If you want to perpetrate a gargantuan hoax, you do it once, heave a sigh of relief if you think you've succeeded and leave it at that. You don't go repeating it multiple times with ever-increasing chances of being found out. The hoaxers sometimes forget that there were nine moon missions, six of which landed on the lunar surface . . .
Okay WE sometimes forget, even if every kid in the block comes out with that original rational, but hey we are not taken seriously and dont love the apollo program. Found out by WHOM & HOW? Not like down here where there are lots of Folks and Clues be found. Nothing changed in those 3 years, so what goes on in SPACE stays in SPACE back then. Not like now 50 years latter everyboyd is driving around up there. Remind WE of the increased risk.
In 1911 Norway beat Britain to the South Pole in their equivalent of the _space race_ . Britain was a bit peeved, but 'tally ho chaps' and all that. As far as I know, this did not in any way prevent Britain and many other countries providing large funding to explorers for the continuing exploitation of Antarctica. To the extent that it's now a bustling hive of secrecy and clandestine military bases. This gigantic _waste of money_ being spent on something with _zero public interest_ must surely all be down to the fact that there are no penguins on the moon.
Remember when the russian's totally called bullshit on this whole thing and went on telling the whole planet that their worst enemy is pranking everyone? Neither did I.
@@paulbeardsley4095 It is, you spacecadets do work hard for all that fun. They cheated and USA could prove it, plus get got a least big grain payoff to shutup. Same bankers with same agenda, ennemies as the top 2 political parties are...
@@wildboar7473 They didn't get the grain payoff, though. They bought it through intermediaries at a normal price, without the USA initially catching up, and _then_ the market reacted and the grain price rose accordingly. This claim is putting the cart before the horse.
@@Jan_Strzelecki No? My bad! The Great Grain Robbery was the July 1972 purchase of 10 million tons of United States grain (mainly wheat and corn) by the Soviet Union at subsidized prices, which resulted in higher grain prices in the United States. ... In a 10-month span food prices around the world rose 30% in 1973. en.wikipedia.org/en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Great_grain_robbery Great grain robbery - Wikipedia In November 1969, the U.S. Air Force sent Russia an early Christmas gift.??? It was a sleek flying machine that bore an uncanny resemblance to the SR-71 Blackbird spy plane. The American generosity was purely unintentional.??? :)
@felix mendez _Nowhere near their minuscule minds has the idea crossed that the Russians may have kept silence on the matter for the simple reason that they didn’t give a shit._ Except that they _did_ give a shit, Felix. Even though they didn't officially acknowledge the challenge (which I'm not even sure is factually correct, but it's beside the point) we _know_ that they _did_ plan on going to the Moon themselves. And, again, revealing the fakery would prove the superiority of the Soviet technology to the other Soviet block countries. Do you really imagine that Soviets wouldn't "give a shit" about _that?_ :) _THEY DIDN’T PLAN TO SEND ANY MEN TO THE MOON BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T NEED TO AS THEY COULD DO EVERYTHING ON SITE WITH ONLY UNMANNED MISSIONS_ Except for taking the lunar rock samples, and core samples, etc. :) _AND THEY COULDN’T PROTECT EITHER THEIR COSMONAUTS AGAINST DEADLY RADITION-Funny thing, the same problem NASA has now, FIFTY YEARS LATER_ No, it's an entirely different problem altogether, Felix. The "problem" NASA had and solved *six years* ago was protecting the astronauts from radiation during *long term missions* - like, um, I dunno… *landing on Mars?!* You _do_ know that Mars is much farther from Earth than the Moon is, Felix, right? _Right?_ :D _That is what many (smart) people think also._ Oh, no, not at all, Felix. The whole scientific and professional world accepts the Moon landings as true. _At the time the Soviet regime was having big problems tryng to feed their population and annual deficits in the output of grain, mainly wheat, used to run into several millions of tons._ Wrong year, Felix. The first Moon landing was in 1969, and the grain shortage started happening *two years later* :) _Coincidentally, only a couple of years later_ Note the "later" part here? Your narrative doesn't fit the facts, Felix :) Had the Moon landings been faked, Soviets and China would've denounced them in 1969. Not two years later, not "couple of years" later, but in 1969.
YT Classic is good? Many say its not a place to get anything good, huge danger of being Brainwashed! But yeah it will last despite the hate. What matters is the gov lies all the time & perpertrating real Conspiracies regularly on Us.
The Patriot Act sucks but it really has not effected day to day life in the US like say prohibition did. I am not a fan of The Patriot Act but I still feel the need to keep it in historical context.
win ring have you looked into why or how they lost or destroyed all evidence of going? Every, single, bit of it. Don’t bother all you’ll find is some tard saying “I’d go back in a nano second”.
@@wildboar7473 Wernher von Braun worked for NASA, Walt Disney did films for them, and President Eisenhower established NASA in the first place. Where are they all now? Dead.
@@therealzilch Kaysing claimed Irwin was just about to "spill the beans" and reveal the hoax, and suggested that's why he was "killed". Apollo did have military aspects: Project Chapel Bell remains classified to this day, the CIA connection got exposed, all illegal stuff.
