface either being too bright to track shadows, or simple terrain undulations hiding them. Due to the lower gravity on the moon, objects weigh about 1/6 what they do on Earth; the lunar surface is also a lot firmer than what was initially suspected so on harder parts of the terrain no tracks would have been made. The mesh wheels used on the rover would fill with material whilst being driven and when the astronauts stopped this was dumped out behind and in front of the wheel, frequently obliterating the tracks. Astronauts walking around the rover would have also kicked up a lot of material to cover the tracks.
My grandfather, who worked on the Ranger 7, Ranger 9, Mariner, and the Voyager Programs would always laugh about the moon landing conspiracies. He mentioned that the number of people that worked on the programs, made covering it up without anyone coming out and exposing it, ever, impossible.
6:44 It’s not the russians, but soviets. Sergei Korolev - the lead engineer of the whole program was from Ukrainian republic.
Really enjoyed this one. I’ve heard a lot of these arguments for and against in the past. Love the way you guys package this up. Great music, editing, animation… It’s clear y’all poured a lot of creativity and fun into this. Love the direction y’all are going with the channel!
They start this video with confirmation bias and make fun of the arguments twist them they are not serious about anything and certainly not scientific
Love your videos. There’s way less informational videos on RUclips and definitely way less journalist content. Thank you for inspiring me to cover more research in history and spread the truth.❤️
He claims to be doing serious journalism, but has some glaring mistakes in this video, and he is dressed in a child’s jumper from a scary movie.
The reason I'm skeptical that this was a hoax is because there would have to have been so many people involved to pull it off, and there is no way to keep that many fickle human beings quiet for decades over one of the biggest scandals in American history.
Yep. Here’s more proof…
Proof NASA landed men on the Moon:
1. There are over 8,000 photos available to the public of the moon landing missions that could not have been faked.
2. There are thousands of hours of video too.
3. Hundreds of kilograms of lunar material that has been studied and verified by astronomers and geologists all over the world and showed chemical signs of being on the moon.
4. The LRRR data laser retroreflector arrays left by Apollo 11, and other subsequent Apollo missions, can still be interacted with today by using powerful enough lasers here on Earth.
5. The SELENE photos which show the damage to the lunar surface where we landed the Apollo missions.
6. The Chang'e 2 photos, which show the lander base.
7. Chandrayaan-2, which managed to photograph another Apollo lander base.
8. A group at Kettering Grammar School, using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits.
9. Pic du Midi Observatory, which watched Apollo missions all the way to the moon.
10. The Lick Observatory observations during the return coast to Earth produced live television pictures broadcast to United States west coast viewers via KQED-TV in San Francisco
11. Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and the Lunar Module. He could only detect messages FROM the lunar vehicles and not to them, cause the earth was between him and Huston. Also, backyard amateurs all around the world were able to tune in on the Apollo audio (not the video, that would have taken bigger hardware, but, the audio was easy) by pointing their Yagi and/or dishes at the moon. Hundreds (or maybe thousands?) of people in many countries did exactly that.
12. The Soviet Union, who monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, who's leader Vasily Mishin, in an interview for the article "The Moon Programme That Faltered", describes how the Soviet Moon programme dwindled after the Apollo landing.
13. The absurdity that thousands of people who worked on the Apollo missions would have to be kept silent for years and years without a single person coming forward to claim it was a fraud.
14. In October-November 1977, the Soviet radio telescope RATAN-600 observed all five transmitters of ALSEP scientific packages placed on the Moon surface by all Apollo landing missions excluding Apollo 11. Their selenographic coordinates and the transmitter power outputs (20 W were in agreement with the NASA reports).
15. Images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories. Although this probe was indeed launched by NASA, the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of an academic group - the LROC Science Operations Center at Arizona State University, along with many other academic groups. At least some of these groups, such as the German Aerospace Center, Berlin, are not located in the US, and are not funded by the US government.
