Did We Really Land on the Moon?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 май 2017
- Did we really land on the moon? Mr. Beat examines the main reasons why people think the moon landings were faked. And this is his first official collaboration with Keith Hughes! Check out Keith's video here about the race to the moon here: • How America Won the Ra...
Subscribe to Keith here: / hughesdv
Want a video about a certain topic covered? Your idea gets picked when you donate $2 a video on Patreon: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedleroom.net/
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Yes, we landed on the moon, but it’s been almost 45 years since we’ve been back there. Heck, it’s been almost 45 years since we went beyond low Earth orbit.
And when I say “we,” I mean the United States. Only 12 humans have ever walked on the surface of the moon, all of them men, and all of them American. The last two to be there were Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt. That was in December of 1972, of the Apollo 17 mission.
It’s easy to understand why people would be skeptical. Skeptics often point to the motive for wanting to fake the whole thing. The race to the moon was part of the Space Race, during a particularly tense time during the Cold War. The United States and Soviet Union were battling it out to get there first. Skeptics say the United States would have wanted to fake it to show they won the Space Race even if they knew it actually wasn’t possible to go. The Soviet Union had epically failed to ever get even near the moon, so they argue it seems suspicious that the United States able to land men safely on the moon six times in 3 and a half years, yet never do so since. Was this just a publicity stunt, faked in order to strongly discourage the Soviet Union and give the United States a huge advantage in the Cold War while saving its lots of money?
But how could this hoax be pulled off? Skeptics argue the technology did exist to recreate a fake mooning landing in a film studio. Sure, they argue the astronauts really did take off into space, but they likely just orbited the earth for several days before landing back on Earth, while faked footage was distributed to the masses.
But what evidence do that have of the moon landings being faked? For the rest of this video, I will first give you evidence that creates doubt, then give you NASA’s response, and then give you my conclusion.
The first thing that causes doubt is the footage showing the American flag on the moon waving. Skeptics say the flag waving shows the presence of wind, which should be impossible on the moon because it doesn’t have much of an atmosphere and is surrounded by a vacuum. NASA insists that the flag moved due to astronaut Buzz Aldrin twisting the flagpole, causing it to move like that. Apparently the astronauts also accidentally bent the horizontal rods that were supposed to hold the flag outward.
The next evidence that causes doubt is the fact that there were no stars in any of the footage or photographs taken by NASA on the moon. Skeptics say stars were left out because astronomers would have been able to use them to determine whether the photos were taken from the Earth or Moon. NASA, as well as many many others, argue that of course you wouldn’t be able to see the stars because the moon’s surface is so bright. It’s the same reason why you can’t see the stars standing on a bright football field at night. Some astronauts were able to take long exposure UV photographs of bright stars and Venus from the moon, though. But skeptics would probably argue these photos were taken from earth.
What about the fact that there was no blast crater from the lunar module on the moon, especially when scientists before predicted one would be created? Well NASA says those scientists predicted wrong. The fact is, the pressure on the moon was simply too low for the lunar module to create a crater.
Quite a bit of discussion by skeptics revolve around the discussion of lighting and shadows in photographs taken on the moon. Shadows are inconsistent and often intersect in photographs. Skeptics argue that the shadows should be completely black and run parallel to each other. NASA and others argue that shadows are weird on the Moon due to many light sources and lunar dust. Also, the unique terrain of the moon alters how the shadows are seen.
Skeptics also say the photographs on the Moon show the same exact background, despite astronauts saying the photos were taken far away from each other. They argue that the backdrop was basically kept the same, even for different Apollo missions. Take this photograph, for example. Skeptics have combined the two pictures and claim the backgrounds match. Pretty crazy, eh? Well, NASA says that because the Moon is much smaller than Earth, horizons appear closer to the naked eye than they really are, and thus may look identical from different viewpoints.
![Luke Combs - Ain’t No Love In Oklahoma (From Twisters: The Album) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/J6YlaeACE4E/mqdefault.jpg)
We all know that the moon landing was faked. It was filmed by Stanley Kubrick. However, because he was such a perfectionist he demanded that they film on location.
+Grant Hurst Haha! Typical Kubrick. And it probably took them 8 years to film.
Grant Hurst that was good.
Grant Hurst i like a comment like yours! Here is mine: just because a young bride wears a white dress at her wedding doesn't guarantee she is a virgin.
Funky--just because our government shows us pictures of Neil Armstrong walking around in a spacesuit, that doesnt guarantee we went to the moon.
Watch Adam ruins everything
One small step for man, one giant argument for mankind.
Those that have reached the age of reason are not arguing about the moon landings. The rest have only reached the age of denial somewhere around 12.
Underrated😂😂😂😂😂😂
Political stunt.. Political argument.
The step never happened
@@nmew6926 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂
The fact the Russians have never disputed it is good enough for me
Yeah you’d think the Soviets would be ALL over that stuff. But… they weren’t…
Soviet’s were broke saved them billions spending on trying to do the same thing they cut there funding after more to spend on there military
@@rustyshackleford234 Yeh well you would never believe them anyway you Russiaphobes
they were in on the con
@@Paul-nu7nj Yeah, right 🤣
In my opinion the most convincing part is the way the dust flies around. There's no turbulence so the whole set would have to be in vacuum! Sounds easier to just film on site at this point
Rattus, Not just a vacuum, but at one sixth of the Earth's gravity. And no atmosphere.
you have no idea how manyf weird effects can be achieved one way or another on a movie set
@@user-by7jv6qd7x Especially in the sixties when LSD was involved.
@rattusstatus3524 .
I'm not sure why you find it difficult to believe they had vacuum chambers even though it is well documented. One was the size of a football field, on which they were testing the rockets.
Apollo was filmed on these testing facilities.
I believe the moon landings happened but what you're saying is not only easily accomplished by filming on an indoor set, it's actually a notorious problem with filming outdoor scenes in a studio. Ironically, the same phenomenon that makes studio simulated outdoor scenes seem fake, would work in favor of making simulated moon footage seem more authentic.
How do people have some doubts while you clearly filming this episode on the moon
Fair point
It was fllmed in Stanley Kubrik's massive studio . Not all of us can be quite as stupid as you, remember to take you RNA injection.
@@paulscottfilms What
@@legocamdude1 I think he's talking about the latest craze.
Injecting nano particles into your system to clot your blood
@@paulscottfilms PLUS NASA has *contradicted* the APOLLO MISSIONS! Now Nasa said they *CAN NOT* send *ANY* humans past the lethal radiation in the Van Allen belts!! ruclips.net/video/Kji7H_brBa4/видео.html
I guess NASA is coming clean
It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled .
Mark Twain
Lane 3192 Ignorance is alive and well. There are some pretty dumb people running around. There is a long list of arguments why this entire Moon Hoax allegation is simply insane. For starters, you’d have to believe that the 400,000 people who worked on the Apollo program have managed to keep a coverup secret for 50 years. Add to that the notion that scientists around the world have been fooled by analyzing “phony” moon rocks, soil, thousands of photos, film, thousands of scientific papers, hardware, tracking, telemetry, data, billions of pages of documentation, etc.
And then there is this idea that Stanley Kubrick filmed Apollo. All one has to do is compare the 2001 Space Odessey moon-surface footage to Apollo’s real images, film. There is a huge difference. Kubrick made no attempt to try and simulate the moon’s 1/6 surface gravity because it was too difficult, impractical. Its laughable, yet conspiracists continue to sell the hoax. Why? Fake news is big business $$$ The estimated 5,000 Apollo surface photos and hours of astronauts surface EVA's video are far too complex to have been faked by Hollywood in the early 60s..
@@thomaslewis7883 First, Nasa wasn't/ isn't a big warehouse with 400,000 people working hand in hand . It's compartmentalized with everyone doing their part. If only a few head people know what's really going on , then I believe it's very possible for a secret to be held for 50 years.
Wouldn't it be pretty silly to make a movie set look exactly the way you made "the real moon" set look?
Well the funny thing is , scientists have been "fooled" by phony scientific papers (what ever the hell that's supposed to mean), hardware, data, etc... Look into it a little deeper.
Ok, so why haven't we been back in 50 years. Please , don't say we don't have the technology anymore like Don Pettit said. haha Is it a money thing, it cost too much?
But we will be going in what is the date now 2024?
Isn't it kinda funny that no other country has landed a human on the moon? Is our 1969 Technology that far advanced that NO one today can get back to the moon?
You believe what you want, a little common sense would tell you , you've been lied to.
@@lane3192 So Boeing or say Airbus could fake multiple Moon, Mar Missions and we would never know.?LOL Speak for yourself.No ones fooling anyone I know with fake Moon landings.haha.Sorry, impossible without NASA possessing some kind of mythical magical powers. LOL.NASA had 38,000 men, women at its facilities, and another 375,000 men, women working for the 20,000 subcontracting companies hired by NASA for the 12-year lunar program. The Soviet Union would have immediately announced that the Moon landing was a fake. 1969 was the height of the Cold War, the US was bogged down in Vietnam, we were having violent protests in the streets, Had someone found evidence of American faking 9 Moon flights,6 landings, it would have triggered a scandal 100x worse than Watergate that would have forever changed how Americans viewed its government and leaders. The Soviets would have won the cold war.
The Soviet Union said nothing, because they were part of Apollo program, watching every launch, recovery, tracking, listening, observing, etc,.They even tried to land their robotic Luna [soil sample return mission ] spacecraft before Apollo 11 to bust the party and claim "first on a lunar surface", and "the first recovery of lunar surface samples", unfortunately, Luna crashed..NASA even shared lunar samples [ large rocks ] with the Soviets as 3 later Soviet Luna missions were successful, recovering 326 grams / 11.5 ounces of lunar regolith [fine soil and small pebbles ]. As a side note, the Soviets were asked to join Apollo as a partner,they declined only to have their own manned Moon program shut down after repeated failures of their N -1 heavy-lift booster rocket.
@@thomaslewis7883 Well, Nasa faked moon landings in 1969, I'm sure Boeing or whoever could fake it too. So I still ask the question, why haven't we been back to the moon or farther? In 50 years our planes have advanced quite a bit. In 50 years cars have advanced quite a bit. In 15 years our phones have advanced quite a bit. But in 50 years, not too much has advanced as far as space travel goes. That doesn't throw up a red flag in your common sense thinking?
@@lane3192 Common sense?. Yes, I understand why NASA ended the Apollo program in 1972. Budget cuts and waning public interest. You're not interested in Apollo, despite it being part of the public domain for over 50 years.. So how do you generate public interest and acquire funding when thousands of naive ignorant people are telling everyone to cut NASA's funding.?
You educate the public. Thankfully the public is excited again..Were going back to the Moon.."Artemis 2024".Unfortunately, we haven't figured how to warp space, so we still use combustion rockets. You can't fake moon landings. Science won't allow it. That's all you need to know.
When you tell the truth and your child doubts it, the first thing you never say is "You're a conspiracy theorist". You look forward to explaining and proving every detail to your child. This also applies to the current hoaxes.
There is a vast difference between an innocently ignorant child and a willfully ignorant adult.
If any moon landing deniers ever actually wanted answers to their doubts/questions, I'd eat my hat anyway. Universally, they PRETEND to ask questions, but they know, in advance, that they will never accept the answers. This is vastly different than a child asking honest questions.
Well your child has hope. So you give it a go. You and the adults who believe in flat earth, do not. So no point. Tough world I know out there when no one wants to explain things in a way that makes it make sense to YOU. But the RUclips videos you like make you feel right and vindicated and the nasa videos someone else likes are WRONG and faked.
@@marksprague1280 Indeed.
@@marksprague1280 spot on...
seeing a stage hand, overhead boom mic, grips and gaffers in the shot , but Mr Beat still gives NASA benefit of the doubt. LOL this guy funny
You know perfectly well those things never happened.