He just left? Knew he been in hospital, not sure about the rest, this had been a awful period in his life, none of his Admirers can name one real Conspiracy...
Obviously yet an other who had not read The Demon-Haunted World. "One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've (Sheeple norm) been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.(event con)😎 We're no longer interested in finding out the truth.(self thinking) The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been (Nasa) taken (School programming). Once you give a charlatan (Gov) power over you, you almost never get it back." ― Carl Sagan
Oh no. I sent him a thank you for this video years ago, and he was kind enough to send a thank you email back. I've sent this clip to hundreds of people when they question :/ RIP indeed
I normally ignore debunks because hoaxers' arguments just don't pass basic burden of proof tests; but here I actually learned something positive about history, and that's well worth it!
Sure lot of inputting by the english, least top dog did more then a line. Leaving aside these english carring youtubers Since when does a ARGUEMENT require burden PROOF TESTS ??? Sounds lame variation of scientific approch. SOMEONE THAT DIDNT IGNORE.... One 1 ONE UNUS wild guy without a job wrote 1 book with no Publisher. A man always denigrated by hateful stalking Preditors as being NOBODY: not a scientists, no qualifications, knows nothing about rockets, many cats. BILL KAYSING Kaysing thus wrote a book titled We Never Went to the Moon: *America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle* *in 1976* *ONE 1 UNOS Year latter.....* *National Aeronautics and Space Administration* (Gov agency) Prints a >>> FACT SHEET [ From time to time we are asked the question above as a result of at least one book and recurring articles in various publications based either on its content or individuals' expressions of their opinions.] FACT >> *- USA GOV* does not make such ISSUES on all non arguements I can not even find such for JFK Assasination rumor plots !
This might be the single best response I've ever heard from the photography perspective, retorting against the 'fake moon landing' story. Very methodical, informative, humbly presented and entertaining. It's refreshing to hear a mellow voice narrating a monologue on RUclips rather than full-blast the whole time like a lot of presenters.
So the proven apollo reality episodes need responses? Humbly?? The Honno Sapien was respectful to Others? Many with more 'knowledge' have debunked him, just like Jarrah White, She has more than just mellow voice.... /_x49lImzw5s /-3zhZqiSe5c /zE6OIPlQ3-8 2:50 😃
Here is more of less talk and more Evidence of the HUGE retorting against the "total nonsense debunked thousands of times" that goes on despite ARTEMIS ! *Apollo 16 - Astronauts on Wires* ruclips.net/video/WrwR2C9kgLY/видео.html used to a few of these displays of glittering lines :) ps: nothing humble about this non-straight sapien, but yes the "man" or evolved Primate of sorts.... did huge research to makeup this entertainment.
well nice someone appriciates taking on hoaxsters such zeal. [ NASA has been confounded by these questions, though not because the agency is unable to answer them. Rather, the old science geeks believe it is beneath their SAT scores to respond at all. As James Oberg, a noted space writer, recalls: ''NASA put out this press release in 2001 that said something like: 'There's a debate about whether we went to the moon. We did.' End of press release. They are hampered by their own conceit.'' The nasa.gov Web site, for example, refuses to debunk hoaxers directly. But not long after Oberg was hired, NASA was embarrassed by press reports of the assignment and panicked at the thought of being seen as surrendering intellectual equivalence to the hoaxers. ''We canceled the program,'' a spokesman, Bob Jacobs, told me. ''There is no book deal. We are not taking on the hoaxers.''] www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/magazine/lunar-tics.html
The G joy man is full of it, no wonder he takes a beating here on the TOP & Newest comment section. MoonFaker: Disk Recorders & High Speed Video Cameras ruclips.net/video/_x49lImzw5s/видео.html
@@mesonparticle Talking about AWESOME, In Death Valley you would see the stars. The best place to see stars is the desert *at night,* in Nevada it is amazing. Did you know that?
This video is phenomenal however I have to disagree with his statement that "nowadays it would be easy to fake the moon landings", I am sure what he means is that it would be easy to fake some of the footage but there is still no way to fake the tracking of the Apollo missions. Transmissions from the Apollo crafts moving from earth orbit, to the moon, into moon orbit, landing and returning to earth were tracked by people all over the world. The transmission source can not only be pinpointed as to how far it is from earth but also the speed of the craft due to doppler effect. There was no way to fake it then and there still isn't. Another detail is that the radio and television signals traveled at different speeds, as the Apollo crafts moved further and further from earth the delay between the signals increased which is another giveaway that they really were transmitting from the moon. Oh and one more detail, by Apollo 14 we began using the rovers of which there exists hours of footage. The footage of the dust being kicked out by the tires not only proves that they were in 1/6th of earths gravity but also in a vacuum as the dust clearly is not being met with air resistance. If you think NASA had a way of creating a movie set in 1969 that was not only 1/6th earths gravity but also a vacuum about 2 acres in size and in which you are unable to see the supporting walls and structure on film you are certified batshit crazy and not to mention crazy, crazy dumb!