16. After the images shown here were taken, the LRO mission moved into a lower orbit for higher resolution camera work. All of the sites have since been re-imaged at higher resolution. Comparison of the original 16 mm
17. Apollo 17 LM camera footage during ascent to the 2011 LRO photos of the landing site show an almost exact match of the rover tracks.
18. Further imaging in 2012 shows the shadows cast by the flags planted by the astronauts on all Apollo landing sites. The exception is that of Apollo 11, which matches Buzz Aldrin's account of the flag being blown over by the lander's rocket exhaust on leaving the Moon.
19. Spain and Australia were 2/3rds of the DSN that received all of the TV broadcasts from the moon.
20. Dozens of tracking stations around the world (including from enemies) used radar and radio telescopes to track all of the missions. You can find more info about this on MIT's site. The tracking was accurate to within 1 mile.
21. Spain had the largest telescope on Earth at the time, and used it to photograph the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon (which spanned out for miles, thus were visible to a large enough telescope), as well as the Apollo 13 debris and gas field (same dynamic).
22. There are more than 100,000 photos taken from lunar orbit.
23. The Jodrell Bank Observatory tracked the movements of the Eagle Lunar Module from the beginning of its descent clear down to the lunar surface by monitoring the doppler shift in its telemetry signal.
❤
Not really, just like the Manhattan project, you only knew about the part you worked on, told thar it wormed with another part someone else made.
@@derekdugger2321 And you’re basing that on…what? How do _you_ know for a fact that everyone working on Apollo didn’t know what anyone else was doing? Also, that’s an irrelevant thought experiment because NASA factually landed humans on the Moon.
@@derekdugger2321 - The Manhattan Project had numerous security breaches and was compromised by at least 9 Soviet spies, including Lona Cohen, Morris Cohen, Klaus Fuchs, David Greenglass, Theodore Hall, Alan Nunn May, Ethel Rosenberg, Julius Rosenberg, and Harry Gold. Josef Stalin knew about the project before Harry Truman.
@@DemonDrummerbased on my working experience in a corporate. Only few in the company knew the whole system. Everyone in the project is just working on a very small part of the project.
One of the things that I have to keep in mind with conspiracy theory stuff is that everyone perceives the world through their own unique set of experiences and knowledge. A lot of people do not arrive at conclusions through logic, so trying to use logic to change their mind is a fool's errand.
Easier way to treat these peoples conspiracy theory spewing is to recognize that they're very immature and they're prone to wildly elevating their own importance and the conspiracy theory is about making you pay attention to them that's really all it is and it's impossible to tell if they believe their own horseshit or not because honestly I really doubt they do
You arrive at conclusions due to evidence. Logic without evidence won't get you there.
The retro reflectors left behind are the most convincing evidence to me. With a suitably strong laser and detector my understanding is that anyone could verify we left something there.
Just like they did on "big bang theory"😊
@@jakobsieverswhat if it blows up? The laser? No, the moon
@@k.h.1587 🤣
And not just "there", i.e. somewhere on the moon, but exactly right there where the Eagle landed.
14:41 why would the flag look like that if there would be no gravity pulling it down?
They're on the moon. The moon has gravity. The moon is smaller than Earth, so the gravity is weaker (1/6 that of Earth).
Look at Apollo 12 photo AS12-47-6983 showing the deployed flag and its shadow. The latch failed on the pivot designed to hold the top edge of the flag out perpendicular to the pole on a supporting rod, so the flag hung limp.
outer space has gravity everywhere! The Sun, planets and all celestial bodies, from the tiniest ones to the biggest ones, they have gravity depending of their mass. For example the people who are inside the International Space Station they are at about 90% gravity that we are used on Earth surface. If that station wasn't moving at all, the people inside it could walk almost normally as on the Earth. The only reason it looks like they don't have gravity, is not because they are in outer space, but because the International Space Station is "falling" back to the Earth. And it fails to fall back, because it's also moving forward in a constant speed faster than falling to earth. And it doesn't stop moving because is out of the atmosphere, so there is nothing, like air friction for example, to stop it. (actually is still has small % of friction because of outer atmosphere and they need to correct that every X amount of time firing rocket boosts).