Shut up
Damn right. I'm beginning to think Pigs In Space might not have been real.
And like a true hoax nut he can’t man up this evidence. What a hard fail, son.
@@kitcanyon658 son? son??? haahaa it always makes me laugh when I hear something use the term "son" Do me a favor shut da fk up & go open up your canyon wide for manbear.....HAAHA drop em boi
In one of my retouching classes in college, I made it my final project to doctor a moon landing photo, putting the Star Trek ship in the background and replacing all the USA labels and iconography with its Russian equivalent. Fun class.
The film"" American Moon "" there will be no doubt left in your mind
ruclips.net/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/видео.html
@@paulscottfilms Don't worry. I know Earth is vaguely spherical and that the moon landing was real. I was just having some fun.
Dune buggy needed oxygen to operate right?
@@susangeorge5399
Huh? What are you talking about? The buggy (lunar rover) operated on batteries, not oxygen. Are you under the impression that it used an internal combustion engine?
@@rockethead7 i thought everyone knew that we were dropping big block v8's in our moon buggies. we didn't know how to use batteries in vehicles until recently with the tesla, idiot /s
Besides the footage and all that seems pretty legit to me, my brain tells me, if we can't go to the moon now with our current technology, how it was even possible over 50yrs ago.
Because it's not the matter of ability, but having the actual physical hardware to do so.
Can we do it right now? No, because we don't have the literal hardware to do so.
Can we build the necessary hardware to do so? Yes we can.
Besides all of the airline records and videos of Concorde going mach 2, that seems pretty legit to me, my brain tells me, if we could fly 100 people at mach 2 for 3000 miles before, but now we can't with our current technology, how was it possible that the 1969 Concorde even existed?
We could go, we just haven't wanted to pay for it. Artemis might change that.
@@MrWeezer55 finding money for stuff has never been an issue for the American govt.
we could go in a nano second, but we destroyed that technology.
Hundreds of hours of footage you can watch on RUclips. 1/6 gravity in a vaccume.. miles long movie set? There is a video of them driving miles in the moon rover...
6 years later since the video and still havnt gone...back
The comments here show a need for an increase in the education budget.
Exactly, folks today are dumb as rocks
@alpha beta Heh Heh, well said.
@alpha beta Anyone who believes the 12 year Apollo program was a hoax is an ignorant idiot. Libraries are free.
@@shaundouglas2057 Anyone who believes the 12 year Apollo program was a hoax is an ignorant idiot. Libraries are free.
@@thomaslewis7883 Oh dear another muppet who has had his delicate sensibilities offended.
Haven´t been back to the moon is the main reason i reckon it all crap, and i´ve heard many excuses as to why they haven´t returned and none make any sense. But many ignorant idiots believe everything mainstream media puts out because they dare not think for themselves.
If we really landed on the Moon in 1969..There would be a McDonalds and a Walmart by now!
remember all the space domes they promised us in the 80s?
Yeah and you two are idiots for believing any of the ad copy. Everyone knows that stuff is pure fluff.
Lol
Absolutely
STARBUCK$
It’s 2023 and NASA still has nothing
You mean apart from conclusive proof that they landed 12 men on the Moon, achieved near-miraculous fly-bys, orbits and landings on various planets and moons, put up an astonishing telescope, and successfully flew Artemis 1 to the Moon last autumn, beginning their programme to return to landing humans on the Moon?
Whereas you've got... what? "I don't understand what I'm looking at therefore fake."
@@paulbeardsley4095 Never did I say it’s not real, you’re putting words in my mouth. It’s 2023 and no man has set a foot in the moon as they previously hoped. That’s all I mean with my comment.
@@vndroz6793hope didn’t get them to the moon last time either. Dump trucks of tax dollars did. And that line of dump trucks will probably never be as long again.
@vndroz6793 You said "NASA still has nothing." If you meant something else you should have said something else.
They have moon rocks from the moon.
The Soviets in 1969: How the hell did Americans land on the moon?!
American scientists in 2021: How the hell can we land on the moon?!
he film"" American Moon "" there will be no doubt left in your mind
ruclips.net/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/видео.html
@@paulscottfilms If you're gullible, that is.
We have landed many times on Mars.
We have sent countless probes through the solar system, all the way to Pluto, and beyond (Voyager 1 and 2)
And some uneducated morons still can,t believe we landed on the Moon ????
IF we faked the Moon landings, why "fake" it SO MANY TIMES ???
The education system has failed BIG time...
@@jocec3283 we all know about the Mars probes and moon probes. This has nothing to do with education, it has to do with whether or not you think the narrative told by Cold War government agencies (on both sides) is actually reliable ... 🙄
@@GameDevNerd Never cared about any governments' narratives.
I only care about scientific facts, evidence and logical reasoning.
Anybody with even a basic understanding of telescopes can tell you why the HST can't resolve lunar detail. How does it see so far away ? Ask yourself just how big the objects are that it's capturing.
Absolutely, it's not rocket science! The flat earth brigade etc cant understand why aircraft cant be seen from space either. Doh!
The film"" American Moon "" there will be no doubt left in your mind
ruclips.net/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/видео.html
If you were in a space ship, with a pair of binoculars, try seeing a quarter in the middle of a football pitch. Good luck finding the Apollo spacecraft.
@@paulscottfilms There is nothing in doubt . But , politely , I skimmed the transcript - you know it's bad when they mention 'Capricorn One' (LOL!) , & the rest is just the usual dogshit . Go ahead & believe it if it makes you happy .
Yet satellites can resolve licence plates from space?
Fantastic intro Mr. Beat. My father always said that a great teacher can convey their message in a way that someone who isn’t interested can either understand the lesson or gain an interest in it. My brothers don’t care for history the way I do. But I’ve showed them quite a few of your videos and they friggin love them. Thank you, Mr. Beat
Well it makes me wonder if we really did land on the moon. Why hasn't anyone else gone to the moon (other nations) and also if we went to the moon, why haven't we gone back?
Other nations have gone to the Moon, and the United States has gone back since Apollo - they’ve just used unmanned probes and rovers, because they are much cheaper and more suitable for exploration and study of the Moon.
Are you aware that they went back five times?
Robert, in order to understand this, you need to first understand that landing on the moon was really just a "stunt" in the first place. It was a political statement. It wasn't for exploration (though, yes, they did end up exploring the moon and getting a lot of good geology out of it). But, Apollo costed (adjusted for inflation) about $250 billion in hard costs, and about $100 billion in soft costs and international support. What did they get for it? They got 850 pounds of rocks, and 12 guys walked on the surface for a few hours each. Dollar for dollar, this is not a good investment. But, remember, that wasn't the point. The point was that we wanted to beat the Soviets, to demonstrate that we were capable of anything if we put our minds to it. It was a political statement to the Soviets: "Don't mess with us, or we'll beat you, we will always beat you." It was an effort to avoid WWIII by putting on a massive display of technological superiority. We'll never know what would have happened without Apollo. But, given the political climate at that time, at the brink of war, people building nuclear fallout shelters in their backyards, kids being trained to duck and cover in schools, etc., it's very possible that Apollo prevented that war from happening. That's certainly what the intent was anyway. So, after the USA won the race to the moon, things settled down quite a bit. The cold war continued, but, the Soviets never again did the same level of aggressive stuff, like they had done in Cuba. They backed off quite a bit, and eventually they collapsed altogether. Was Apollo responsible for that? Maybe. We'll never know for sure. But, the bottom line is that once the race was won, and the Soviets through in the towel, congress had no interest in continuing to fund an endless supply of missions to the moon. So, they cut it at Apollo 17, successfully landing 6 missions onto the moon, and shifted focus to much cheaper endeavors. They cut NASA's budget from 4.5% of the entire federal budget (plus another 2% or so in soft costs) down to 0.45% of the budget, literally 10% of what the funding was during the height of Apollo. Basically, the punchline is that the mission was accomplished, so they ended the program. And, we just haven't had a lot of reasons to spend that kind of money again, because unmanned probes that last a decade or more, costing $500 million instead of $350 billion, are more valuable than sending people who can only stay for 70 hours then come back home.
Why haven't other countries done it? Because it's massively expensive. And, no other country has been willing to spend that kind of money to put the 13th person on the moon.
By the way, Artemis was funded in 2019, and is proceeding. Artemis 1's mission was completed. Artemis 3 intends to put people back onto the lunar surface.
Isn’t it funny how the brain dead think? “Well we did go back but it was machines”. Complete morons, PEOPLE never went back.
@@JohnHazenhousen Whats cheap about NASA ... lol... pay me I'll send you some 'science' lol
When did we every do ANYTHING one time in 1969 and then never again?!
We didn't go
Huh? What are you talking about? They DID go again!! There were 9 manned moon missions, 6 of which landed. The first manned lunar mission was Apollo 8 in 1968. The last was Apollo 17 in 1972. Good grief. Sorry, but if you think there was only one lunar mission, that's how little you understand about the topic, you're really not in a position to even have an opinion.
@@rockethead7 we never went any of those times. All faked.
We don't have the technology to send humans thru can Allen radiation belts.
Even NASA admits this fact.
Oops!!
@@BeatlesFan1975
What are you talking about? NASA has never claimed we cannot go through the Van Allen belts. You are taking one or two sentences and twisting the context.
money. and the us basically had to or else it would lose the cold war.
what happened to our $12 trillion in the years since? follow the money...
No time in human history has a super successful technological achievement ended in "Just Stopped".
Except for Apollo.!!!
_No time in human history has a super successful technological achievement ended in "Just Stopped"._
Sure it has.
The Concorde, for example.
My last TV was 3D. When it broke down I wasn't able to get another one.
Moon landings stopped after Apollo 17 in 1972 because we mainly went to the moon as a political goal which obviously meant we no longer had a need to go after the goal was fulfilled and in the eyes of the public we were just wasting money. And we have made many space achievements since then, albeit typically unmanned (i.e. sending a spacecraft to Pluto). The reason we haven’t returned to the moon is because there is less incentive than there was in the 1960s, not because we can’t do it.
@@pluto6383 But sir - nobody STILL has ever left earth orbit. You just drink the KoolAid and believe it.
@@marblox9300 I think you know people have been to the moon and are just trolling.
None of the skeptical opinions are not convincible enough.
KAGUYA which was sent to the moon exploration by Japan was able to see the jet trail of the Apollo 15 lander, and for the first time since Apollo, and for the first time other than the Apollo spacecraft, Japan succeeded in capturing the landing trail of the Apollo spacecraft.
India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has the highest resolution camera ever sent to the Moon. It pictured two of the Apollo landing sites (including 11) back in 2021. They really are there.
It would have been very difficult to simulate 1/6 G outside of a tank of water. It is quite apparent the astronauts were experiencing lunar gravity and weren't in water.
The film was not live and slowed down to half speed.
to simulate 1/6 G is so difficult that they achieved a poor effect of it in fact, if you ever cared to look. It is so obviously fake you need to wonder why people prefer to believe what they are told like using their own brains were not an option
@@jerrylee2425 one of the things that made me the most skeptical of the whole thing was the press conference. Like I don't know what happened to those people, but that is direct opposite of how human beings behave after success that is unimaginable. Imagine risking your life for several days and then achieving the biggest thing in human history only to be at the press conference like you're sitting at the murder trial....and you're the convicted guy.... :// very suspicious. The best evidence that something's wrong with the story is, they're not going back. It's been 50 years now and I predict they simply will not be going and everyone will keep pretending and lying. There's also the lost telemetry tapes from the first mission, diferences between videos and photos that should've shown the same thing.... all kinds of problems like space radiation, perfect photos [not even one was out of focus or missed - every photo is almost like National Geographic cover LOL
@@ArcadeMusicTribute You see it! To bad to many love the lie.
