Jon Ronson is basically conducting a journalistic study into the psychology of belief. The evidence isn't as interesting as the passion with which it is dissected
36:56 he gets that wildly wrong, He's suggesting the huge blasters that are needed to get a manned rocket to break through the earth's gravity are the same as the retros on the LEM, and no one picks him up on it!
@daro2096 that was my point, you don't need "huge blasters" to break the moons gravity, he was suggesting they were the same as the ones needed to get a rocket with hundreds of tons of fuel to break earth's gravity
@daro2096 Not quite sure what your point is there? He said something wrong I pointed it out, I'm not interested in any kind or Trumpian "mis-spoke" scenario, otherwise there would never be any point in making comments
At the least, I am deeply grateful to Jon Ronson and this show for breeding skepticism and inspiring an entire generation of researchers who many with channels on YT and other places who are showing all kinds of evidence that exposes lies.
@Paul Grey Thankyou for a better response. _"...reflectors on the moon. We can prove it in observatories."_ - Which observatories have picked out these reflectors? I understand that not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings. _"...two from the Russian Luna missions"_ - Presumably by their probes, since the Russians haven't stepped on the moon, correct? In which case, it could be argued that the U.S placed reflectors on the moon in the same way. If so, then the presence of U.S reflectors wouldn't prove the Apollo missions were genuine. _"Since you can tell three american reflectors have footprints around them and placed in perfect shape..."_ - But the skeptic will ask how do you know the photographs of the reflectors with foot prints around them were taken on the moon? _"radiation crap seriously it was 0.18 rads safe as houses actually it's same as a CAT scan.....they used Van Allen belt in trans lunar injection it isn't radiation it's charged particles."_ - Right. Why then, does NASA today describe the Van Allen belts as "an area of dangerous radiation"? And that "we [NASA] must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space?" They managed it easily enough 50 years ago (apparently) with 50 year old tech. But today they're struggling to figure stuff out. Can you explain why? _"Plus apollo 8 in 1968 came back safe and took amazing pictures on earth."_ - I'm sure of the relevance of Apollo 8 to Apollo 11. _"Are we suppose to believe that thousands of employees faked apollo moon missions and astronauts..."_ - No, of course not. The project was compartmentalized. Very few would need to be in on the hoax (if it was one). _"since JFK mentioned it earlier in 1962...."_ - JFK talking about it doesn't prove it was real. That logically doesn't follow. _"Moon Shine"_ - Can you explain how the moon shine lit up the shadow side of the LEM so beautifully, but doesn't light up the shadow side of rocks which remain completely black? _"Flag wavered no it didn't it was illusion that it did flag was made from tinfoil."_ - Well, the flags do flap around, but the debunk says it's because it was in a vacuum with no air resistance to slow it's movements down. That might be true enough in most cases of flag waving, but there _are_ a few instances where no astronaut is manipulating the flag and it starts moving from a still position. So this still isn't solved. _"...moon rocks..."_ - Moon rocks have been found on Earth before as meteorites and unmanned probes collected some of it, although I'd agree that unmanned probes were unlikely, and maybe incapable, of collecting the amount of moon rock they claim to have. _"There is other issues they address but find it's all fallacious nonsense."_ - There's quite a lot more actually.
@Paul Grey Yes, I get that the ground reflected light onto the shadow side of the LEM and off Aldrin as he stepped down the ladder. I'm just curious to know why rocks are not similarly lit up by reflected light, which instead are as black as the shadows they cast. _"Flags on moon didn't flap some were an illusion or rippling to think that."_ - We'll use the word "moved". I understand that they moved after being handled. But there are a few instances where the flags are moving (from a stationary position) when no astronaut is touching them. Maybe Aldrin farted? :o) Yes, I won't argue with experts who understand rocks and their compositions. I do think they went and walked on the moon, but there are still a few things that don't add up. I have a suspicion that at least part of the visual record was studio shot as 'back up' material in case the originals didn't come out too well, and that maybe some of that stock was slipped into the record with the genuine material from the moon. After all, with so much at stake and with the world watching, the last thing they'd want are tv cameras that malfunction and photos that get spoiled. Just a thought.
@Paul Grey "_Rocks on the moon still reflect light"_ No, I'm talking about the shadow side of rocks, which are as black as the shadows they cast. The question being; why doesn't light reflected from the moon's surface light up the dark side of these rocks, as occurs with the LM and astronauts? _"Flag moved because pole was disturbed after it was planted into the ground there was lack of strong gravity on the Moon..."_ No, I'm talking about a few instances where astronauts are _not_ handling the flags and thus not disturbing the poles. _"I know we did go to the moon but hard to convince some people."_ Don't want to be pedantic, but nobody actually _knows_ for sure except the men who went there and those closely involved with Apollo, or tracking them. But I agree the evidence that they did go, is stronger than the case for saying they hoaxed it. As for moon rocks, like I said, I won't argue with rock experts. If they say they're from the moon, then so be it. I'm not qualified to prove them wrong (assuming I wanted to).