Well said. However, when Collins is talking about faking it, I think he means solely in film/video terms. It certainly wasn't possible to simulate 1/6 gravity and vacuum convincingly back then. It's probably not possible now either, but I'm not sure about that.
@@paulbeardsley4095 I think we're very close to photorealistic human simulations (at least Hollywood seems to be), so if you put such footage through a low res filter, and simulate all the physics... Maybe? :)
@@Jan_Strzelecki I wouldn't be surprised if they could do it now. But they didn't even try to fake Mars' gravity when they filmed The Martian 5 years ago.
@@paulbeardsley4095 They did, however, try to fake lunar gravity in "The first Man". And if they really wanted to make a convincing fake, they would have tried to fake the proper gravity as well.
Thank you, S G- As a fellow professional 61 year old cinematographer/videographer who also worked for 12 years as a union assistant cameraman working with Arriflex and Panavision et alia film cameras back in the 1980s-90s, may I say that you are 100 percent correct! :)
Soapbox proof? 100%....aint what HE said after dealing with amateur Jarrah White. Anyway happy for you he helped /saved your faith. But really SOMEONE got to deal with the REAL ones other than Hoaxsters.
@@narajuna consider this: conspiracies are real and happen all the time - and the powers that be are provably laughing all the way to the bank while people like you bark up this tree which ISN’T a hoax. Every minute of effort you spend chasing this dog makes you blind to the ones that actually happened.
@@narajunajarrah essentially reframes the same tired talking points and appeals to advanced technologies being secretly available to nasa, decades before they actually existed. He makes claims. He doesn't support them. And he doesn't refute anything.
@@Lamster66 Sounds like a *Conspiracist!* is he Crazy or just doesnt understand GOV working for our good? Mr 66 (like #11 helicopher) deleted all, NASA GOV takes coffee early everyday, some juicy material >>>> "THE APOLLO MOON HOAX: HOW DID THEY DO IT?" COMPLETE VIDEO! ruclips.net/video/68DRuJrv8Ls/видео.html
As a photographer, myself, you were dead on. Something that no one has ever mentioned is that the tracking of the Apollo missions took place in all the first world countries. No one ever seemed to question its validity. Excellent exposé.
DAH! Everyone tracked, yet the Soviets actually had to rely on our telescopes to track their own lunar probes right up until 1976. The telescopes that the communists were dependent on were the Lovell Telescope and the one at Jodrell Bank. Also, HAM Radio operators could not have tracked the Apollo missions. Neither could the Russians - this is because of the frequency that Apollo transmitted on: 2GHZ. *ASP is an acronym for "Apollo Simulation Project",* which was created in 1961 and operated by the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) to "help" NASA with their technical problems by establishing a totally simulated moon mission.
Knowing a tiny bit about audio and video technology, this makes perfect sense but what makes even more sense are his comments at the end. THANKS FOR THIS
WELL I dont know about sense making, but shown as not true or reality. Much easier to fake than do.... At thee end.... no Gov Believer has ever backed any *real* conspiracies the gov would dare. Dont look like it blinds much CTs on that.
I love how NASA hires one of the greatest film makers of all time to fake the moon landings, but he and all of the engineers forgot to put stars in the sky, forgot there was no air on the moon to move a flag (how did wind get in a movie studio?), forgot everything they know about lighting and shadows, left marks on props and forgot about how footprints might work in dust. You have to believe all of that was missed, so actually their own claims of problems in the filming prove that no movie person was used at all, because no one would have made those idiotic errors.
I guess the film maker you are talking about ("one of the greatest film makers of all time") is Stanley Kubrick. Yet his movie 2001: A Space Oddyssey contains a huge number of errors. Whilst the Apollo Program footage contains ZERO "errors" (whatever you and assorted other idiots may think). If you're incapable, as your post suggests, of spotting any of the multitude of errors in 2001, who are YOU to judge the Apollo footage?
Tanstible- footprints in dust test, the easy way. 1. Get a bag of dry Portland cement. 2. Put 1/2 of it on on a large baking tray and then turn to oven to low and leave for 30 minutes. 3.this test is best done in winter after a period of very cold, dry weather > less moisture 4. Pour dry cement on a dry surface, make it about 1 1/2 “ deep (plywood or plastic sheet. 5. Walk in it , and guess what you get footprints. Cohesion is the key, that’s why sand don’t work.😎😉
The fakers also forgot that the stones and rocks they photographed were not possible on the earth and that the sand they used and claimed was 'sharp dust' was retroreflective. 1A Photos: www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5912.jpg history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11140.jpg history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-106-17377.jpg history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-106-17393.jpg history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-116-18629.jpg history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-140-21496.jpg 1B Physics: 1. How can an object land on a soft dusty surface yet make no mark? 2. How can an object become buried in dust yet remain free of dust? 3. How can an object have it's corners worn away? 1C Proof: Either the NASA photos were taken on the earth or the laws of physics are all wrong. 2 Moon dust retro-reflection effect - reflecting the light straight back stronger. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5882.jpg www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5854.jpg Indicates the photos were taken on sand rather than the footprint friendly sharp dust that NASA claims. www.roadvista.com/reflective-glass-beads/
@@nicsandee123 Portland cement doesn't exhibit the retro-reflection we see www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5882.jpg www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5854.jpg so they had to have used damp sand.
ive watched this three times, love this man and his deadpan delivery. You think, this is boring...and suddenly you see the twinkle, and start really listening to what he's saying. Especially at the end.