So to experience that "no gravity" thing, you can do it here in Earth. Just look for "How do zero-gravity planes work?" in youtube. Or just jump in your home. For a fraction of second, when you're in highest point of your trajectory, right before starting falling back again.
the moon does have gravity, just less than earth's
I think therapy is the rehab and the exercise is living a life in balance by continuing to be open-minded, fun, creative, and hard working.
I love how this was done. It's so crisply constructed, visually appealing, well written and bluntly informative. I want to be a part of it.
It contains some obvious factual errors. 8:50 and 24:06.
@@dansv1 May I ask you what are these factual errors?
@@sergei6572
8:50 Apollo 11 did not launch from Houston, Texas.
24:06 That photo was not taken by Japan’s SELENE orbiter.
@@dansv1 Yep! Beat me to it. Well done as always.
@@dansv1 Thank you for explaining. 👍Such inaccuracies sometimes happen, but in general, I personally really liked this video.
Thank you for giving an honest overview of this. Videos I watch about conspiracies or other more "fringe" ideas rarely ever present both sides. They will make some pretty big reaches to bolster their theories, all while ignoring everything to the contrary. This unbalanced and biased way of thinking will never get us closer to the truth.
using the song from the end of the shining was an amazing kubrick tie in love the video
The "old timy radio broadcast" made my day!!
Always enjoy your work Johnny.
Overall very good, but you did make several errors:
- The Apollo missions launched from the Kennedy Space Center near Cape Canaveral Florida, not Houston TX.
- The object you circled on the LRO image scan of the A17 landing site was the descent stage, not the "buggy".
- The photo of the A15 rover was not taken by Selene. It's an original Apollo photograph.
- You kept referring to "Fox News" as the network that released the show about the moon landings in 2001, but it was actually the regular Fox TV Network.
Also, those "traces of stars on photos" at 13:44 are not stars. It's radiation damage.
For anyone interested, Japan’s Selene orbiter took imagery that they used to independently construct a 3D topography model of the moon in the vicinity of where that mission supposedly landed and their 3D surface info closely matches the hills in the background of the rover image that the astronauts took during their mission (which is what Johnny has mislabeled as a Selene photo. The Selene data was just a 3D model that they compared with that original photo)
@@AdamNisbett Easily faked images do not constitute proof of claims.
@@jonsmith3945 perhaps not, but it’s independent backing of the evidence. Had the Apollo moon landings been faked, then any independent government like Japan that had imagery of the actual site on the moon could provide evidence that proves the terrain is nothing like the pattern of hills shown in the NASA photos. Instead they claim that the actual terrain matches up with the NASA images. So if the NASA missions were a hoax it would have to be a hoax that foreign governments are going out of their way to also hoax (including governments like China or Russia that aren’t always exactly on super friendly terms with the USA)
It's a trust issue. When some people have lost control of everything else, their stubbornness is all they have left to control.
this was a magical experience in my young boy's life as I looked and marveled at the Moon 😊
Was legitimately, expecting a gag where you pull the camera back and you reveal that you’ve been on the moon. The entire time, a reverse gotcha moment.
“they created a set that was a facsimile of the moon, where, as I created a set that was a facsimile of a set on the earth when I’m on the moon”
The sand the astronauts kicking up when he’s wiping out at 15:30 falling at the same rate 1.635m/s^2 as the astronauts bouncing is really hard to fake
Hey Johnny, great video, I wonder if some point in the future you could do a conspiracy follow-up that tries to answer some questions I've always had about the psychology of mass-conspiracy theories. You touched on it at the very end of this episode. From my perspective with these MASSIVE conspiracies, they aren't really about the actions of the conspiracy, but the conspiracy itself. The moon landing, flat earth, chemtrails, etc. The main thing about it is, there's millions of people all secretly working together to outsmart you. Why they're doing that is secondary to the fact they're doing it. Any evidence to the contrary is just proof that they're working even harder to outsmart them than they thought, and they're smarter than the average person for realizing this. It's a self sustaining cycle for many.