@@jerrylee2425 Yeah it's that "my mommy would never lie to me" kind of psychology. I guess people prefer to lie to themselves, that to admit they've been deceived.
Imagine flying 290,000 km away from everything you've ever known.
and imagine leaving the stove on
And imagine how scary the apollo 13 was
240k miles..= 384k km..?
but granted..
would be interesting to find out what the astronauts' greatest fears were (& whether the red cyanide tabs were real, or just a urban legend..😀)
@@philcoombes2538 imagine getting stranded on the moon and slowly running out of oxygen
@@anonymoose6873 that, imho, would be where I could see tablets being used; any other sort of failure (suit failure, meteor strike depressurization, atmosphere entry failure etc would happen so fast death would (hopefully) be instantaneous), but death by hyperventilation triggered by excess CO2 is not a good way to go
Here's a little tip, if you want to try to know things, stop believing everything first. -marc27
stop spamming
@Marc Douglas Vogt Here's a little tip. Fight ignorance online. If you want to understand how NASA visited the Moon 9 times and landed on the surface 6 times. Get a good education and study hard. While we might not be able to prove Oswald acted alone in the assassination of JFK., we can prove NASA visited the Moon 9 times. Anybody who is unable to separate scientific fact from fictional pseudoscience needs to enroll back in school. There is no excuse for not knowing based on an unwillingness to examine authoritative cited and sourced evidence from respected individuals. Claiming a Moon rock is fake requires scientific evidence from a lunar geologist, yet conspiracists insist if Joe Blow says he's a geologist and the half-ton of Moon rock is fake, then it must be true.. If the earth is flat, Apollo was a hoax. The same non-evidence supports both claims. Ignorance is alive and well on the WWW.
What i don't understand is that there is a lot less gravity on the moon than on Earth, which is why i was told the astronauts had to wear heavily weighted boots etc or they would float away. Yet when they kick the moon dust up it falls just as quick as it does on Earth, why doesn't it float away?
1) No astronaut wore any weighted boots.
2) Moon dust doesn't float away because the moon has gravity.
3) If you have an issue with the rate that the dust falls, calculate it. Calculate the initial velocity of the dust, and the time it spends in its arc until it hits the ground again. Physics 101. I mean, the math/physics has been done a few million times already, but, since you say that it's wrong, calculate it. Demonstrate your claim.
Notice also that fine dust here on Earth makes dust clouds that fall slowly, because the air slows its fall. There's no air on the Moon, so no dust clouds form and the dust goes down as fast as it goes up.
@@rockethead7 Save your breath. These braindeads float of faith, not science. Just like those flat Earth retards.
Except for everything being wrong in your post, yeah, good one. You figured it out!!!!!
The suits were heavy. They were somewhere around 200 lb so weighting the shoes was not necessary.
Do you get how gravity works? If there is gravity, things won't float away.
The star one in particular makes a ton of sense. If you look at pictures from our spacecrafts that orbit other planets like Jupiter or Saturn you never see stars around the planets in those pictures
We don't have to prove the fraud. They have to tell us why 70% of people don't believe it 50 years later. This is unique.
none of those are real either. every "space photo" on the internet is photoshop
Put down the crack pipe. It's turning your brain to mush.
@@1gallimaufry it's easier to fool all of the people than convince them they have been fooled.
but they were all fake! they couldn't accurately calculate alleged star positions so they didn't bother
They are having massive problems now even with more advanced technology, 2 dates have been cancelled due to male function or something August 2022 and September 2022 . These problems are occuring because it never happened before
What in the world are you talking about? SLS has never even lifted off before. Delays are normal in space travel. Mercury/Gemini/Apollo had countless similar delays.
male function lol
Spot on!
Isn`t "male Function" what they need viagra for?
You think no Apollo mission was delayed or went wrong sheesh
The problems we have is because we dont have proper engineers anymore. Apollo F1 engines had to be hand adjusted. The morons America is producing nowadays dont want to get their hands dirty
It isn't really the closer horizon that makes the backgrounds at 5:29 look similar, it is the lack of atmosphere - the backgrounds on those photos are several miles away, but they appear to be close because we on Earth are so used to seeing distant environments as bluish and indistinct due to atmospheric haze, so we feel as if the backgrounds on those photos are very close.
This is true - and incredibly hard to explain to decided conspiracy theorists who don’t get that the Moon is literally a different world.
@@paulbeardsley4095Paul, the moon ain't a world; it's a moon.
@@pelocitdarney5718 “Pelocit,” “world,” in the context used, means a place other than our own. Words can have more than one meaning depending on context. Buuut since you never graduated high school, I can understand your struggle. 😊
Do better, learn.
The "identical backgrounds" at 5:20 are caused largely by the fact that the moon has no atmosphere, because this makes distant objects appear to be very close;
on Earth, distant objects always become bluish and hazy, but this doesn't happen on the moon, so we assume that sharp and clear objects on the moon are closer than they really are.
Yes, Apollo deniers just don’t get that the Moon is an actual other world!
Stop lying. Sick and tired of liars like you. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies. Just STOP!
same sound stage
The 'moving flag' is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. The film clearly shows the astronaut moving the flag pole. Once he is done placing the flag, it doesn't move; which is exactly what one should expect to see.
@felix mendez No, there aren't.
@felix mendez _You want evidence? How about this for starters. Here there are only a few of the counteless pieces of evidence of the hoax:_
_a) "Astronauts" being incapable of giving a straight answer in their Apollo 11 press conference, when asked if they saw any stars while on the Moon and having to consult among themselves to be able to provide an answer._
Your point (a) is bullshit. Neil Armstrong gave a PERFECTLY STRAIGHT ANSWER. There was no need for them to "consult among themselves" nor did they do so.
Patrick Moore asked them two questions - the first was about how "firm" they found the lunar surface, and the second was "when you looked up at the sky could you actually see the stars and the solar corona, in spite of the glare?".
Buzz Aldrin then answered the first question, causing a delay between Moore's second question and Armstrong's answer.
Armstrong then answered (with the straightest of straight bats):
"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. Uh…I don’t recall, during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona, what stars we could see".
Armstrong here has clearly not realised that Moore was asking about the visibility of the Solar Corona from the lunar surface. This is quite understandable, as to attempt to see the corona Armstrong would have had to look directly at the Sun. Perhaps Moore thought his sun visor would have made this possible. In any event the reasons for Armstrong's misunderstanding are moot - for he clearly did so because in his reply he gives an answer that refers to the "period of time that we were photographing the solar corona".
The Solar Corona photography took place before the landing, from the Command Module, when all 3 astronauts were together. They had just entered the Moon's shadow and were scheduled at this point to photograph the corona "peeking out" from behind the Moon. (These photographs are on record).
Mike Collins either witnessed this photography or participated in it - so he gave a VERY NATURAL response to Armstrong's reply:
"I don’t remember seeing any" (which tallied with Armstrong's own answer).
And there it is. Collins was not responding to Patrick Moore's question, but to Neil Armstrong's answer. A perfectly INNOCENT AND NATURAL exchange.
Patrick Moore realised the misunderstanding, but let it pass - probably because there were many of his professional colleagues waiting to ask their own questions.
HOWEVER, when Moore got the chance to interview Armstrong 'one on one' for his BBC 'Sky at Night' program the following year, he took the opportunity to get the information he was looking for at the Press Conference. He asks the same question, but this time, to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, he splits the question in two. They are the FIRST TWO QUESTIONS he asks. You can hear them here:
ruclips.net/video/PtdcdxvNI1o/видео.html
How can such a misunderstanding (on the part of Hoax Believers) arise from such a simple exchange at the Press Con? Are people so incapable of comprehending the meaning of words?
The answer is that these people are so prejudiced by their desire to believe that the Moonlandings were faked, that they allowed their critical standards to drop and jumped onto the interpretation that they WANTED to hear.
The "non-agreement" and "confusion" about what the Apollo astronauts saw from the surface became a REPEATED LIE.
Now it has been answered. Please don't repeat that lie again.
felix mendes ... Your entire post is total BS, but I will just point out one of your "points" (h).
All of the lunar landings were made near the lunar morning terminator. And the reason is that the surface temperature is "cooler in those "days". Yes a Lunar "day" is about 15 Earth days long. The idea that the surface temperature recovers from 250 F below zero the 250 F above zero "instantly" shows you have no understanding of thermal dynamics. You are correct that the Moon has no atmosphere, so only the surface is heated. This is also why the suits are white and reflective to help protect from the heat.
The surface temperature at the landing sites were approximately 130 F. Remember the night side had cooled to -250 F over the 15 days of darkness and penetrated considerably in the soil. It takes a while for this soil to warm up and it likely reaches the highest temperature in the late afternoon which would be 11 or 12 "Earth days" later.
All of you other points have similar glaring failures. To less educated people they can seem to make sense.
Swinde Okay, please explain the “glaring failures.” When you say something, at least back up your claims.
I’m not on either side btw. That means I believe either way, hoax or not, could be a possibility.
@felix mendez And you need to stop watching this conspiracy crap. You are just parroting what has already been debunked a million times.
Half a century back we landed on the moon!
Amazing!
Half a century later we are struggling to attain low earth orbit!
Amazingly speechless!
Yes we did, and no we don't.
what are you talking about lol
Who said we’re struggling?
@@cerbmurasaki space being the 'final' frontier, scientists are racing to strip it naked. The ISS floats just a centimeter above your hair yet no accommodation for more scientists. Pity, why not built ISS 2 or something to circle the earth in low earth orbit? Or is it too much of a struggle just to do that?
@@dewishesso2305
You do realize how expensive it is maintaining one space station, right? It’s not impossible to have two or anything. It’s just unnecessary and fiscally irresponsible. We get what we need from one station; why would we bother making more?
the intact dust below the rocket engine is sufficient proof they never set foot on the moon , this is absolutely undebunkable, myth busters would NEVER dare to replicate this experiment(even at a much lower power)
Hilarious! Who told you such a thing? Was it a conspiracy video? How about AS11-40-5921? See that most of the dust has been blown away, down to the compacted regolith and rock layer? See those radial striations from the rocket blast? Did you watch a conspiracy video that showed you a couple of low-res shallow angle shots, and told you the dust wasn't disturbed, and you never lifted a finger to check for yourself?
@@rockethead7rocky, unfortunately you're outnumbered, and you're beginning to realise it given your desperate comments. More people now believe the moon landings to be fake than those who believe them to be real. Stop collaborating with the enemy, there's a good chap.
@@pelocitdarney5718So what about the photo that he IDed? If you're going to ignore what he says, why bother reading his posts?
Any comment on the photo IDed by @rockethead7?
@@gives_bad_adviceWho is IDed?
Well I think with the temperatures minus 300 Fahrenheit the astronauts and their spacesuits , they will freeze together
The measured surface temperature during Apollo 11 was -23C to 7C.
Sorry, but temperature doesn't work like you think it does. A vacuum doesn't have a temperature. Things inside a vacuum can have a temperature, but, it doesn't work the way you're pretending to understand.
Wait a minute. The radiation in the Van Halen belt shouldn't have been too much of a problem, being that they could have avoided certain" hot spots," but what about the temperature? The Van Halen belt consists of Plasma; both " cold Plasma," AND" hot plasma." Cold plasma is about a few thousand degrees Celsius, and hot plasma is WWAAAYYY hotter. The only type of metal that can PROBABLY sustain those types of temperatures is titanium, and we all know that the shuttle isn't made out of titanium. And even if that was the case, they would have had to avoid EVERY hotspot perfectly, in order to reach the 🌒 without burning up. Now let's talk and the radio waves. I don't know about you, but I don't think that raido waves can go through plasma. They either get absorbed, or the bend. I'm not flat Earth theorists, but I'm about 62% sure that we didn't go to the Moon!!!