Judy yes he is not boring, as he is a 11:23, (there is some debate of the rationality of that thing..), One can not know what someone else has as Rationality. The end Twinkle starting at 12:10 ? Too bad he did not make any videos on Real things that matter, just cared for non sapiens blindness like many many smart educated sane people, who dont seem to care for those real Things, as much as many of us blinded Conspiracy Theorists do :)
It is so buzy on the section but here in the TOP one very little movement... Regarding us Hoax_ters sources, one I used that was "not credible" /Nasa has been vindicated on one video :) Extraordinary Until Proven Otherwise ruclips.net/video/SpeSpA3e56A/видео.html - so now atheist cryers Aliens are not fake :) so some spacetrucking is going on :)
@@shawncrossen7580 He is a very debunked man, despite not selling his soul he never took on the real conspiracies, always the badguys that go against their own rational mind that get all the attention and efforts.
@CRIMNALSNEAK Not to mention that slow-motion video of people acting in earth gravity would look nothing like the actual footage - moon-landing denialists always ignore the fact that if you speed the footage up to what would have been the real speed according to their own claims literally everyone will see how _simply wrong_ it will look like. Sure, they have sped up selected pieces of the footage to make their claims seem legit - but they will never put together and upload a video where all of the footage is sped up, because even they see how ridiculous the end results end being, so they pick the convenient parts and use them. I think it was SciManDan who first demonstrated this part, but you never see the denialists address it, because they can't. And yet they still double down :D
@@davidfann3433 Have you ever heard of burden of proof? I'm curious - but not very curious - why people like you think anybody cares what you believe. The simple fact is, there are people who don't know much about the Moon landings. They are the ones who think it was all fake. There are other people who have a reasonable knowledge of the Moon landings. They are the ones who know it really happened.
6Your responses combined amount to a personal attack suggesting the gentleman has no mind(impossible) a baseless assertion that "NO ONE" cares to hear the gentlemans thoughts or ideas(dismissive) along with a suggested psych medication being the answer for this gentleman and his underlying mental disorder(convenient)
There are over 15 thousand unedited photos from the moon missions online. Look them up and go through them. They are amazing, showing every element of each mission including all the dud photos that were taken. That anyone could fake so many pictures is impossible.
A real impossible, but USA government someone? May be less impossible. Much actually, for a far mission with so much cinematograhy, what other mission has so much coverage?
@@IA100KPDT Think not, just 2.5 hours eva walks, but I dont think many or any remain unedited, since CTs picking at them so many have gone Photoshoped. "In 2017, NASA released over 10,000 photos from Apollo -- While NASA has successfully removed from circulation most of the more egregious errors in identical backdrops, as well as errors in continuity and scale -- Nevertheless it is impossible to account for the time necessary to take the number of photographs on record . . 11,000 photographs taken during 4882 minutes total for all EVA's from hatch opening to close again . . This amounts to more than two perfect photographs each minute -- not nearly enough time to account for them -- in addition to all other activities they engaged in. This is not even taking into account all of the outtakes from bad exposure. We give NASA credit for being able to crop and frame the subject matter properly; however, our astronauts had no way to read and adjust the settings for exposure in a camera that had no auto exposure function, yet all 11,000 photographs having perfect exposure, regardless of which direction the sun was or how much lunar surface was in view. This puts the actual number of photos taken at an astronomical number -- while there were far too many for them to have ever taken, even in perfect conditions."
As an IT professional and worked with mainframes before. The Moon Hoaxers said it were (during 1969 - 1972) were CGI, but for the CGI to be possible, you need humongous computer power with TODAY's miniaturized chips. The CPU in your iphone would have occupy several warehouses. The kind of computer did not exist then.
Nordburg yeah they probably did. Back then one building full of valves wires and huge relays was equivalent to about 1kb, the clock speed was likely around 1 MHz. Not fast enough to keep up with the refresh rate of a cathode ray tube if you are gonna do flicker free animations with relatively large pixels. Sounds like technical doo doo but’s it’s not!
@@DeputyNordburg The CGI claimed by those Moon Hoaxers would not be possible because of the amount of storage, CPU power and memories needed - the buildings would fill up a whole state (if not causing power outage when they were running)
@Huy Taing No, "Nasa" in Hebrew means "to lift or raise". "Nasha" means "to deceive". Look it up- the standard work is Strong's Concordances. Not that it makes any difference. Why would NASA put their real intentions in plain sight, if they aim to deceive? It makes no sense whatsoever.
@Huy Taing There are many words in Hebrew that mean lie or deceive and nasa is not one of them. The fact you believe this without checking is why you believe lots of other nonsense, it's called gullibility.