@Paul Grey There are some large rocks (i'm not sure which missions) where the shadow side of those rocks are completely black and not brightened by the ground reflected light, unlike the LM's shadow side which is lit up by the ground reflection. I wouldn't call that evidence of a hoax, but it's odd nonetheless. - The examples where the flags move independently are in cases where they are motionless to begin with, then start moving for no obvious reason.
I believe it was 1999 - Ch 4 ran a 'live' re run of the lunar landing start to finish lasting about 6/7 hours to celebrate the 30th anniversary - this live discussion was shown at the end of it. I'd recorded all of it but rewound my tape (!!) and watched this first as I'd not heard any of the evidence around the hoax theory. At the end of it I thought "*uck - we didn't go!!" Never watched the rest of the original footage. Bought Dark Moon and off down the rabbit hole I went. Definitely a red pill moment.
JON'S BOOK TITLED 'THEM' IS WELL WORTH CHECKING OUT ROSS, IT'S A GREAT READ . I DISCOVERED HIM BY ACCIDENT ONE NIGHT BY WATCHING A DOCUMENTRY OF THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER.WATCH THIS TOO IF U CAN FIND IT? AND VIDEO SECRET RULERS IS GOOD TOO MY FRIEND, ENJOY!
If the whole thing is fake except the rocket taking off, why would the astronauts agree to go on the mission in the first place, let alone get on rocket? around 3:30 the chap mentions that nasa would need their bodies to be on board as proof if the rocket did go down. Did they willingly agree to sacrifice themselves (potentially) for a fake mission? I mean, I can't imagine any sane person being like "yeah ill go on the rocket, if it's successful then we land in the pacific. If not, it will blow up and we'll be dead. Thats fine" would it not be easier to have no one on board, then if it does blow up pretend that they were in a safely confined area on the ship made out of material akin to the black box material used for in-flight recording (not the whole ship, just a special section where the astronauts were encapsulated). I mean, they are going to fake that their technology could withstand going to the mmoon, surely they could fake something akin to the crazy idea i just came up with.
The Astronauts were highly paid and all Masons. If you look at the news conference after the event they all look like they're scared to death, not triumphant and jubilant as anyone who tread on the moon would do.
@@sebastianmittelman4071 maybe they had some conscious about it all and couldn't pretend properly. They were probably just ultra concentrated on not making a mistake answering the questions.
@thePiercingTruth I should clarify, I do believe they went to the moon, I should rephrase what I wrote. Why can't the astronauts make pretend and say that they DID go in the space ship. Rather than actually go in the space ship in case it blows up. Would you risk your life even for a huge check for such a thing? personally I wouldn't. Why can't they concoct a plan in which they pretend to go inside the rocket, the rocket has special scientific protective suits or metal inside to protect the astronauts from harm if it did blow up and then pull a cowboy switch?
@thePiercingTruth "rockets can blow up sure, your car can blow, up a bus can blow up, airplanes can blow up as well as fall out of the sky but you still use these things don't you? " Yes but by comparison rockets are a rarer occurrence. I've never been on a rocket nor would I ever want to because by comparison its more unstable. And those vehicles aren't designed, like rockets, use tens of thousands of gallons of rocket fuel in a tiny space of time. That and in a rocket you are sitting on a flame thats thousands of degrees in Fahrenheit. Whereas in a car, sure the engine might be an unstable area but in comparison its contained fairly safely ie. you aren't sitting on a ribbon of fire thats as hot as the sun. Also, the radiation is an issue whereas yeah a plane might have similar risks to a rocket just on a superficial level but exposure and radiation less of a risk when I fly than if I took of in a rocket and went to space, even LEO.
Influential and connected people are involved in movies (especially back in the 50s/60s/70s and insiders often reveal things through movies...I guess you think Star Wars was about a Galaxy far, far away you illiterate, clueless doughnut.
My name is Bugs Bunny and I have had reservations for at least twenty years now that the " Easter Bunny 🐰 is actually just ploy to purchase jelly beans !