LOL - Van Halen belt
GodmindNY NYC
Running with devil was one favs, I’m about 98.375% no one has stepped foot on moon
where, relative to Earth's atmosphere, are these plasmas..?
@@philcoombes2538 yes they are. There's red plasma and yellow plasma, and according to NASA they conveniently made the voyage while avoiding all the red plasma spots, that's remarkable!!
@@astralmindny9055 A ref please, so I can see what NASA said..?
If anything the flag should flutter MORE on the moon (while being handled) than on earth when there is no wind. Any non-rigid entity (flags, cables, straps) will still flail around like crazy in low gravity, as they keep their momentum from any movement and will even 'ripple' when they reach their point of tension. They will do this for longer than on earth as gravity doesn't pull it in one direction to 'fix' them.
Yes, there is no air resistance to stop it flapping straight away.
But if there is no atmosphere on the Moon, there is no wind - so why is the flag waving? Is this the proof that conspiracy theorists have been seeking?
Look again at the image, and in particular along the top edge of the flag, and you will find the answer. A telescopic pole has been extended along the top in order to make the flag fly proudly (yes, NASA really did think of everything).
"Because it’s been set up like this, it appears to be waving in the wind," Ojha explains. "All the wrinkles are there because it’s literally been screwed up for four days en route to the Moon."
you realize they had a horizontal bar on the flag to prevent that from happening..
In pure words it more tending to do shm( simple harmonic motion) people dont know about these stuff so they say its fake
@@GoodBoy-nx3oy Yes. It’s telling that most Apollo deniers have very poor scientific knowledge (they typically express silly ideas about radiation and heat transfer) and often don’t even know the history that they are disputing (“How come there was never a second landing?”).
Lol… we went. Now going back have they been able to resolve the issues with equipment. The moon dust wreaked havoc on the suits. They are planning on spending much more time on the surface, looking forward to the next mission
We do not expect to see craters under the LMs but, at least, there must be some pits because, during moon landings, NASA shows dust, sand, or moon rock thrown away from under the LMs, and astroNOTs also mention sand disturbance.
And there was indeed such disturbance, in a radial pattern which is completely consistent with the physical laws associated with 2,700lbs of thrust descending vertically onto the lunar surface.
Another hoax nut that never checked the photo archive, and just blindly believes conspiracy videos that claim there's no dust blown. Go look at the actual photo archive for yourself, dewdrop.
I find it very hard to believe man was on the moon in the late 1960s, yet I can't take a date to the moon in 2021.
@Joaquin you cant, it's not possible with current tech to escape earth into space
@@HassaanALal Its funny how NASA had the tech to do that in 1969, but not now.
@@ahnguyen1 exactly, they would have gone 5 to 10 times by now if it was so possible for them.
@@HassaanALal they went six times bro
@@HassaanALal
They went to the moon on manned mission 9 times, 6 of those times landed. 24 people went to the moon, 3 of those went twice. 12 of them walked on the surface.
we had a AM radio in 1969 and yet we went to the moon come on folks
We've also had XB-70 Valkyrie - a nuclear-armed, deep-penetration strategic bomber with six engines, capable of cruising for thousands of miles at Mach 3+ while flying at 70,000 feet (21,000 m).
Come on, you.
@@Jan_Strzelecki so what...that's ur come back.. oh well now that i know we had that then we must have went to the moon...jeez
@@jameslavalley2647 _so what._
So, the level of technology in the 60's is higher than you think it is.
@@jameslavalley2647 Wow, you're as stupid as the bloke a few weeks ago who argued that we can't have gone to the Moon because his television in 1969 was black and white! Talk about a non sequitur!
@@paulbeardsley4095 how in the hell did we get that car up there
This guy deserves a “Most Gullible” trophy which he’d proudly display because NASA is just so honest no government agency could ever do this, so the joke’s on those who do notice a muddy elephant in the snow.
The unintentional irony at this stage is as hilarious as it is staggering.
And meanwhile the crap online conspiracy theory that you yourself hang on their every word is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
@@yassassin6425 ✔Well said.
@@yassassin6425Best not use the term 'conspiracy theory' because it suggests to the reader that you've lost the argument. 'Challenging the narrative' might be a better term to use, as it doesn't have connotations of the argument having been lost.
@@pelocitdarney5718
No, it's perfectly apposite. Thanks anyway.
@@yassassin6425Yassa, so what you're saying is that Carl is a person who thinks that bad people could get together with other bad people to do something bad? That's all 'conspiracy theorist' actually means, so that includes 99.9% of us. Also, it's just an over-used term which someone throws into the discussion when they're losing an argument, and all they're doing is saying that someone belongs to a group comprising 99.9% of people. Yassa, in this context, you could use a much more powerful term which puts your opponent into maybe only 10% of the people, such as 'narrative denier'. Kaboom! See how Carl reacts to that!
This should be called " I'll give NASA the benefit of the doubt"
Fr
I would not give NASA other credit than that of relying on popular gullibility. As they say: the bigger and shameless the lie, the hardest to reject it and disprove it
@@user-by7jv6qd7x Shouldn't be a problem for other nations to debunk it. Especially those that have been to the Moon and don't see eye to eye with USA, even openly go against US diktats on a daily basis. But they all corroborated USA's story. Because?
@@user-by7jv6qd7x And you would know about big lies, having swallowed some. Go get an education and learn how it all happened instead of recycling shite.
I suggest the title, "I've given this matter a grand total of about 17 minutes of thought and approximately 4 minutes of research."
IMO, the more important question is whether the US had the capacity (in terms of materials) to land on the moon. If you know the mass of the earth and moon, and you have the aerodynamic models we have today, you can figure out if a vessel, of known shape, mass, engine output, fuel flow rate and fuel capacity (at each stage), is capable of making it to orbit, transferring to the moon, landing, lifting off again and coming back. I'm no expert on the technology used in 1969, but there have been hundreds of thousands of aerospace engineers since then performing similar calculations for other trips, engineers from every country including America's 'rivals'. If it were technologically impossible for the Apollo mission to have succeeded, we would have known by now. And if they were technologically capable, it would have been harder to orchestrate an effort to keep such a giant conspiracy under wraps while working on a 'fake mission' than it would be to just complete the mission as intended.
Bollocks
It's technologically impossible for humans to build some of the things built on Earth even if they would have had modern equipment but people still insist they did instead of giving credit to Giants or aliens.
@@nyxnightlinger7719 Dont be so ignorant. Just because your incapable doesn't mean other are
@@gowdsake7103 it's been proven we could not move them and set into place. some of those giant stones weigh over 100,000 pounds and are the size of a semi trailer, good luck.
@@nyxnightlinger7719 No cocky uneducated answer yet ?
50 years since the first mission and we just stopped going and no other country has been able to do it in all this time. Sure we went
Yes, but it was ludicrously expensive and served mainly propaganda purposes, so _of course_ nobody wanted to go back - the reward to expenses ratio just wasn't good enough back then.
BrushyMtnGolfer I was a skeptic in 68 and more 2019
@Suzie.q Popcorn123 Actually the on board computer (Apollo) was in some ways better than today! Small systems today crash completely if they cannot cope. Although in 1969 the computer was overworked it still carried on working and doing most of it's programming. Way back in the 60's CGI had not even been thought of. Stanley Kubrick would have loved it if it had existed then!
BrushyMtnGolfer We went to the moon to prove technology superiority over the Soviet Union. After we landed (and we did land), the country had no incentive to go back, for the cost was too high for what we’d actually get back.
Exactly its all bs. We went to low earth orbit thats about it.
Mr Beat Can you do every president's biggest accomplishment like The New Deal signed by Franklin Dealno Roosevelt and the The Civil Rights Movement signed by Lyndon Baines Johnson?
I can't believe I haven't done those topics yet!
The new deal wasn't really an accomplishment unless debt was the goal.
If you do cival rights (maybe you have I am still playing catch up) please start with Ike's policies not just Johnson.
New deal was a pile of garbage, you should freshen up on your history
@@bitcoinwillendjewishsuprem3744 Classic example of the American education system. We're taught a much perverted version of history.
The Indian spacecraft took pictures of the what Apollos 15 and 17 (if I'm not mistaken) lift on the moon, so yep, discussion ended
Exactly, as did other nations.
Right. Soviets had a probe orbiting (then becoming one with) the Moon when A11 astronauts were there. They knew exactly what was going on, which helps explain their congratulations then and 50 yrs later.
The graphics were worse than the Apollo joke and you people?? Believe this. 🤪
@@geoffbirchall7552 ⬅ Thinks _"I don't get it"_ must mean it's fake. Sorry, little one, your astonishing ignorance is not the standard for reality to be what it is. 😉
Do better, learn.
@@DemonDrummer cartoons are not reality! Animation is not reality! Hard facts is reality!
They landed in California, right in Stanley Kubricks back yard where he got to photograph that epic landing.
We're not all that stupid NASA, some of us do our own thinking.
Not the brightest bulb, eh?
Maybe you do do your own thinking on occasion. You ought to try doing it about the Moon landings.
That's a hell of a trick, considering Kubrick moved to England in 1961.
‘Our own thinking’ _just happens_ to resemble the exact same poop/puke that keeps the conspiracy-theorist human-caterpillar alive! Amazing.
💩🐛🤮🐛💩🐛🤮🐛💩
The best part was when Nixon phoned the moon from his oval office landline...
Actually, this is how it worked. The Unified S-Band System used the 2025-2120 MHz band for uplinks (earth to space transmissions) and the 2200-2290 MHz band for downlinks (space to earth transmissions). Both bands are allocated internationally for space research and operations even today. A hybrid of radio communications and landline communication, both were full duplex (as was the Apollo capsule comms) meaning both ends could talk and listen at once, just like any other phone call.
The conversion from radio system to landline system was done at a shore station, in the case of Apollo one of the radio telescopes or the point-to-point microwave links across the country that were also commonplace in that decade.
Nixon would never do something that was not true .
@@Jay-vr9ir I agree, but lunar scientists, aerospace engineers, and nerds don't need to confirm if "Tricky Dick" made a phone call to the Moon,to establish whether NASA is telling the truth.Individuals lie, cheat, and steal all the time; science doesn't.
Never thought of that one either.. . LOL
Direct line so they didn't forget to bring home some. Moon cheese.
@@meldaghost Yes, lots of cheese.LOL, Lunar conspiracists' don't know what they don't know. Sadly they teach this ignorance to their children. I believe the internet's promotion of fake conspiracy theories and misinformation are the biggest threats to democracy.
If there's very little gravity and it's like a vacuum than how come the dust or dirt falls back to the surface of the moon so fast that is being kicked up from the rover wheels . The dust having no gravity , a vacume atmosphere and no moisture should just hang into a cloud behind it. Not fall rapidly in formation to the ground
Is this a joke? The moon has 1/6th gravity of Earth, not zero. Do the math from there. I mean, do you really believe there hasn't been a single physicist anywhere on Earth for the past 50 years to notice this "problem" you think you spotted? And, sorry, if you expect a cloud, you clearly don't understand what a vacuum is. A cloud forms when the atmosphere suspends particles of stuff (dust/water/whatever) in the air. No atmosphere/air, no cloud. I'll cut you a bit of slack about the rover wheels, because most of that footage was shot in 16mm at 6 FPS, then sped back up to 24 FPS when they play it back (it's sped up). So, in a lot of that footage, yes, the dust appears to fall faster than it should, and there's no way for you to know that unless you understood in advance that it was being sped up. But, c'mon man, clouds in a vacuum?
I'm so tired of RUclips blocking 75% of my replies. Good grief. No atmosphere = no cloud. You don't understand what a vacuum is. And, 1/6th gravity is not 0 G.
Lol, The moon had 1/6 gravity, so dust would fall right back down. There is no AIR. NO ATMOSPHERE to suspend dust, So it goes up, and comes right back down. There is no billowing, no dust suspension to keep dust afloat. Vacuum just means no air pressure.