@@imagoportraits562 so to believe we are on a spinning ball that is moving through space and spinning/moving at astronomical speeds is not being gullible
The thing about a fake moon mission is you still have to build and launch a gigantic expensive rocket to convince people you went, which just so happens to be the majority of the cost of an actual moon mission.
@@paulbeardsley4095 I just skim them for juicy insults. But he's been repeating himself a lot recently. He seems deflated somehow, if you know what I mean.
Nothing to attract Smarts (sane ones) like good old *gibberish* 💥👍 With their classic Science inputs🤓 *successfully launched and brought back* On April 12, 1961, cosmonaut Yury A. Gagarin, onboard the Vostok 1 spacecraft, became the first human in space. The voyage, which began with launch at 9:07 am Moscow time, entailed one orbit around Earth, lasting 1 hour 29 minutes, and ended at 10:55 am in the Soviet Union with his safe return to Earth.
Everything hoaxers bring up has been widely debunked over and over yet their confirmation bias won't allow them to even consider what is presented in this video. Having your eyes pinned wide open is useless if you've got blinders on!
@@hankkingsley9183 Wow how original, sea of knowledge you are! So why do anti hoaxers continue to be so active? Why Articles continue to be birthed? Why so many debunk videos? Why so much hope to be saved by ARTEMIS ?
Check out the picture of Earth form Apollo 11, called the "Blue Marble". See clouds in the Southern area around Antarctica are cloned (copied /pasted). The picture is a photoshop, not a simple picture.
@@@peterlukaszyk1719ot sure how much your into truth searching of great lies. All these clueless people don't get the serious implications of what were all doomed to suffer for their refusal to research a little even on premise to have real ammo to debate us with. That would + has awoken many, exposed + stopped serious stuff by people starting out to prove it wrong only to be forced to face it was true. Sorry for rant as I only mean't to refer a channel called Quantum conscious as he has such a deep high intellect and knows how much they have planned and are decades a head of us. That we may be doing exactly as they planned we would in just another form of distraction to occupy us while they get more time to screw us, no matter how right we are.
@@peterlukaszyk1719 I feel contempt for people who try to conflate accepting the official Apollo account with believing governments. When they went to the Moon, they sent back proof and they brought back proof. Whatever else Nixon lied about, it has no bearing on this.
@@watkinsrory If you were stupid you would never say so. Actually all stupid ones that I ever meet think thenselves as the smartest. Conclusion : your parents did the right thing.
No need for an explanation point in the title. Not surprising, because anyone who understands photography immediately sees that moon landing deniers do not understand photography.
I’ve never been taken in by the whole moon landing hoax idea but never before thought that, from a filmmaker’s perspective, it just wasn’t possible to fake it back then. Love the video and and the wonderfully sarcastic presentation. Great job.
...but you still made it here? ONE filmmaker, one, never heard of, no Kubrick, and sure never any any thing close to NASA Studios budget and ressources.
Really no one having filming history could buy the crap of this video. Yes slow motion was a thing back in 1950's and perfected in the 1960's. The sales to the public was not till the late 1970-1980's. However companies such as NASA or the developers had full access to the system and testing steps. Suggesting that the companies like NASA could not use said things is just ridicules.. In the movie production there is a list of equipment that in fact does do slow motion in 1950's The technology was not cheep. Okay However by the mid 1965's the technology was able to be used may times at a much better value. This technology by the 1969 was not only reliable but they could create hours of the effect. By the 1970's this was so simple to do that cost and effect was simple. Yet that is a editing tool. We also know that they had cameras that also could do the effects. The first one was in 1962. The fun thing is the film used was a standard used in these type of cameras. Suggesting this technology was not created when it is documented it was is a slap in the face of every movie creator and editor in the world. During the movie 2001 space odyssey they did use this technology a few times they only found that they only used it a few times because most of the effects could be done practically. This Collins is very silly to suggest many of what he states. Just to be clear this Collin is a idiot. No wonder produces nothing. A Filmmaker could spend hours pointing out the error in this guys babble, no wonder no one with back him up even if many are Believers.
Wild boar the filmmaker is not disputing the existence of filming in slow motion. He’s taking about the viability of transferring the motion caught on 35 mm film to video tape. And some of the things that may happen while doing so. If you state that is live footage on that little screen they filmed for TV. If it didn’t look convincing someone would notice. One day you will have to except the fact that not everyone is stupid, it’s easy to everyone is stupid but it’s just not the case!
I think the biggest more obvious thing to me was the Soviet Union would have screamed it was fake if it was a hoax. They had their own monitoring stations and they undoubtedly saw stages of the landing, rockets and other maneuvers.
this is a great well made interesting video .....but there are still some doubts that even fair minded people have about NASA , the politics of the time , the fact Richard Nixon was President , the reality that NASA still to this day says we are working on how to manage the radiation of the van allen belts , the reality that if you look at still photos ( for example the boots on the astronaut decending have a very distinctive reflection more common with a second source of lighting - he dodnt rebuff that in this ) and finally in the height of the cold war nothing the Russians would have said would have been believed - their actions are more curios - having beaten the US in all other apsects of space exploration - first sputnik etc etc - they didnt put humans on the moon ? Ever ? hmmm...wonder why ??