What a clueless panel of "experts". Percy couldn't even name the right Bond movie as evidence of a lunar hoax. It was "Diamonds Are Forever". And Bond didn't go through a moon set. It was a research lab for the company of the man(White, a Howard Hughes type) that Bond was searching for. If they were going to use movie references for their claims, they might've had a stronger example in "The Shining" and "Capricorn One" instead of referring a Bond movie they didn't know and "Independence Day". Percy said he talked to an astronomer about the lunar hoax. and he convinced him that Man didn't go to the Moon. That astronomer should've shown Percy that the observatory had powerful lasers to aim at the Moon because the Apollos astronauts left behind on the lunar surface laser reflectors. Anyone can go to any observatory around the world and check it out for themselves. The laser will measure the distance of the Moon on that given time of day. The nerd show "Big Bang Theory" makes reference to the laser reflectors on the Moon on one of their episodes. I got a kick that one of the experts had the same name as the NFL Hall of Fame running back, Marcus Allen, if that was his real name. LOL!
...you seriously mentioned a sitcom as evidence? Anyway, that said, there've been many trips to the moon that didn't involve people, there's no reason you'd need a human to be there to put down any tech. That said, capricorn one would definitely have been a much better example.
10:30 This guy is an expert on how Buzz Aldrin comes down a ladder?? How much of BA coming down a ladder has he watched? And BA "never ever sticks his leg out like that"??? No, he normally doesn't...unless he's in an environment where there is a lot less gravity to pull his leg down...somewhere like...oooohh I don't know...like ON THE MOON.
thenk you dr greer and i very much like your idea of a space where projects can be brought forward ie free energy - i even have a name for it and if you get the world support behind it"the white room " an enourmous lab room with perimeter protection and public legislation protection - where ppl bring groundbreaking science prodjects forward and teams of background scientists (externally and internally " can assist advice and help build and develop these ideas and take them even further for the betterment of mankind - all under complete big brother style digital recording and public viewing /commenting - i picture scientists can tune in and digitally pick a room so to speak and view science in real time whilst commenting/blogging to a team of admin who can forward popular questions to the teams in real time- i understand the national security implications of this but unless we take a leap of faith under complete transparency of the world then we will continue to " live under kings" where nothing reaches the light of day. "the White room" - where truth will set us free and the total transparency would propel the ppl of the world over night into a future unwritten where we can go forward with light in our hearts - and make a planet for our childrens children . money really is only a concept and unless the elite make steps in the right direction - all the money in this world and the next will be of no good to their childrens children -as what kind of world do they plan to leave them in their inheritance if they cannot drink the water or breathe in the air - instead of forcing their NWO they should instead get the world together as a TEAM - as what they fail to realise is "TOGETHER EVERYONE ACHIEVES MORE " i believe that 2 simple things needs to change - to present generation needs to see that we are all custodians of the world and it is all our resposibilty and every job needs to allign to this ie if its harmful throw that job out . The movement behind this global shift should be incentivised simply by our children who if we fail...stand to inherit the worst situations on every level our world has faced- climately , economically ,politcally,finacially,religiously and spiritually - the second aspect is to set our education systems to promote the health and wellbieng of our planet and to teach kindness and compassion and to yearning for answers to the great questions and to find theyre own truths - the modern day youth are already lost to mobile phones walking around glued to theyre faces that its saddens me that in an age when we appear to be all connected - people have never been more disconected- lets hope enough wake up before its too late - john
Here's a few; 1. Buzz Aldrin does move his leg out to see if he can get back up again before going down. You can hear him say it on the audio. 2. High energy protons are the main types of ionising particles in the Van Allen belts along with electrons, and not electromagnetic waves e.g. ultraviolet, infrared, gamma etc. Electrons can pass through living tissue without creating much damage as they are very small. The Command Module’s outer hull was made of stainless steel and the (upper) heat shield from epoxy resin, which along with the fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls was a very effective form of shielding against protonic radiation. 3.The astronauts were not exposed to particle radiation for long enough on a short 8-12 day round trip for it to be a significant risk. In 1968 the Russian Zond 5 sent a number of biological samples around the Moon and back, including two turtles and these specimens were recovered alive upon their return to Earth. The astronauts would have been at serious risk of electromagnetic wave radiation from energetic solar flares, however the Apollo flights coincided with the height of the solar cycle, the periodic waxing and waning of activity that occurs every 11 years. The increased strength of the Sun’s magnetic field that permeates the solar system acts like an umbrella, shielding the Earth, moon and planets and therefore lessening the impact on astronaut radiation doses. 4. The very thin lunar atmosphere cannot efficiently bind surface heat to devices that are not in direct contact with it. The camera film was derived from the ones used for high-altitude photo reconnaissance, which were designed to withstand temperatures from 490°F down to - 40°F, and they were housed in aluminium magazines covered with reflective passive optical coatings. The radiation exposure level on the Moon from the distance of space was not enough to damage the film. It was much less than that of an airport x-ray machine’s direct radiation from a distance of less than a few feet. It had the same effect equivalent to leaving the film on a shelf for six months on Earth. And, of course in 1969, film was often left on shelves for far longer in many cases and still used. Furthermore, there are signs of radiation contamination in some of the images, if you look carefully; for example lines running through the film, bright spots and a decrease in contrast and colour response. These effects are not easily detectable to the untrained eye and without access to the original material. 5. No LEM engine sound is detected on descent to the Moon because the astronauts’ microphones were designed to muffle extraneous sound. Also, the low-pressure rocket engine did not produce a great deal of thrust and since they were in a vacuum there was no air to carry the shockwave and vibration.