I'm saying when you watch the rover kicking up the dust behind it it falls exactly like it does on earth . Slightly less gravity should mean it falls slower and less organized, then you factor in no moisture it should float longer than the moist dirt does here not just spit up and emmediately drop straight down .I know there's no wind to blow it away .
Well, if RUclips hadn't blocked my first reply, I already explained that they shot most rover clips at 6 FPS, and played them back at 24 FPS. So, most of the videos you may have seen are running 4x faster than real-time. The rest of what you said was complete nonsense.
The footprints on the moon are outer boots that were tossed on the surface before ascending. The Flag had a piece that extended from the pole which made the flag a rectangular shape. There is a mirror dropped on the moon so Astronomers and Scientists can point a laser on it and the laser bounces back. That is proof that we really landed on the moon.
also Pluto is a planet.
Yes, they obviously really went to the Moon.
Not sure it matters how you designate Pluto, though. It doesn’t become more or less of a world.
Stars and their constellations would appear exactly the same if photographed from ANYWHERE in the Solar System. The reason they do not show in the Moon photos are simply the exposure time was too short for them to register on the film or in a video. The cameras were set for very short exposures to register bright objects correctly.
Why would short exposure result in a starless photo? I fail to understand your argument.
@@pvn2474
Dimmer objects require longer exposure. Bright objects like Astronauts in white suits ned only a short exposure such as 1/ 250 second. However, even a bright star needs up 30 seconds to register on film. Very bright planets such as Venus or Jupiter will still need several seconds to get an image.
Talk about the lunar module not kicking up dust because of pressure on the moon, but the rover and astronauts were throwing up plenty of it while moving around. I thick that rocket would have enough thrust to blast the surface if the rover threw some up moving around.
Yeah, the rockets blew lots of dust. Go watch a few of the landing videos. Why would you think they didn't?
EXACTLY , I saw a video of a astronaut's helmet turning as the astronaut turned his head .lol
@@asianconnection7701 That is the way there were designed numbnuts. Those helmets were only for Gemini, not Apollo.
@minipilot The rover slung dust that was stuck to its wheels, but since there is no atmosphere you will never see it leave a trail of dust floating. The rockets of the moon landers blew all of the dust to the side far away from the lander. Dust cannot billow on the moon due to no atmosphere pressure to slow it down or to suspend it in the air. There is no air.
The lack of time delay on the coms.
Cool video! I love stuff about space.
Well thank you Gabe
it's all fake
The film"" American Moon "" there will be no doubt left in your mind
ruclips.net/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/видео.html
@@Zero11s
Then, aliens are fake, too.
If we didn’t go to the moon why didn’t the Russians blow the whistle on the whole thing and why did they stop their moon landing project?
Because it’s ridiculously hard and expensive
I saw Buzz Aldrin speak for an hour here in NZ in 2010 about his experience ON the Moon and in space. Neil Armstrong said it would be harder to fake than to succeed.. cheers from down under 👍🚀🇳🇿
Right. And then he proceeded to drown himself in alcohol and anti depressants. A man whose tomb should at least be in Arlington for the greatest human achievement in the history of mankind...but no. Buried at sea. Not to mention his home has numerous pictures of his test pilot/ piloting days etc.etc. but none whatsoever of his historical walk on the moon. That's weird.
@@edcorrigan3156 _And then he proceeded to drown himself in alcohol and anti depressants._
He'd peaked up at 39, Ed. It's no wonder he saw nothing of interest in life afterwards.
_A man whose tomb should at least be in Arlington for the greatest human achievement in the history of mankind...but no. Buried at sea._
Buzz Aldrin is still alive. You're thinking of Neil Armstrong. But I won't hold it against you, since it's understandable that your mental faculties might not be what they used to be at your age.
_Not to mention his home has numerous pictures of his test pilot/ piloting days etc. but none whatsoever of his historical walk on the moon._
That's not _quite_ true, but also completely and utterly irrelevant either way. It's only "weird" if you're determined to spin every single thing you don't understand into a conspiracy.
@@Jan_Strzelecki Isn't determination to spin every single thing you don't understand into a conspiracy a requirement for membership?
@@therealzilchDefinitely.
when Neil Armstrong said it's harder to fake it, he was clearly flattering himself
How strange that people has to jump, and move slowly on the moon, but sand from the rover does not. The sand that is thrown in the air is falling as on Earth.
good point!
because of size. the moon is smaller than earth, so it has less gravity. Mars is half the size of earth, meaning it is much bigger, and has more gravity.
The dust settles FASTER than on Earth. Dust clouds don't form in a vacuum. Without air resistance, the dust will drop back to the ground like a pile of bricks.
Calculate it. Submit those calculations to science journals. But, I will warn you, if you calculate it using this video's rover/sand, you're looking at a greatly sped-up copy. He obviously increased the pace to save time. But, if you download the original rover videos and play them at the original frame rates, you can easily do the calculations to prove you're correct. What are you waiting for? I'm sure nobody else has ever calculated it in the past 50 years... right?
@Lee cornell
Huh? Are you under the impression that we have any of those craft to even send?
The pruff is questionable 🤔 though? Why wouldn't travel to the moon be a common event being that we had so many years following the earlier mission to the moon..why? Stop going at all with technology being so much more advanced than the 60's. Why haven't any other countries other than Russia never made it or even gave it a shot? I just find it hard to believe that only one country was able to do it. If we went and went many times ...why would others follow with confidence and further more study into the exploration of space???? Why one country has the ability to do so and no others?
YOU SAID: The pruff is questionable"
== I doubt you even know what the proof is. This video certainly doesn't address it.
YOU SAID: "Why wouldn't travel to the moon be a common event being that we had so many years following the earlier mission to the moon..why?"
== It is getting cheaper to do it, so, Artemis is funded, and there's a moon rocket on the launch pad right now. But, basically, even with technology advances, it is still just too expensive, and there has been very little motivation and public support to do it. Back in the 1960s, the primary motivation was the cold war. After Apollo, there just hasn't been that kind of motivation (and funding) to do it.
YOU SAID: "Why haven't any other countries other than Russia never made it or even gave it a shot?"
== Too expensive.
YOU SAID: "I just find it hard to believe that only one country was able to do it."
== So, your "evidence" is your own incredulity?
YOU SAID: "If we went and went many times ...why would others follow with confidence and further more study into the exploration of space???? Why one country has the ability to do so and no others?"
== In the height of Apollo spending in the 1960s, do you have any clue how much it costed? It was 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, and another 2% in soft costs and international support. That's about 6.5% of the entire federal budget... to put 12 people on the moon for a few hours each. If you don't understand how staggering that is, let me draw an analogy. It's very expensive to climb Mount Everest, about $60,000 per person for each climb, and it takes months, and you can only do it once a year. Well, in order to buy yourself a seat on Apollo's landing missions, it would have costed you 250,000 years worth of climbing Mount Everest before you could pay for one single seat on an Apollo landing. That's longer than the human race has been in existence. THAT is how expensive Apollo was. There is no other program in human history anything like it. The only comparison you might be able to make is when 30,000 people in ancient Egypt spent a decade of their lives to work to create one pyramid to entomb a single person. Well, Apollo was bigger than that. It took 450,000 people a decade of their lives to make Apollo happen. And, for that, we got 12 people on the moon for a few hours each. Nothing. There is nothing else like Apollo. No other voyage can compare.
My doubt is, how did they touch down on the moon so perfectly and take off so perfectly with limited fuel.
They didn’t touch down so perfectly, which is why they were so close to having to abort. However, the descent stage was left there when they lifted off, serving only as a launch platform for the ascent stage. It, in turn, had a separate rocket motor and propellant tanks.
think jet fighter ejection seat ... all one needs is the initial boost ... and the engine cutoff was set to allow enough fuel for liftoff ... or didnt people bother to understand WHY they had fuel counters for landing ...
it's called PAYING ATTENTION ...
yeah, and what about the 300 kg of rocks they allegedly took back on take off from there. Or where they could possibly have stored a ROVER and took it out on the moon from the module. Ridicolous -the list is just endless
@@user-by7jv6qd7x The moon has one sixth of the gravity of earth, so not much fuel was needed to blast off from there. Apollo 11 took 21.6kg (NOT 300kg!) of rock from the moon. The Lunar rover was only used in later missions, when the lunar lander was larger and had more storage space. It's easy to find video of the rover being unpacked from its storage space
it's called the ol' magic of leadership and the latest of movie direction. You need to wonder why they haven't applied it yet to succesfull mankind time travels
I've been to the moon like 5 times already. Who hasn't?
Thanks brother does the moon has it door which can not affect the world when you are entering am not sure of going to the moon might be new planets not moon those people are decieving
Depending who you ask, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. But then again, depending who you ask, the earth is flat or oblate, and the CIA, Cubans, Mafia and LBJ clubbed together to buy an Italian rifle. Anyway, I'm going out now to share a beer or two with Elvis.
All the people involved at the very top all left soon after the Apollo 11 mission as did the 3 astronauts?????
When I was smoking that good weed or drugs
Sorry but going to a Maroon 5 concert five times is not the same as going to the moon.
Imagine flying nazi’s over, creating a new space agency and giving them 4% of the national budget for someone to say we’re just going to fake it
You can imagine it as much as you like.
@@paulbeardsley4095 honestly if it was true that would be hilarious
We landed on the moon. I never realized the moon was in hangars in Arizona though.
Miles upon miles upon miles of rover footage, driving across the lunar surface... can you point out any hangar in Arizona large enough for that? How many people did it take to fill miles of dust and rocks in those hangars?
@@rockethead7 They used one and the same rover in all "rover-landings". This was a small step for the astronout, but a big leap for mankind.
@@rainertheraven7813
1) You don't know what you're talking about.
2) How does that even remotely address the topic of this thread?
That's because most of the commentators are here,are experts in aeronautics,and space engineering.
Best part is everyone thinks that moon buggy was strapped to the little tin can.. Bwahahaha 🤦♂️
You failed to cover the key to understanding the moon landing fraud. That is "Frame Rates" of the camera used to send "video" back to earth. The sole camera on the surface of the moon filmed was a 10 frames per second (fps)(Westinghouse WL30691 Secondary Electron Conduction Tube (SEC)). The media was shown "live" feeds (and they filmed it on their own recording equipment). The feed was presented at 24 frames per second (fps), but there was no 24 fps camera on the moon. I believe the film was not authentic. Therefore, other aspects of the voyage were not authentic "as presented" either.
James Van Allen, would also like to know how the Playtex space suits and a thin sheet of aluminum were able to protect the astronauts as they passed through the "Van Allen Radiation belts", which were believed to be two belts at the time and now we know there are actually three belts. According to NASA, the astronauts received "no more radiation than if they had stayed on the earth", based on dosimeter readings following the mission and actual quote by NASA officials. Those same suits cannot be used again because the "blueprints, composition and specs cannot be found in the archives", meanwhile look at recent news from August 2022, NASA is going to spend $1 billion to have 2 suits made for a future mission to the moon on the, (ahem), SLS... and no suit has not been developed yet, and this problem has been around for years, and has caused a substantial delay on returning to the moon.
*_"James Van Allen, would also like to know how the Playtex space suits and a thin sheet of aluminum were able to protect the astronauts as they passed through the "Van Allen Radiation belts"_*
James Van Allen wanted to know nothing of the sort because he understood the nature of alpha and beta radiation, time and exposure and the differing intensity of the belts, whereas you clearly do not.
*_"which were believed to be two belts at the time and now we know there are actually three belts."_*
The third belt is transient and has nothing whatsoever to do with the trajectory of the Apollo missions.