360noscope How do you know? What if they faked it because it is impossible to ever go and they all know it but still want their people to believe in space so they can keep extracting money from them just like our government.? Think.
I think the biggest most obvious thing to me is that the Space Shuttle cost exponentially more than the Saturn V yet it could only manage 1/6th of the payload. Then there's the black smoke coming out of an apparently solid fuel pyro rocket ...... very suspiciously looking like a (liquid) fuel rich burn. Oh and then there's the complete and utter lack of any actual evidence of 1/6th earth gravity in any Apollo EVA footage.
I used to work in broadcast engineering back in the 80's. Everything you said about how primitive analog video was is absolutely true. I used to run those old 2" reel to reel ampex tape machines. yea some tv stations in the outback still used them. 1 hour reels if I remember correctly, no way to get bigger, slowing down the speed would fry the tape, especially back in the 60's. Tape had a shelf life of 10 minutes. Thank you for the video. Great points made here for all to see.
Yep, early 2" magnetic video was so unreliable that US Navy SONAR tapes off the submarines were sent *with* their recording unit (the unit replaced with another in the sub) to ONI to better ensure accurate playback. I've heard this anecdote now from nearly a dozen former USN sonar techs.
Yes but all your guys practical experience is meaningless to the hoax believing crowd. Something doesn't look right to them so the only explanation is it was faked.
@@therealzilch basically for them, whatever they don't understand is fake! They have no problem believing in heaven and hell but did we land on the moon? Neh that's fake!
A very entertaining intelligent man. Hi take on photography solidified any remanence of doubts. Love the tongue-in-cheek humour delivered tastefully and intelligently. Thanks Collin
The smartest looking genius of your liking? Very nice. He take WHAT? Many have doubted the famous genius FILMMAKER, he cried about Jarrah White rebutal. And altered his song, good humour, but dont you love that it all doesnt matter, and poor Conspiracists are blinded to the *real conspiracies* ?
Meanwhile, a real forensic film expert actually recreated "Moon landings" footage using 1960-s technology and also did full show-and-tell of that. You are so gullible.
The Camera Man Explains: How did NASA fake it's images from the Apollo Moon Missions? A master explains... Leonid Konovalov is an associate professor @ the Moscow School of Cinema and the All-Russian State Institute of Cinematography, VGIK, in Moscow. He is an expert in camera operation, cinematography, film projection, film negative developing, among many other related things. In this ongoing series of weekly articles, which he began in 2020, he explains how NASA really achieved it's impressive images from the Apollo Missions (and much more!). He analyzes the “lunar” photos and videos from the cameraman's point of view - how were they filmed? - this is what we no science Conspiracists want, more then lip talk :)
The thing that strikes me again and again about Apollo deniers is how credulous they all are. I've tried to imagine what I would be like if I were an Apollo denier. First off, I'd be like, "Wow, it was all faked, was it? Well I guess that would explain the absence of stars, the waving flag, surviving the Van Allen Belts and so on." But I wouldn't stop there. I would want to know what really happened. I've read a lot about the official account, and the more I learn, the more it fits together. So the "true" account should fit together even better, right? Yet nobody even tries to answer the question, "What REALLY happened?" Occasionally someone replies with, "Well, they faked it, of course!" But when you press them, they go silent, or say something stupid. Ask them how they faked 1/6 gravity and vacuum. Some of the answers I've received are: helium pouches, bouncy castles, falling lifts, as well as the old favourite, slo-mo and wires. Never mind that nobody has been able to replicate the effect. One person even replied with, "No need for me to explain how they faked it..." Ask them how come NASA brought back more than a thousand times as much rock as the USSR. They will do one of the following: a) Ignore the question. b) Mention the petrified wood in a Dutch museum, as if that were relevant. c) Suggest NASA had an unmanned probe. Because speculation about a major engineering work that nobody has ever witnessed counts as evidence, right? d) Tell you Von Braun went on a meteorite-gathering trip in Antactica, and then remind you that Von Braun was a Nazi, as if that were relevant. Imagine, you are "in the know" about the biggest secret in history, yet you lack the curiosity to find out how it was done. You can't even agree with your fellow deniers if it was filmed in a Hollywood basement or in some unspecified part of a desert that nobody has been able to locate in the 50 years since. If I were an Apollo denier, it would bother me that the US government were able to convince the people who MATTER. But all you ever hear from the actual deniers (apart from childish abuse) consists of reasons to be suspicious of the official account. You NEVER hear positive evidence of an alternative account. It's like listening to a politician telling everybody how bad his opponent is. But when someone asks, "But what do YOU have to offer?" he'll just come out with some more dirt (probably made up) about the other one. And it's obvious why. There is no coherent alternative account to the official one. Not even a draft one that mostly fits the facts more or less.
@@eventcone Thank you for your kind words. I am just so bored of the endless array of piddling little "anomalies" that we get challenged to debunk for the billionth time, whereas the other side produce nothing - NOTHING - of substance. The Moon landings happened, no doubt about it. We don't need to defend them. It's the deniers who should be defending their position.