@@Ruda-n4h This is what we need more. Sound counter arguments. It may seem ridiculous that is needed but more science to counter these documentaries please.
The sad thing about all this is that it brings up the question if space is in fact real as far as if they can actually leave the atmosphere of the earth and travel through it.
All of their evidence is still cherry picked to support a conclusion they've already decided on. The shadows, audio, radiation, all ignore circumstances that either change outside of our atmosphere or would obviously be accounted for by NASA, given their incredibly high risk threshold. The closest thing to expert testimony here is a former cinema projectionist.
The moon still has a light source (i.e. the sun) but it will hit the moon at a different angle. He is working on the assumption that light works the same on the moon as on earth.
I always leave these "For the love of..." episodes with an overwhelming respect for the ability of Jon to restrain himself from taking the piss out of these loons... sorry... lunes.
@@neiljones1938 The woman is unhinged and Percy is either a charlatan or deliberately obtuse and doesn't know anything about the science. e.g. 1.The very thin lunar atmosphere cannot efficiently bind surface heat to devices that are not in direct contact with it. The camera film was derived from the ones used for high-altitude photo reconnaissance, which were designed to withstand temperatures from 490°F down to - 40°F, and they were housed in aluminium magazines covered with reflective passive optical coatings. The radiation exposure level on the Moon from the distance of space was not enough to damage the film. It was much less than that of an airport x-ray machine’s direct radiation from a distance of less than a few feet. It had the same effect equivalent to leaving the film on a shelf for six months on Earth. And, of course in 1969, film was often left on shelves for far longer in many cases and still used. Furthermore, there are signs of radiation contamination in some of the images, if you look carefully; for example lines running through the film, bright spots and a decrease in contrast and colour response. These effects are not easily detectable to the untrained eye and without access to the original material. 2.No LEM engine sound is detected on descent to the Moon because the astronauts’ microphones were designed to muffle extraneous sound. Also, the low-pressure rocket engine did not produce a great deal of thrust and since they were in a vacuum there was no air to carry the shockwave and vibration. I could go on and on. Sibrel is the same.
@thePiercingTruth None of these critics knows much about the subject, they have a poor grasp of science and their 'evidence' can be easily refuted. Bennett is slightly unhinged and Percy is a either a charlatan or deliberately obtuse.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
"a very sinister amount of wool."
i love jon so much
Hahaha
He's an amusing devil...
Andy Thomas at 01:41 looks like he’s about to soil himself 😅
What a motley crew of guests that is. It's what Reservoir Dogs would have been like if it was done by Games Workshop.
Jon Ronson is basically conducting a journalistic study into the psychology of belief. The evidence isn't as interesting as the passion with which it is dissected
kevin bill, that is pretty damn well put.
Thanks
Nice to see Garth Marenghi at 12:43.
This is the perfect definition of Lunacy.
Came for Jon, stayed for the haircuts
"...Moon Raker? ...Dr No?" Hahaha!
James Bond's film with that scene was "Diamonds are forever"
1:53 - 2.02 I KNOW Mary Bennett AND She IS A Friend Of MINE ! ! !👍
36:56 he gets that wildly wrong, He's suggesting the huge blasters that are needed to get a manned rocket to break through the earth's gravity are the same as the retros on the LEM, and no one picks him up on it!
@daro2096 that was my point, you don't need "huge blasters" to break the moons gravity, he was suggesting they were the same as the ones needed to get a rocket with hundreds of tons of fuel to break earth's gravity
@daro2096 Not quite sure what your point is there? He said something wrong I pointed it out, I'm not interested in any kind or Trumpian "mis-spoke" scenario, otherwise there would never be any point in making comments
2 sofas, 3 armchairs, 7 people. 237 anyone?
All theorizing and no research makes Jack a dull boy.
wonder if Kubrick was watching in St Albans that night?
At the least, I am deeply grateful to Jon Ronson and this show for breeding skepticism and inspiring an entire generation of researchers who many with channels on YT and other places who are showing all kinds of evidence that exposes lies.
Thanks for the upload.
Very interesting people talking interesting matters.
@Paul Grey Prove it.
@Paul Grey Thankyou for a better response.