*_"According to NASA, the astronauts received "no more radiation than if they had stayed on the earth", based on dosimeter readings following the mission and actual quote by NASA officials."_*
Source?
*_"Those same suits cannot be used again because the "blueprints, composition and specs cannot be found in the archives"_*
Again - full original source and context?
Absolute nonsense. The schematics and designs are fully available. Besides, there are many A-7L suits still in existence - you can actually see Armstrong's exhibited at the National Air and Space Museum. You surely understand that technology evolves, yes? Artemis 1 will be testing the 'next generation' suit design. Oh, wait...
*_"meanwhile look at recent news from August 2022, NASA is going to spend $1 billion to have 2 suits made for a future mission to the moon on the, (ahem), SLS... and no suit has not been developed yet"_*
Yes it has. What on earth is wrong with you?
*_"and this problem has been around for years, and has caused a substantial delay on returning to the moon."_*
What "problem"?
he says space is a vacuum a dozen times. Yet some how doesn't ask him self if space is a vacuum. how can you have positive pressure system like a space suit, in a negative environment such as space without going pop? like what happens when you go 8 miles under water without a stable barrier between both forces. anybody with a vacuum sealer can easily see the power of even a small vacuum. one as large as space would be impossible to withstand using earthly materials. If we cant get to the bottom of every ocean, why in hell would anyone think space would be a cake walk like they made it out to be? Oh and why did vacuum seal technology only hit the market during the 1970's after nasa supposedly went to the moon and back in 69'? maybe its because you could easily test how an infinite vacuum would obliterate any tin can we send up there.
This again? A vacuum is simply the absence of matter - it doesn't obliterate anything. "Infinite vacuum"? What does this even mean. A perfect true vacuum is impossible. To reiterate, a vacuum in cislunar space or on the moon is a space with very little in it. That means the only pressure exerted upon the suits was internal and a trivial 3.7psi - so therefore a pressure differential of....wait for it...3.7psi. For reference, some soda cans are pressurised up to 70psi.
8 miles? The deepest part of the ocean is called the Challenger Deep and is located beneath the western Pacific Ocean in the southern end of the Mariana Trench, this is approximately 10,935 meters (35,876 feet) deep - 6.7 miles. The external pressure on a vessel at this depth is 16,000 lbs - is 1.16 x 108 Pa (about 1.15 x 103 atm). This, compared to zero external pressure on a craft in space.
Why is it even necessary to explain this...again?
"he says space is a vacuum a dozen times."
I wasn't counting.
"Yet some how doesn't ask him self if space is a vacuum."
iF we. PlAce Period's. In exrta placeS. This meens; new. Sentence.
"how can you have positive pressure system like a space suit"
By putting oxygen gas inside.
"in a negative environment"
There is no such thing as negative pressure. Some people use the term "negative pressure" to describe a pressure differential. But, in reality, the lowest possible pressure is 0.
"such as space without going pop?"
Because the differential is what matters for "going pop." Spacesuits were pressurized to about 3 PSI. The vacuum is essentially 0 PSI. That's a 3 PSI pressure differential, not all that much more than you'd find in a child's balloon.
"like what happens when you go 8 miles under water"
There is no place that is 8 miles under water. The deepest ocean depth is approximately 7 miles. And, at that depth, the pressure is 16,000 PSI. Did you really just compare it to the 3 PSI of the Apollo spacesuits?
"without a stable barrier between both forces."
It's called a "spacesuit."
"anybody with a vacuum sealer can easily see the power of even a small vacuum."
I don't think the word "power" means what you think it means.
"one as large as space"
Is 0 PSI in a small chamber any different than 0 PSI of deep space? They're both 0 PSI, dewdrop. It doesn't matter how "large."
"would be impossible to withstand using earthly materials."
A child's balloon can withstand it.
"If we cant get to the bottom of every ocean"
Huh? We HAVE gone to the bottom of every ocean.
"why would anyone think space would be a cake walk like they made it out to be?"
You have no understanding of the topic.
"Oh and why did vacuum seal technology only hit the market during the 1970's after nasa supposedly went to the moon and back in 69'?"
Vacuum bags came out in the 1950s.
"maybe its because you could easily test how an infinite vacuum would obliterate any tin can we send up there."
What did this to you? Did you simply drop out of 8th grade? Or, did you destroy your mind with substance abuse?
These skeptics Never include professional photographers, or folks like me who actually DO work on sound stages in CA, and I HAVE filmed "moon like asteroid surfaces with astronauts" and keeping the dust down was a major pain in the ass, as was getting the 'star drops' to be visible against the glare of the foreground 'moonlet' we had made. The only way they ever got the stars was to Way underexpose the foreground and then reshoot it without the stars. When you see the dust kicking up from the rover's tires, it falls straight down instantly- no hang time.
Yes. And that can only be accomplished in a vacuum. There are no vacuum chambers in existence large enough to fake this.
There's a great video by a professional explaining a lot (but not even all) of the reasons we couldn't have faked the moon landing here: ruclips.net/video/_loUDS4c3Cs/видео.html
That's not true. They asked the man in charge of the company that made the camera's they used a question regarding something that took place. I admit forgetting the details, but anyone that wants to know the truth can do an easy search to find it. The man was obviously an expert and the bottom line was that he smiled and said,.' I can't explain that',...……..meaning, whatever was being questioned could not have happened according to this expert. I'll look for the details, but it's a known story, you must have heard of it.
Omg yes why don’t they include me 🙄🙄
@@MrMarco855 from "American Moon" documentary?
So awesome to see this man making this video while standing on the moon!!
Must be no wind there
I wish he was
HEH
@@MrDaiseymay Yes, and even without an astronauts costume!
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) is better movie than "moon landing" 1969
Well 6 years have past any updates 😂😁
51 years now.
Do Arizona v. United States for Supreme Court Briefs.
My Patreon supporters get their picks first, but that'd be a cool one to explore.
Supposedly we have powerful telescopes that can see beyond galaxies and we cannot see clearly the stuff we left on the moon .. Give me a frickin brake!
There's one on each wheel of your car and I hope your driving is better than your use of English language.
@@stevesmyth4982 why be bothered making comments about peoples spelling mistakes
@majica43 Is it a spelling mistake? It could also be a typo or a misunderstanding of meaning.
And you omitted the apostrophe at the end of peoples and the question mark at the end of the sentence. :))
@@stevesmyth4982 you like to read peoples comments to check for grammar mistakes, that’s funny
I can't find an optometrist to give me a decent prescription for glasses, but the "all new & improved telescopes" can find black holes and stars zillions of light years away in total clarity and "Disney Colour"? Something funky going on here! Looks like another government project to make us "little people" look stupid and prepare our own selves for the end of the world. Massive destruction of life and property while the elites "hunker-down" in their underearth bunkers. Crazy? Maybe not!
We are able to bounce laser signals off a device that the astronauts left on the moon that can detect return laser signals.
If they lie, so many people involve, surely the lies cannot keep.
The only lie exists in the minds of the poor folk who know nothing about the Apollo program, claiming it to be a fraud, and preferring to believe each other when they converse in their echo chambers.
People? These loonies believe entire nations are involved? I mean, USA is hardly the only nation that has been to the Moon!
Accidentally they landed on Sahara Desert
I fell the Astronauts were meant believe they actually reached the moon 🌛 infact even they were even fooled
45 years...that's just sad! Thanks for the video!!!
The film"" American Moon "" there will be no doubt left in your mind
ruclips.net/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/видео.html
Telescope-wise, the moon moves very fast for a telescope zoomed in that far AND its exceedingly bright which would blind something as sensitive as Hubble. An effort was made to snap a quick quick quick image and its out there somewhere. Anything more detailed would probably be classified.
I love how humanity wastes more times debating if something is real or not, instead of trying to find more ways to get there...
That should tell you all you need to know friend. Because guess what? We CAN'T get there. Never could. If we could. We would. But we can't. So we don't. If people just use there heads seeing this lie is really a no brainer
What do you mean "more" ways to get there? They've never even figured out a single way to get there.
So you'd prefer for humanity to not think freely and to find ways to get "back" to the moon. While NASA,the Space specialist, is scamming tax payers for billions annually lol
@@Xendava I take it neither you nor Josh are aware of the Artemis Program?
@@Xendava Considering all evidence points to us having already gone there, I don't understand how you could say otherwise.
My question is how did they get that contraption back through the Van allen belt
Still spewing your fake questions, eh? You have proven repeatedly that you don't care about the answers. So, why do you keep pretending to ask questions?
exactly !
@@rockethead7 because I haven't gotten an answer yet.
QUOTE:
"The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
-- James A. Van Allen"
@@rockethead7 Go have a look again at the contraption sitting on the "moon" and tell me that even made it off the "moon", let alone the outer portion of the Van Allen Belt. And somehow we lost that technology so we can't go back. How convienient. Know when your being lied to. That space craft looks like a bunch of 6th graders built it in science class. How ridiculous.
I subscribed and liked the video ✌️ 📹 MERRY CHRISTMAS 🎅 🎄 🤶🧑🎄🎁AND A HAPPY HEALTHY SAFE NEW YEAR 🎉🎊🧨✨️☮️✝️®️©️ from upper East Tennessee
I can't believe that there are STILL people who don't believe that we landed there, but WE DID!!!
I met 5 men who walked on the Moon: Buzz Aldrin, Al Bean, Ed Mitchell, David Scott, and Charlie Duke at the SpaceFest in Tucson, Arizona.
So?
Its painfully obvious that they didn't, and no one ever did yet, they spent a lot of effort faking it, and they made it convincing enough, and even with their hard efforts, they couldn't avoid suspicions, quite pathetic if you ask me.
@@youzerseif Why do you believe it was faked. Is it because there were no aliens or interdimensional time-traveling hobgoblins?
@@youzerseif What makes you think the Moon Landing was fake?
@CStone Everything.
You should’ve just named this video why I agree with NASA
@KrispyKrackers88 Maybe not
Because that is the logical answer an educator like himself would come to. Of all government agencies I think NASA is the least of the average Americans worries as far as malicious intent.
This bloke is a Nasa fan.
We can't even go to the moon in 2021 what makes you think we landed there in 1969. Also, who was filming when the Astronauts left the moon, there is video of that, it just makes me wonder who was filming them leaving. If it was some camera then how did they get the video from the camera to show the world? Hmmmm
_We can't even go to the moon in 2021 what makes you think we landed there in 1969._
Because we can't go to the Moon today because the hardware isn't ready yet.
_Also, who was filming when the Astronauts left the moon,_
A remotely operated video camera. Please do your research.
@@Jan_Strzelecki Someone else stole some of my words. Lol
and way more fakery too...all these nations plaaying games with these mars and moon landing nonsense...all faked in deserted places and studios..facts and descrepancies dont back up any of the big claims
Ignorance is bliss - - -
The tv camera on the rover was left running to film the lift off.
My sister works for Northrop-Grumman. She does the spreadsheets and Quickbooks etc… and she said they are contracted through NASA to work on the HALO project which is to create apartments in space. I thought it sounded crazy but it’s true
That does sound crazy. Especially considering that HALO/MHM/Utilization Module is "just" a habitation module for DSG/LOP-G/Lunar Gateway/Gateway. I-HAB is another such module. HALO is indeed being designed and fabricated by Northrop.
@@ArKritz84 Idk why she said apartment but that is how she described it to me. Living quarter in space would be more appropriate unless they are in fact building bigger pods etc..
@@ArKritz84 This was all explained to me during a 15 min conversation over the phone. Thankyou for clarifying further. Either way I’m still amazed 😯
just another scheme to fleece taxpayers
During the day the surface of the moon is around 250 degrees Fahrenheit. At night (dark side) negative 297 degrees Fahrenheit. That is a 547 degree temperature swing during a 25 hour lunar day. The only material that even comes close is Silicon with a range of 400°F to -100°F. We cant do it now, we didn't do it then.