@@paulbeardsley4095 P.S. Have you ever checked out www.apollohoax.net? It's not what it sounds like. The people there are highly competent engineers, scientists etc who know Apollo happened, and they invite Hoax Believers to bring their claims to them. But they have to be prepared to defend those claims. It's a great resource.
@@eventcone "It may be that we are too defensive" I'm not sure. I sometimes think that if we respond to every "debunk this!" post there's a danger that we give them the wrong impression that they might actually have a point. We can appear to be playing by their rules, and we shouldn't be.
Lets All agree on watching the mouse run on the MOON. YES there is Life in Space. NASA Apollo 11 moon landing faked? Coke bottle on set? Not quite. Running behind left to right on ruclips.net/video/sCwFiqtfijw/видео.html&feature=emb_logo (1/2 speed!)
Bravo!!!! Well done, Mr. Collins. Love that punch line at the end. My ex-next door neighbor is a Flat-Earther and NASA non-believer and there was simply nothing that I could present to him that would sway his unwavering belief system, no matter how factual, demonstrable, or logical the information. He would go on and on about how there is only one picture of Earth from space (huh?) and that every single photo of Earth was faked. No matter what I would say to him, I got an explanation of how and why it was a fake. Too much radiation, it would have destroyed the film, blah blah blah. The astronauts would not have survived the trip through the Van Allen Belt, etc. etc. He was convinced that I was just another indoctrinated fool led to believe the big lie. The sad part is that he is actually a very bright and intelligent individual, which confused me even more that he couldn't get his head wrapped around the evidence. For him, it is somehow easier to believe that the Earth is flat, the Moon, stars and planets are holograms and we live under a giant sapphire dome, surrounded by a 150 ft. wall of ice, off limits and protected by a global army. I'd love to hear his rebuttal to your video here. Thanks for sharing!
I've heard it said that while the moon landing was 100% legit, the filming is faked. This is because camera would not work due to solar radiation or some shit that. This makes 100% sense to me for some reason even though i dont know the theory behind it
Yes unbelievable!!! "Some people" full of nonsense sure occupy intelligent science people pushing "sense", not so sane.... when it only matters because blinds (Conspiracists) to other real conspiracies.... Yet still many APOLLO Witness fanatics still claim it is impossible to fake today! Incredible!
Dude, this was awesome! As a photographer for over 40 years the crazy hoaxers have made ME crazy. The stuff you say about lighting is SO obvious but I LOVE the deeper dive into the tech. Fabulous!
You really think they would have gotten the lighting wrong for such a project? XD Many hoaxers are just stupid religious people that also believe in flat Earth...others are intelligent individuals that don't have the blind trust of the US most others have...
Thank you so much sir I just found this today. 50 years ago today I was in a jail in Texas with my brother my cousin and his best friend. We had done a few bad things. 😬 The police in Sherman Texas would not let us watch the moon landing, bastards. I’ve always believed we went to the moon and your explanation/satire is seriously best and most straightforward explanation I have ever seen. I will be sharing this for the rest of my life. And yes we got out of jail. Our actual lawyers name was Dean Martin. May I hope to shake your hand someday.
Uncle Freddy first of all I was not in prison I was in jail. I’ve never been in prison. Why, well luck and good lawyers..That and I don’t engage in juvenile trolling. Grow the fuck up and go away
@whodannywho Hey there. Watch the recently released documentary Apollo 11. It’s not a traditional documentary in the sense that it doesn’t have a narrator. Instead, they coupled original 70mm footage with original sound from various sources. They don’t tell the story but instead let the story tell itself. As one reviewer said, “Go. Rush out. Find this film now. Find it on the biggest possible screen, accompanied by the best, loudest sound. And sit back and marvel.” I rented it on Vudu then was so amazed I luckily found it in the theaters still and went and saw the last showing locally. It’ll make you feel like you got to witness it. I’m sorry you didn’t get to back then. I wasn’t born yet so it was a gift getting to watch this. Here’s a link. www.amazon.com/Apollo-11-Todd-Douglas-Miller/dp/B07RDY2QF1
@Etypeman I’ll ignore your partially veiled insult. And am not going to get into an argument about it. I’ve done my own thinking. The radio signal from the lunar module was independently verified by Larry Basinger with homemade equipment. You can listen to it here. observatory.jctcfaculty.org/APOLLO11/Default.htm And that’s all I’m contributing to a discussion on this branch of the subject. Oh, and this. ruclips.net/video/xc1SzgGhMKc/видео.html Cheers.
I learned, that almost everybody who does not believe in the landing just does not want to believe it for any reason. You can tell them everything - even if it is rediculous what they say, and you have a pure evidence, they do not (want to) believe. I am a film-producer and many things what that guy said, is just what I also told to many people - technically ment. A production like that was also not possible to produce at that time. And by the way, Chinese and Russians also have plenty of pictures from the landing site. There is no doubt, the US astronauts have been on the moon.