_"...reflectors on the moon. We can prove it in observatories."_ - Which observatories have picked out these reflectors? I understand that not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings.
_"...two from the Russian Luna missions"_ - Presumably by their probes, since the Russians haven't stepped on the moon, correct? In which case, it could be argued that the U.S placed reflectors on the moon in the same way. If so, then the presence of U.S reflectors wouldn't prove the Apollo missions were genuine.
_"Since you can tell three american reflectors have footprints around them and placed in perfect shape..."_ - But the skeptic will ask how do you know the photographs of the reflectors with foot prints around them were taken on the moon?
_"radiation crap seriously it was 0.18 rads safe as houses actually it's same as a CAT scan.....they used Van Allen belt in trans lunar injection it isn't radiation it's charged particles."_ - Right. Why then, does NASA today describe the Van Allen belts as "an area of dangerous radiation"? And that "we [NASA] must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space?"
They managed it easily enough 50 years ago (apparently) with 50 year old tech. But today they're struggling to figure stuff out. Can you explain why?
_"Plus apollo 8 in 1968 came back safe and took amazing pictures on earth."_ - I'm sure of the relevance of Apollo 8 to Apollo 11.
_"Are we suppose to believe that thousands of employees faked apollo moon missions and astronauts..."_
- No, of course not. The project was compartmentalized. Very few would need to be in on the hoax (if it was one).
_"since JFK mentioned it earlier in 1962...."_ - JFK talking about it doesn't prove it was real. That logically doesn't follow.
_"Moon Shine"_ - Can you explain how the moon shine lit up the shadow side of the LEM so beautifully, but doesn't light up the shadow side of rocks which remain completely black?
_"Flag wavered no it didn't it was illusion that it did flag was made from tinfoil."_ - Well, the flags do flap around, but the debunk says it's because it was in a vacuum with no air resistance to slow it's movements down. That might be true enough in most cases of flag waving, but there _are_ a few instances where no astronaut is manipulating the flag and it starts moving from a still position. So this still isn't solved.
_"...moon rocks..."_ - Moon rocks have been found on Earth before as meteorites and unmanned probes collected some of it, although I'd agree that unmanned probes were unlikely, and maybe incapable, of collecting the amount of moon rock they claim to have.
_"There is other issues they address but find it's all fallacious nonsense."_ - There's quite a lot more actually.
@Paul Grey Yes, I get that the ground reflected light onto the shadow side of the LEM and off Aldrin as he stepped down the ladder. I'm just curious to know why rocks are not similarly lit up by reflected light, which instead are as black as the shadows they cast.
_"Flags on moon didn't flap some were an illusion or rippling to think that."_ - We'll use the word "moved". I understand that they moved after being handled. But there are a few instances where the flags are moving (from a stationary position) when no astronaut is touching them. Maybe Aldrin farted? :o)
Yes, I won't argue with experts who understand rocks and their compositions. I do think they went and walked on the moon, but there are still a few things that don't add up. I have a suspicion that at least part of the visual record was studio shot as 'back up' material in case the originals didn't come out too well, and that maybe some of that stock was slipped into the record with the genuine material from the moon. After all, with so much at stake and with the world watching, the last thing they'd want are tv cameras that malfunction and photos that get spoiled. Just a thought.
@Paul Grey "_Rocks on the moon still reflect light"_
No, I'm talking about the shadow side of rocks, which are as black as the shadows they cast. The question being; why doesn't light reflected from the moon's surface light up the dark side of these rocks, as occurs with the LM and astronauts?
_"Flag moved because pole was disturbed after it was planted into the ground there was lack of strong gravity on the Moon..."_
No, I'm talking about a few instances where astronauts are _not_ handling the flags and thus not disturbing the poles.
_"I know we did go to the moon but hard to convince some people."_
Don't want to be pedantic, but nobody actually _knows_ for sure except the men who went there and those closely involved with Apollo, or tracking them. But I agree the evidence that they did go, is stronger than the case for saying they hoaxed it.
As for moon rocks, like I said, I won't argue with rock experts. If they say they're from the moon, then so be it. I'm not qualified to prove them wrong (assuming I wanted to).
@Paul Grey There are some large rocks (i'm not sure which missions) where the shadow side of those rocks are completely black and not brightened by the ground reflected light, unlike the LM's shadow side which is lit up by the ground reflection. I wouldn't call that evidence of a hoax, but it's odd nonetheless. - The examples where the flags move independently are in cases where they are motionless to begin with, then start moving for no obvious reason.
watched this at the time .. brilliant.. what year was it?