Oh, you’re really spamming your ignorance.
Thinking the Moon has a 25 hour day is a whole new level.
I fail to understand your point. Why do you think those temperatures are even relevant? And, what do you mean by "the only material that even comes close"?
Yeah, I somehow missed the piece of the comment where he said that he thinks a lunar day is 25 hours. Good gods. These people can figure out how to post a message, but, can't figure out how to look up a lunar day. Dewdrop, a lunar day from sunrise to sunrise is 708 hours (essentially a month). Have you never looked up? You see that ball in the sky? It goes through "phases" for about a month. It takes about a month to go from full moon to the next full moon. Guess what? That's a lunar day. I realize your nickname is entirely accurate, but, c'mon man. Did you REALLY believe the entire world's aerospace engineers and physicists can't figure out the length of a lunar day? But, YOU can? And, you've determined it's 25 hours?
@@darts-multiverse And in your last sentence you reveal that you are a conspiracy head too.
Whereas in your earlier sentences you merely revealed that you don’t understand temperature.
Darts:
Dewdrop, you, once again, as you always do, fail to understand basic science. In this case, it's thermodynamics. Things don't instantly heat up or cool down. After the sun comes up in the morning on the moon, it takes about a week for the rocks to heat up to their peak temperature. The astronauts weren't there for a week. They were there for a maximum of 74 hours (roughly 10% of a lunar day). They landed at about the moon equivalent of 6:30am. And, the longest mission only lasted to the moon equivalent of about 9:00am. It wasn't THAT hot yet. When the original poster complained, he was complaining about the same thing you are (wrongly complaining). He thought that things instantly heat up or cool down. They don't. And, the most offensive part of your complaints is that you honestly believe that the 450,000 highly skilled engineers and technicians who worked on Apollo... have all simultaneously forgotten to deal with the thermodynamics on the moon, and you think YOU know better. It's ridiculous. You know NOTHING (as you have proven time and time again).
And, to even mention the nighttime temperatures is ridiculous, because no Apollo mission ever landed on the moon at night. They landed early in the lunar morning, and lifted off in the same lunar morning.
The craft and suits were designed for the amount of temperature swing they'd get. You people are always complaining about how the craft looked. Well, it looks that way BECAUSE they were implementing the proper thermal blanketing and protection from (and radiation of) the heat. And, as for the suits, sorry, but you are painfully unaware of how those things worked also. And, it's just plain silly anyway. A standard fireman's suit can withstand 1000 degrees. A really good fire suit can withstand 2000 degrees. But, you people think the Apollo suits couldn't handle 150? Spare the world your silly notions. Once again, you simply have no idea what you're talking about, and, yet, you think the entire world's engineers don't know as much as you do.
You missed one. The dune buggy. Go to the Space Center in Daytona FL. Look at it. The prototype is there and there's a moon lander there too--in the same room so you can easily see the compartment box where the dune buggy was stored for transport. It won't fit. Unless you have an arch welder on board too. Also the pieces and parts of the dune buggy, especially the solar collector, which is very small and wouldn't collect enough solar for a radio, was constructed with tiny nuts and screws, hundreds of them. The dune buggy would have needed to have been reconstructed on the moon to "fit" in that small storage compartment, that would have taken days to build and could not have been done with heavy gloves. If ANYTHING the dune buggy is a complete lie. The van allen belt is like a microwave oven... 1radiation hour exposure in the spacecraft equals a total dose of 6 milliSv. Note, the average background radiation on the surface of Earth is about 4 milliSv in 1 year, so the astronaut in the Van Allen belts would accumulate a full year's normal dose in less than 1 hour! Aluminum is not a protection. the Live broadcast is also suspect, as is the amount of oxygen that they would need to transport. There's is unfortunately more scientific proof that we did NOT go to the moon than there is plausibility.
Just show them ArcAngel4Myke's RUclips video clips and they will believe you. Talking about scientific facts won't convince any of these moon-landing proponents.
_The prototype is there and there's a moon lander there too--in the same room so you can easily see the compartment box where the dune buggy was stored for transport. It won't fit. Unless you have an arch welder on board too._
Are you not aware that the LRV could fold in three?
_Also the pieces and parts of the dune buggy, especially the solar collector, which is very small and wouldn't collect enough solar for a radio_
The LRV didn't have any solar collector. It was powered by silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries.
_The dune buggy would have needed to have been reconstructed on the moon to "fit" in that small storage compartment_
No, it would merely have to be unfolded. Which we have on film. Which you can watch right here on RUclips.
_The van allen belt is like a microwave oven._
No it's not.
_Note, the average background radiation on the surface of Earth is about 4 milliSv in 1 year, so the astronaut in the Van Allen belts would accumulate a full year's normal dose in less than 1 hour!_
It's a good thing that the _Apollo_ astronauts have spent only three hours _altogether_ (per mission) inside the VABs.
_Aluminum is not a protection._
Yes it is. Alpha particles can be stopped with a sheet of paper. I think we had paper in the 60's. Beta radiation can usually be shielded with a thin sheet of aluminium, which we had in the 60's. Higher levels of beta radiation require aluminium paired with something like lucite/acrylic/plexiglass (around since 1928), wood, water, or plastic (discovered in 1860's, first synthetic produced in 1907). Neutron radiation can be stopped with paraffin wax, water, and polyethylene.
_the Live broadcast is also suspect,_
It really isn't.
_as is the amount of oxygen that they would need to transport._
Which is?...
_There's is unfortunately more scientific proof that we did NOT go to the moon than there is plausibility._
No, there's no scientific proof that we didn't go.
At all.
All you have is ignorance, as noted above.
I believe you
The plausibility of the lunar rover and it's construction, actual testing etc has always been another white elephant in the room.
I think because it was rushed, nasa has had to counter defend things it hadn't really thought through fully.
You realize how good NASA is at folding right? They fit the Oppy rover, something the size of a golf cart into something meant to fit only sojourner something the size of a small dog, and pathfinder, relatively the size of a medium dog
How come this "news" story conveniently omitted the fact that ALL of the original recordings of the Moon Landing were (conveniently) DESTROYED? Yeah, I know. The event was just so important and so historic that a crazy terrible "mistake" was made that resulted in the total destruction of those recordings. Thanks, Inside Edition, for digging so deep by offering some clown to say, "Oh, yeah, everything was real."
Pfftt. Um, no. That is a butchery of what happened. Two backup tapes from one mission were lost, perhaps destroyed, perhaps taped over, nobody knows. Since that time, your favorite misguided video makers have distorted this into believing that everything was destroyed. And, rather than finding out what really happened, you have decided to blindly swallow anything those videos tell you.
@@rockethead7 Oh yeah, then where the heck ARE these recordings if they purportedly exist? And why can''t anyone buy a Blu-Ray or DVD version of them if those purported recordings still exist? You know the answer. Because you're just another cover-up-clown. We have enough of those in Government unless you're one of them too. But nice try at obfuscation and lies. You may persuade some dunderheads.
@James Feldman said _"the original recordings of the Moon Landing were (conveniently) DESTROYED"_
-
Oh, that again. Lol, there are plenty of photos, and 16mm film of all of the 6 landings to verify they took place, so your little mOoN hOaX 'gotcha' is moot.
That is correct. There isn't any good reason for going to the moon, even if it was possible.
@@anthonygreene4938
Actually friend the only way to get to Mars would be from the moon. Launching from earth takes an enormous amount of power. And if we really want to get to Mars we must launch from the moon. Should give you an Idea of how far away from Mars we really are.
what is the speed you need to get out of the moons gravitational pull again?
Ooh, I bet I know where this is going! Will see tomorrow.
michaelstillman is a shill.
Where's your follow-up post? I'll write it for you if you like.
michaelstillman is still a shill, and he knows it, because he doesn't challenge the accusation.
Surprised no activity but mine. Looks like we're done here. Adios!
I have always wondered about the radiation thing. Even Hubble has a lot of things protecting the sensitive equipment, including but not limited to the camera. Those little tiny cameras you see them with in every shot do not look like they would house enough material to protect from said radiation. I would bet even the background radiation outside the LM would at least cause defects in the film. None of which are seen from any footage at any point in the trip. I'm not a landing denier, just a science fan, and this one has always bugged me a bit.
How long has Hubble been deployed, compared to a typical Apollo mission. Duration is the factor that matters. Regardless, some of the Apollo film shows damage from radiation, though relatively minor.
you are perfectly right. Problem is there's so much counter evidence you don't even know where to start from.
Here's one which too few are seemingly considering: the way they bump on the alledged moon surface. It looks way unrealistic. On moon you have a sixth of Earth''s gravity. That doesn't mean that a solid and compact, unelastic body rubbery bumps off and floats each time for a moment above the surface when touching down, like they are apparently doing. Does something which, gravity-wise, weights 20 kg bounces and floats when subject to a specific and consistent gravity pull? Not at all, it's like any other magnet. And they had a 30kg suit on.
So astronauts were actually weighing probably around 40 kilos total each on the moon, and that's just all. When subject to gravity at no given time whatsoever a body floats: you are constantly and regularly attracted to the planet surface, just with a minor force on your weight, so you feel stronger, so to speak. Your muscles need less impulse to lift your body and weight, no more than that. You are just comparatively lighter. So what I see does not correspond to this basic notion nor to common sense. It just look like a fictitional and inaccurate depiction of what it would look like "a lesser gravity than Earth" situation when staged elsewhere, that is on Earth, hence by some artificial mean to simulate it (namely, as it has been pointed out, by elastic wires attached trom a concealed ceiling to the back of their suits and possibly a slow motion editing). If that gravity depiction were true... the module itself would have bounced and floated for an instant when touching down at its landing!! Hahaha.
What I see in fact does only resemble the less-gravity-like effect they had been testing on, inside speeding down cargo airplanes, which looks precisely like that, instead, with floating-like moments beside the reduction of the perception of the gravity pull. But that it is not what a real lesser gravity would look like on a smaller planet, just a similar effect for a relative and appearent reduction of a body's weight
I suspect NASA is delaying any "other" manned mission to the moon among other things in order to put as much distance with these phootage to avoid factual comparison with an actual, or real, "walking on the moon". The other reason being, that, 60 years later and by their own admission... they lack of the necessary equipment and tech for a real mission of this kind (but they had "better tech in 1969" hahaha. Logic and realism down the sink. When fact is space reliable and accounted manned activity is taking place non stop, but well, just all taking place in Earth's orbit.... still.)-
@@randyschissler5791 come on, be serious sometimes, you can't look all the time for taylored explanations for what's clearly unrealistic and unlikely
@@user-by7jv6qd7x _So astronauts were actually weighing probably around 40 kilos total each on the moon_
No they didn't. So all your musings on the way you imagine the astronauts _should_ behave on the Moon are completely irrelevant.
_What I see in fact does only resemble the less-gravity-like effect they had been testing on, inside speeding down cargo airplanes,_
Do you understand that you've just conceded the very point you were trying to contest here? You just said "the astronauts on the Moon moved just like they moved in simulated 1/6th of gravity".
@@Jan_Strzelecki Confusion is strong in that one. All denier statements with no substance.
It is way easier to fool people than it is to actually go to space! That all I got.
Means it was fake?
@@shxjxhhxjx3729 you are fooled by asking questions to other human beings. Just use your senses and the truth is easy to observe.
Kubrick admitted he was the director of those films. Check out the LAST movie he made "Eyes Wide Shut", it's all there. He died right after the movie was made.
@@spaduke really ?
@@spaduke source: trust me bro
You could see them refilming it? I would think they would just do it again.
Good thing they did 5 months later
The Official Story, the Sheeple would buy
When met with an obstacle, tell, simply, more lies
Funny how nobody has managed to come up with an alternative narrative that goes beyond, “They, uh, faked it somehow.”