I'm curious if there's been much research on this, and you and your team are certainly better at tracking down info than I am!
Beyond the Curve is an interesting documentary that discusses this topic. It's about Flat Earthers. Not about Flat Earth itself, but about the individuals who believe in the conspiracy, why they do, and how it has impacted their lives.
I think a lot of it has to do with the fantasy that it feels a lot safer to live in a world where there are people at the top who are in control. Even if these people are nefarious or out to get you, it still means that someone has the power to be in charge of all of this. It's better than the idea that the world is screwed up with nobody is at the helm.
If they're reinforcing the ideas within themselves that they are right, then it's not the conspiracy either, it's the person.
If you believe the moon landing was faked, you probably believe or subscribe to other conspiracies as well. That's fairly well-known.
You can lead a horse to water, can't make em drink though.
@@izzycurer1260documentary called ‘American Moon’ is better. The flat earth society that created behind the curve is controlled opposition
The funny thing is, that you didn't mention the most important question. Why the last moon landing was over 50 years ago? The technology evolved so much after 50 years, and we can't go there even once in modern times? Give me a fu***ng brake. Our modern spaceships would be so much better, faster, more fuel efficient. The videos from moon would be so high quality. Taking and testing the samples from moon would be so much better. Everything would be so much better, but for some weird reason we are not going there.Very interesting.
You should look outside; something called project Artemis
A shift in national priorities resulted in Lyndon Johnson and then Richard Nixon killing anything in the future; Johnson because he was having trouble with Vietnam and the Great Society and Nixon because he wasn’t interested in manned spaceflight and the Moon had become controversial with the public and congress by the time he had become president.
There was/is no political imperative to go back to the Moon as there was to get there in the 1960’s Cold War, which was a completely different time, except now for commercial reasons. Even Apollo 8 commander Frank Borman said. 'Any idea that the Apollo programme was a great voyage of exploration or scientific endeavour is nuts. People just aren't that excited about exploration. They were sure excited about beating the Russians.’
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard. There is also no cold war imperative and no time limit placed on it by a president. We also live in much more risk averse times. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
Anyone know the song at 24:23 ??
its in the description. all their music is made by a guy called tom fox.
The original song is called "Midnight, the stars and you" by Ray Noble & His orchestra :)
(funny how he put the ending song from Stanley Kubrick's "The shining" lol)
A classic debating style essay. Takes the side of conspiracy, slowly coming to senses by verifying evidence. Finally leaving the people to think on their own, while giving in a carefully penned essay rejecting every noise of conspiracy. With a brilliant edit and great background music. A well made video.
A little too well made, perhaps?
@@gefiltefist2088. All of his videos are like this lol
@@gefiltefist2088 Indeed, really high-budget everything...it's possible "Johnny Harris" has other streams of income, but the production credits indicate that this YT channel is way more than "Johnny Harris" the indy film maker on a shoestring budget.
I think people think the footage looks weird because it is weird. It was taken on a celestial body that humans had never seen in that way before. It was a literal alien world so yeah, people are going to move oddly and light is going to look weird. I mean hell, Mars has red skies and blue sunsets. On Mars' moon Phobos, you would be able to jump over 700 meters (twice as high as the empire state building) straight up. These are alien concepts to us so I think some people just find it easier to write it off as conspiracy.
People think the footage looks weird also because they, don’t understand what an argument from incredulity fallacy (personal incredulity) is.
Do better, learn.
After this video, we do need the therapy sponsor. Nive video though.