1997
I believe it was 1999 - Ch 4 ran a 'live' re run of the lunar landing start to finish lasting about 6/7 hours to celebrate the 30th anniversary - this live discussion was shown at the end of it. I'd recorded all of it but rewound my tape (!!) and watched this first as I'd not heard any of the evidence around the hoax theory. At the end of it I thought "*uck - we didn't go!!" Never watched the rest of the original footage. Bought Dark Moon and off down the rabbit hole I went. Definitely a red pill moment.
JON'S BOOK TITLED 'THEM' IS WELL WORTH CHECKING OUT ROSS, IT'S A GREAT READ . I DISCOVERED HIM BY ACCIDENT ONE NIGHT BY WATCHING A DOCUMENTRY OF THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER.WATCH THIS TOO IF U CAN FIND IT? AND VIDEO SECRET RULERS IS GOOD TOO MY FRIEND, ENJOY!
Nice to see E L Wisty in the guise of a film maker give his views on the moon 'conspiracy'.
Who's the man with the thatched cottage roof hair style.... that's a conspiracy in itself
4:16 is this the same Matthew Williams behind the TruthSeekers channel?
TheSecretVault with hair
Pertinent1's conduit is also a world of wonder. In fact it is a cornucopia of wonder! ... Only a fool would deny it! ...
If the whole thing is fake except the rocket taking off, why would the astronauts agree to go on the mission in the first place, let alone get on rocket? around 3:30 the chap mentions that nasa would need their bodies to be on board as proof if the rocket did go down. Did they willingly agree to sacrifice themselves (potentially) for a fake mission? I mean, I can't imagine any sane person being like "yeah ill go on the rocket, if it's successful then we land in the pacific. If not, it will blow up and we'll be dead. Thats fine"
would it not be easier to have no one on board, then if it does blow up pretend that they were in a safely confined area on the ship made out of material akin to the black box material used for in-flight recording (not the whole ship, just a special section where the astronauts were encapsulated). I mean, they are going to fake that their technology could withstand going to the mmoon, surely they could fake something akin to the crazy idea i just came up with.
The Astronauts were highly paid and all Masons. If you look at the news conference after the event they all look like they're scared to death, not triumphant and jubilant as anyone who tread on the moon would do.
@@hendo337 but why not just pretend that they went up there?
@@sebastianmittelman4071 maybe they had some conscious about it all and couldn't pretend properly. They were probably just ultra concentrated on not making a mistake answering the questions.
@thePiercingTruth I should clarify, I do believe they went to the moon, I should rephrase what I wrote.
Why can't the astronauts make pretend and say that they DID go in the space ship. Rather than actually go in the space ship in case it blows up. Would you risk your life even for a huge check for such a thing? personally I wouldn't.
Why can't they concoct a plan in which they pretend to go inside the rocket, the rocket has special scientific protective suits or metal inside to protect the astronauts from harm if it did blow up and then pull a cowboy switch?
@thePiercingTruth "rockets can blow up sure, your car can blow, up a bus can blow up, airplanes can blow up as well as fall out of the sky but you still use these things don't you? " Yes but by comparison rockets are a rarer occurrence. I've never been on a rocket nor would I ever want to because by comparison its more unstable. And those vehicles aren't designed, like rockets, use tens of thousands of gallons of rocket fuel in a tiny space of time. That and in a rocket you are sitting on a flame thats thousands of degrees in Fahrenheit. Whereas in a car, sure the engine might be an unstable area but in comparison its contained fairly safely ie. you aren't sitting on a ribbon of fire thats as hot as the sun. Also, the radiation is an issue whereas yeah a plane might have similar risks to a rocket just on a superficial level but exposure and radiation less of a risk when I fly than if I took of in a rocket and went to space, even LEO.
Do it again, 50 years later, with all our advances.
Live from start to finish, open to social media.
Job done.
Then, bring them back.
If people really went to the moon, then they would have been eaten by the giant woodlice. That's a fact I never hear anyone bring up, it's so obvious.
I love how they keep citing fictional movies as proof. It's great to see conspiracy theorists allowed to keep talking.
@thePiercingTruth What is you evidence?
Influential and connected people are involved in movies (especially back in the 50s/60s/70s and insiders often reveal things through movies...I guess you think Star Wars was about a Galaxy far, far away you illiterate, clueless doughnut.
Stanley Kubrick
My name is Bugs Bunny and I have had reservations for at least twenty years now that the " Easter Bunny 🐰 is actually just ploy to purchase jelly beans !
What a clueless panel of "experts". Percy couldn't even name the right Bond movie as evidence of a lunar hoax. It was "Diamonds Are Forever". And Bond didn't go through a moon set. It was a research lab for the company of the man(White, a Howard Hughes type) that Bond was searching for. If they were going to use movie references for their claims, they might've had a stronger example in "The Shining" and "Capricorn One" instead of referring a Bond movie they didn't know and "Independence Day".