So, basically, you have decided, in advance of getting any replies, that the replies are lies. It's the living definition of being delusional.
You're not a scientist or a brillant spirit. You're just a random with an internet connexion. So when you see something unexpected, be sure that it is surely cause you don't have the level or the information to understand.
The light according to a movie producer famous over 30 years said the flag only moved when they were touching it foot prints they put strap like ice pic of traction straps that show exactly same foot print no stars in was daytime and the light was bright from one light source far away if there was multiple lights you would notice where they were pointed another Buzz himself says how they almost didn't make it at very end of landing some sort of problem then what about Buzz switched to medical channel and said sir you won't believe how big these craft are they all parked on crater whatching us then feed cut picked up by ham radio so there moon landing was a lot more then they expected imagine a fleet of craft huge whatching them because of what happened things had to be changed I mean even on the newer shuttle missions the captain is picked up say huston the alien craft is right below us it was a real landing but because of what happened changed things to show public but movie producer said in no way was that made on earth people said they did it indoors so why is flag moving in there it in all reality not move at all indoors but one on moon only moved when they were touching it so it's to bad people turned it in to what it is I go by what Buzz and Armstrong's interviews later in life saying how dangerous it could have been when the landing was off from original spot and Armstrong had to pilot it down manually which Buzz said he helped calling out altitude
Holy shit. We landed on the moon? When.
July 20, 1969
@@xiphactinusaudax1045 WOOOOSH
@@Luigipopdrop Whoosh!
@@Luigipopdrop jokes must be funny to be a joke. Kurt's comment was not funny, therefore not a joke, therefore illegal woooosh
still developing technologies to circle the Moon, landing will be done some 10 years later after it
Run the images through photoshop, and what is supposed to be dark empty space reveals minute image artifacts, meaning they used a black painted canvas backdrop.
Yes, because it sure as sht can’t be radiation artifacts, or any other thing really. No, your confirmation bias must have led you straight to the correct conclusion.
Are you sure it isn't the solar radiation you are claiming is missing?
@@ArKritz84 It could also be jpg compression artifacts.That's been used by some on LM images to "prove" that it was copy and pasted into pictures of the lunar surface. They crank up the contrast and show that there are pixels around the image that are different from those farther out. GreaterSapien showed how that happens in one of his videos with a photo he took.
JPEGs, the most common digital image format, create boxy pixelated distortions in photographs, especially around objects.
I've forgotten, which conspiracy video tells you to do that? I'm usually pretty good at knowing which one spews out this kind of gibberish, but, I confess that I've forgotten which one doesn't know the difference between jpeg artifacts and a painted background.
Why is the only photo taken of the Earth from the moons surface a blurry image above the flag pole in the photo that shows astronaut Harrison Schmitt standing next to the American flag with the Earth in the background during the Apollo 17 mission ? If you zoom into the Earth it shows the very same cloud formation and view of the Earth as the lunar orbit photo by astronaut William Anders from space . It appears as if they copyed and paste the same Earth photo and then blurred it out so you can just make out the same cloud formation .
What in the world are you talking about? Why would you think that was the only Earth image taken from the lunar surface? Did a conspiracy video tell you that? Why would you believe it? Why not just go through the photo archive yourself and see plenty more?
@@rockethead7 Right.Except for the fact there are hundreds of photos of the Earth taken from the lunar missions.
@@charliebay9441
And, that's different from what I said, how?
That was for Sertano
Y in every Moon landing videos theres a youtube Context check?
Because You Tube is private company that can do whatever they want, I guess. They must not want to be responsible for spreading the moon hoax folks bullpucky without at least an asterisk.
You've actually heavily added to my skepticism of the moon landings authenticity. I'd never looked it into but you showed me several concerning claims and refuted none of them in an substantive way. You just brought up the claims and basically admitted you don't have a good counter point to almost al of them besides "take NASAs word for it".
So NASA faked it 6 times total. And the logic to pull off the greatest Hoax in Human history with the whole world watching not just once but 6 times.. What to give everyone extra oppurtunities at exposing the Hoax?
Well, you're correct. He's not the best speaker on these issues. I am very certain that I'm in the top 1% of people when it comes to knowledge about Apollo, and I'd never say some of the stuff that he says. But, about all I can tell you is that the real sources for understanding Apollo aren't RUclips videos to begin with. Go study Apollo itself. Don't watch videos to make up your mind. This guy isn't the best source. But, of course, he's a million times better than the sources that think it's fake. But, it really doesn't matter. The facts stand on their own, regardless of who represents them (or misrepresents them, in the case of the deniers).
you dont believe the SIX, YES SIX moon landings occurred for several reason. reason 1: you are stupid. 2: you have the research skills of a water bear. 3: you have the i.q of a lab rat 4: you have a net worth of MINUS $15 5: you still drive a 1972 pinto that you STILL havent paid off 6: your highest academic achievement was 3rd grade in 1963
@@rockethead7 your senses are not fooling you, humans are! Why don't you trust what you experience? How can you ignore yourself while listening to or reading other peoples manipulation of senses?
@@highwayranger4878 You weren't under the impression that your gibberish meant something meaningful, were you?
The most definitive proof that we landed on the moon is the fact that the USSR did not refute our claim.
plethorex so if you lie nobody refutes it I guess you're telling the truth. LOL
vert422 when the people who have the most reason to call bullshit don't actually do that, you can pretty much assume the person is telling the truth. If the US put out a message tomorrow saying they successfully landed humans on Mars, every single country on earth would say the US was lying. Not a single country, including the USSR said shit about the moon landings except congratulations
plethorex. or maybe there in on it.
vert442 That... makes no sense. The Soviet Union was fighting to show merit in their way of life in the space race, this meant a lot more than just the good of mankind for both sides but most specifically for the Soviet Union. They have a lot more to lose to "be in on it" than to gain
plethorex I totally agree with you👍😎👉🌕🚀
Bruh imagine training for years and risking your life by going to the moon just so that 55 years later millions of people can call you a coward and a fraud.
Yep, That's the way of it. Truly sad.
@@apolloskyfacer5842I guess there are a lot of doubters out there, especially since SV40 has come to light.
@@pelocitdarney5718 As vaccines of all kinds are the products of scientific medical research, and therefore, a human endeavor, mistakes do happen. Nothing is risk free. I was one of the tens of thousands of children who received the Polio Vaccine at school. There was no risk to our lives. World wide, millions of children avoided getting Polio. The original Polio Vaccine was a complete success. However, there were problems with the later Polio Vaccine as it was contaminated. Still, not all that serious, but a real concern. I see you've been desperately searching the narrative to find something, anything, that's going to support your anti-vaccine agenda.
*People like you who are pushing a deceitful narrative that the Corvid-19 Vaccinations have been killing many people are disgusting individuals who should be called out on their deceit every time they present their nonsense. You are actually a menace to society*
@@apolloskyfacer5842Safe and effective, were they? Did you have the boosters? Go on, answer the question. If you tell me, I'll tell you.
@@apolloskyfacer5842How about giving an answer to my question? Did you have the boosters? (I'm not seeking schadenfreude; on the contrary.)
The technical drawings of all the Apollo craft have been freely available they cover electrical
and propulsion system,please take them to an independent Aerospace engineer and they will show how they worked.
That makes no sense to people with no education and/or mental health issues.
Still looking forward to the sequel, going back soon. Just use the same equipment that worked almost flawlessly on at least 8 Appollo missions from 1968 to 1972 Just film the whole event next time !
The opening of the hatch would have been good to witness, considering what an important historic moment it would have been.
It bet it does not happen for at least anorher 10 years.
Proof we didn't go is Artemis lol
@@jamescastro6640 Agreed it hasn't even got there yet! I will be looking forward to the footage in HD!
@@johnJohnson-vm7oy Why the rush?
For anyone here in the section; of The Moon landing isn’t faked -_-
If you look closely to the footages and photos and know how photography and physics work its easy to see that it is not faked. I like to think that moon landing deniers are just jealous because they never accomplished something huge in their life.
1. Why the flag seem to wave.
First of all, the flag wasen’t waving, there is a hidden pole holding the flag into place that is attached to the standing pole for the photo the Apollo astronauts took because a droopy flag doesn’t look good for the picture, once you take a close peek at the photo you can see an outline of a upper pole holding the flag giving the illusion that its waving. In one of the footages we can also see the upper pole for a one second before one of the astronauts hid it from camera view.
2. Why the Astronauts dint jump high.
Because they dint choose too -_-. Common misconception by moon landing deniers thinks you can always jump high on the moon no matter how much we use our potential energy as we squat. while it is true that gravity on the Moon is weak compare here to Earth due to its lower mass it doesn’t mean we can jump very high no matter how much potential energy we store before we jump, physics still matters everywhere in any object of the universe regardless if you’re on Earth or not. The Astronauts just dint use much of their potential energy to use produce enough kenetic energy inorder to jump very high. To put it simply, they just dint bend low enough to jump high they only jump by their feet not with their knees.
3. Why are there no stars.
if you look at the pictures and the footages, its really easy to tell that the main reason you cannot see stars is because the Astronauts were on the day side of the moon 😑. even if they landed on the dark side of the moon where the sun isn’t shining, you still can’t see the stars with cameras as cameras at the time have very low quality like old video phone cameras from the 2000s.
4. Why does there seem to be light on the shadow side of the capsule seen in the photo where one of the Astronauts is climbing down.
Easy, light can bounce off the ground like a spring, they don’t hit the ground like meterorites and light isn’t a physical object, its electromagnetic radiation. I want you to close your eyes and imagine you go to a dark room with a board on your hand with a tiny object on it and have a table light shinning on your model as far as the sun looks like, you can see that the area of the tiny object where light doesn’t shine is shinning a bit instead of being a full silhouette, why? Simple because light travels at a rapid speed faster than sound it bounces of the ground and reflects back on the dark side of the object which is why it isn’t completely dark.
Our education system is really f*cked and sadly these conspiraterds fell victim to it or they decided to not listen or not learn deeper than the extent of conspiracy theories that is made out of suspicion, ignorance, jealousy, etc.
Whats ironic is these guys are the very reason why got intrested into science in the first place.
THANK YOU it seems like more people think it was faked when it really wasn’t. The hoax that we didn’t land on the moon was started by the Soviets, the very people who lost and wanted to find anyway they could win by proving NASA was cheating
The star thing you mentioned is wrong. The real reason is because the moon is so bright they have to turn down exposure so much that you can’t see the stars
Holy Moly this last comment made me cringe.
Our education system is really f*cked and sadly these conspiraterds fell victim to it or they decided to not listen or not learn deeper than the extent of conspiracy theories that is made out of suspicion, ignorance, jealousy, etc.
Maybe you should have paid attention in English class? The fact that your spelling is this poor, Makes me doubt you even attended class. What is a period? A comma? Jesus F Christ. Do you assume that everyone who does not agree with the common story is ignorant and jealous?
Best part of this is that; The reasons you are giving for certain circumstances IE - The lack of stars seen in space from the moons surface? NASA literally stated it was an exposure issue. Yet you say its because they are on the Day side of the moon, Oh boy. I am hoping you realize that the moon is in tidal lock with the earth. The fact that you even think for one second that is the cause for lack of stars in the space above confounds me beyond most words.
Space maybe the final frontier - But the moon landings were 100% made in a hollywood basement. You can refer to my comments above to understand why politically this event happened.
Typical moon freak resorting to personal insults to prove it is correct.
People who claim that the lighting is wrong, that is a studio set with multiple light sources actually fail their basic test everywhere there is always multiple lightsources as light reflects. Especially off highly reflective white space suites, the reflective lunar regalith and of course the LEM was covered in mirror like mylar.
There is nothing unusual in moon photographs other than they are very rare and were taken by only 12 individuals on another world ...........