Percy said he talked to an astronomer about the lunar hoax. and he convinced him that Man didn't go to the Moon. That astronomer should've shown Percy that the observatory had powerful lasers to aim at the Moon because the Apollos astronauts left behind on the lunar surface laser reflectors. Anyone can go to any observatory around the world and check it out for themselves. The laser will measure the distance of the Moon on that given time of day. The nerd show "Big Bang Theory" makes reference to the laser reflectors on the Moon on one of their episodes.
I got a kick that one of the experts had the same name as the NFL Hall of Fame running back, Marcus Allen, if that was his real name. LOL!
Mark Angryfield I flagged you for being an a-hole.
...you seriously mentioned a sitcom as evidence? Anyway, that said, there've been many trips to the moon that didn't involve people, there's no reason you'd need a human to be there to put down any tech. That said, capricorn one would definitely have been a much better example.
Where's the balance to these fantasists?
There's a great segment in an episode of QI, which completely debunks these aelf-serving charlatans.
10:30 This guy is an expert on how Buzz Aldrin comes down a ladder?? How much of BA coming down a ladder has he watched? And BA "never ever sticks his leg out like that"??? No, he normally doesn't...unless he's in an environment where there is a lot less gravity to pull his leg down...somewhere like...oooohh I don't know...like ON THE MOON.
He was comparing the tv footage to the picture.
@@demonrouge3338 Aldrin does push his leg out to see if he can then get up again before he goes down. You can here it on the audio.
28:10 "Now isn't that interesting?". Not really, no.
Moonraker!
Dr. No!
...on Boxing Day.
I think it was either Thunderball, or You Only Live Twice.
he is smoking lol
Amazing isn't it, people in the 1990s and earlier regularly did it everywhere.
thenk you dr greer and i very much like your idea of a space where projects can be brought forward ie free energy - i even have a name for it and if you get the world support behind it"the white room " an enourmous lab room with perimeter protection and public legislation protection - where ppl bring groundbreaking science prodjects forward and teams of background scientists (externally and internally " can assist advice and help build and develop these ideas and take them even further for the betterment of mankind - all under complete big brother style digital recording and public viewing /commenting - i picture scientists can tune in and digitally pick a room so to speak and view science in real time whilst commenting/blogging to a team of admin who can forward popular questions to the teams in real time-
i understand the national security implications of this but unless we take a leap of faith under complete transparency of the world then we will continue to " live under kings" where nothing reaches the light of day.
"the White room" - where truth will set us free and the total transparency would propel the ppl of the world over night into a future unwritten where we can go forward with light in our hearts - and make a planet for our childrens children . money really is only a concept and unless the elite make steps in the right direction - all the money in this world and the next will be of no good to their childrens children -as what kind of world do they plan to leave them in their inheritance if they cannot drink the water or breathe in the air - instead of forcing their NWO they should instead get the world together as a TEAM - as what they fail to realise is "TOGETHER EVERYONE ACHIEVES MORE " i believe that 2 simple things needs to change - to present generation needs to see that we are all custodians of the world and it is all our resposibilty and every job needs to allign to this ie if its harmful throw that job out . The movement behind this global shift should be incentivised simply by our children who if we fail...stand to inherit the worst situations on every level our world has faced- climately , economically ,politcally,finacially,religiously and spiritually - the second aspect is to set our education systems to promote the health and wellbieng of our planet and to teach kindness and compassion and to yearning for answers to the great questions and to find theyre own truths - the modern day youth are already lost to mobile phones walking around glued to theyre faces that its saddens me that in an age when we appear to be all connected - people have never been more disconected- lets hope enough wake up before its too late - john
Digitally connected and emotionally disconnected.
The whole Noel Edmonds on the hair, but with extra ear cover. Crinkly Bottom, no doubt?
They are right,the pictures are not made there, because of all the complications over there,but it doesn't mean the warrant there that's all
Never A Straight Answer, get it. daft thing is, they are right, minus the Bond film.
I totally believe we've never been there.
So no counter arguments?
You don’t counter lunacy. This is entertainment.
No matter how looney you think it is, they should have had someone there to answer the points they were making.
Here's a few;
1. Buzz Aldrin does move his leg out to see if he can get back up again before going down. You can hear him say it on the audio.
2. High energy protons are the main types of ionising particles in the Van Allen belts along with electrons, and not electromagnetic waves e.g. ultraviolet, infrared, gamma etc. Electrons can pass through living tissue without creating much damage as they are very small. The Command Module’s outer hull was made of stainless steel and the (upper) heat shield from epoxy resin, which along with the fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls was a very effective form of shielding against protonic radiation.
3.The astronauts were not exposed to particle radiation for long enough on a short 8-12 day round trip for it to be a significant risk. In 1968 the Russian Zond 5 sent a number of biological samples around the Moon and back, including two turtles and these specimens were recovered alive upon their return to Earth.
The astronauts would have been at serious risk of electromagnetic wave radiation from energetic solar flares, however the Apollo flights coincided with the height of the solar cycle, the periodic waxing and waning of activity that occurs every 11 years. The increased strength of the Sun’s magnetic field that permeates the solar system acts like an umbrella, shielding the Earth, moon and planets and therefore lessening the impact on astronaut radiation doses.
4. The very thin lunar atmosphere cannot efficiently bind surface heat to devices that are not in direct contact with it. The camera film was derived from the ones used for high-altitude photo reconnaissance, which were designed to withstand temperatures from 490°F down to - 40°F, and they were housed in aluminium magazines covered with reflective passive optical coatings. The radiation exposure level on the Moon from the distance of space was not enough to damage the film. It was much less than that of an airport x-ray machine’s direct radiation from a distance of less than a few feet. It had the same effect equivalent to leaving the film on a shelf for six months on Earth. And, of course in 1969, film was often left on shelves for far longer in many cases and still used. Furthermore, there are signs of radiation contamination in some of the images, if you look carefully; for example lines running through the film, bright spots and a decrease in contrast and colour response. These effects are not easily detectable to the untrained eye and without access to the original material.
5. No LEM engine sound is detected on descent to the Moon because the astronauts’ microphones were designed to muffle extraneous sound. Also, the low-pressure rocket engine did not produce a great deal of thrust and since they were in a vacuum there was no air to carry the shockwave and vibration.
@@Ruda-n4h This is what we need more. Sound counter arguments. It may seem ridiculous that is needed but more science to counter these documentaries please.
@thePiercingTruth There are counter arguments to all their points. And your point proves that education has gone downhill in the last 50 years.
Love Jon Ronson, but thats 50mins of life i aint going to get back
@thePiercingTruth No mystery at all.
It doesn't quite stand the test of time.
The sad thing about all this is that it brings up the question if space is in fact real as far as if they can actually leave the atmosphere of the earth and travel through it.
All of their evidence is still cherry picked to support a conclusion they've already decided on. The shadows, audio, radiation, all ignore circumstances that either change outside of our atmosphere or would obviously be accounted for by NASA, given their incredibly high risk threshold. The closest thing to expert testimony here is a former cinema projectionist.
Didn't they take some artificial lighting with them to the moon? That would blow all the "the shadows are wrong" theories out of the water.
The moon still has a light source (i.e. the sun) but it will hit the moon at a different angle. He is working on the assumption that light works the same on the moon as on earth.
SecretVault
I always leave these "For the love of..." episodes with an overwhelming respect for the ability of Jon to restrain himself from taking the piss out of these loons... sorry... lunes.
They're not loons. Check out Bart Sibrel's channel. Now I don't believe man went to the moon.
@@neiljones1938 The woman is unhinged and Percy is either a charlatan or deliberately obtuse and doesn't know anything about the science.
e.g. 1.The very thin lunar atmosphere cannot efficiently bind surface heat to devices that are not in direct contact with it. The camera film was derived from the ones used for high-altitude photo reconnaissance, which were designed to withstand temperatures from 490°F down to - 40°F, and they were housed in aluminium magazines covered with reflective passive optical coatings. The radiation exposure level on the Moon from the distance of space was not enough to damage the film. It was much less than that of an airport x-ray machine’s direct radiation from a distance of less than a few feet. It had the same effect equivalent to leaving the film on a shelf for six months on Earth. And, of course in 1969, film was often left on shelves for far longer in many cases and still used. Furthermore, there are signs of radiation contamination in some of the images, if you look carefully; for example lines running through the film, bright spots and a decrease in contrast and colour response. These effects are not easily detectable to the untrained eye and without access to the original material.
2.No LEM engine sound is detected on descent to the Moon because the astronauts’ microphones were designed to muffle extraneous sound. Also, the low-pressure rocket engine did not produce a great deal of thrust and since they were in a vacuum there was no air to carry the shockwave and vibration. I could go on and on. Sibrel is the same.
Yoofos
Course we went to the moon it’s not rocket science........
Loonys
@thePiercingTruth None of these critics knows much about the subject, they have a poor grasp of science and their 'evidence' can be easily refuted. Bennett is slightly unhinged and Percy is a either a charlatan or deliberately obtuse.
Bart Sibrel's channel. Ahem.
@@neiljones1938 Bart is also an obtuse charlatan best suited to remaining a taxi driver.
The "we didn't go" conspiracy is far less interesting than the "there were UFOs up there" conspiracy.