Yes, the determination some of them have to ignore evidence is astonishing. Almost as astonishing as their determination to keep presenting the same old debunked evidence (no blast crater, waving flag, astronauts looked glum etc) as if it trumps the actual evidence. My belief is that conspiracy theoriests are talentless and uneducated people who need to feel superior, so they tell themselves that they know the truth whereas everyone else is a sheep.
You did??? *How did you learn that?* Please tell all the people how you accomplished that "almost" learning sir??? Well I THINK Most used to believe before becomming Unbelievers! Only during 70's were there 25% USA DO-NOT-WANT-TO people. After that it took YT time to finally convert Believers as myself. So pray Mr Psy what is the percentage of 'Everybody's' who dont believe but that want to....? Or that believe that... *believe* but dont want to? Dear everything-Teller what pure evidence do you have? Why do you even concern yourself with Others beliefs, or Want's? Yes I have seen many FILM guys active at GOV tales defense, strong Believers?
Because of previous huge demand from myself : I care because Human Consciousness has meaning, now and much latter.... and some beliefs (despite being "insane") are repressed, mocked, censored (as non hypocrites well know). So they need concern for fair chance to study.
@@wildboar7473 And how do you explain tons of photos, made by Russians and just recently by Chinese, from the landing sites ? I am sure, you have lot of new excuses and claims.("which photos... " ) thats what comes as the answer, I am very sure.
You think the USA GOV hires unprofession idiots with no talent? Da Comedian he is ....because film wise.... aint no Kubrick :) (Likes to pick all sorts of cherries) Note: here is the typical follower of this genius : ruclips.net/user/shortsAblOHbFKCp0
Too bad he can not do same with historical forward Leap ARTEMIS , the incredible Technology to film fake exist now :( So we could witness just *anything* ....
You are not addressing the issue at hand. Did you even watch this video? This is about the live broadcast in 1969 and your claim that everything is fake. A massive preponderance of the evidence supports that the moonshot happened and every single hoaxer claim has been debunked again and again.
Your argument seems to be that because something could possibly be fake that therefore everything IS fake. I suggest studying the laws of logic with a side helping of learning about how to think rationally.
Ah that famous massive preponderance /mountain of proof..... yet many Engineers and books and videos and documents and media address the issue.... again and again
dear dear are you upset? They need your help to make up more rejections, not enough for you? That's Theorists, Some Reality doesnt exist, all sorts of mad philosophing, some say Mankind is an 'error of Nature'; and we are just meaningless purposeless chemical driven blobs going back to eternal oblivion bliss. Are you a sane believer in Primate origin? Happy & Proud, why you love Science Academia, so forget Those who speak of Intelligence and futur. In NASA trust.
O the existencial question... does *SCIENCE* exist or not? Is She in Space with The Flying Spaghetti Monster? O SCIENCE take *mercy* on us poor wretched creatures out of Nothingness, have piety on us Adolerators!
@@wildboar7473 Wow. THAT sort of rant is why people laugh at you insane, self-deluding, scared shitless of reality conspiracy theorists. You people are naïve sheep who believe whatever you're told.
That sort of rant gets rattled good boys, gets lots of attention, just got 5 letters from One courageous :) ps: YES the Vatican has created Science, but as Her existing, being cognizant?
People forget that there is more audio than video. Much more. The video and/or film cache is a relatively small part of the Apollo programme - basically the TV footage shot on the moon plus the stills and the odd TV broadcast en route. It's what the doubters like to concentrate on. The audio, however, covers nine moon missions, each of which lasted a week or more. The astronauts were in pretty much constant communication with Mission Control, so (allowing for sleep periods etc) we're probably looking (at a rough guess) at 30 to 40 days' worth of audio taped material, somewhere between 720 hours and 960 hours. Now, how would you like to be the script-writer tasked with creating a radio programme lasting 720 to 960 hours? That's what you would need to fake it. Or the actors, or the director for that matter. Fortunately some of the tapes are extant so each of us is free to make a judgement about the material's authenticity. A good place to start (it's on RUclips) is 'Apollo 13 Accident: Flight Director's Loop', all 6 hours of it . . .
James, yes, and let's not forget the lunar transcripts, which anyone can read.NASA needs to better organize the historical and scientific databases on Apollo, making it easier for the layperson or conspiracy believer, to find this information. The internets algorithm is will quickly send a conspiracy believer deeper into the rabbit hole NASA should also direct people to Kipp Teagues www.apolloarchive.com/ an excellent resource of Apollo images "The Apollo project ", and other resources, if we're going to pull people out of the rabbit hole, let's make sure they have easy access to the correct information.
Don't be STUPID!! NASA says it's 250 degrees on the surface of the moon. How the hell did they keep cool in 250 degree heat for 3 days with just battery power? So they had batteries in 1969 that lasted 3 days AND could keep your azz cool in 250 degree temps., but in 2019 your car is hot as hell in 90 degree temps. Where are those 1969 3 day batteries? There should be one standard in all cars. Dozens of kids die every year in hot cars because NASA won't share their battery technology from 1969. GTFOH!!!
If you leave your cars headlights on for ONE HOUR, your car battery will be stone cold dead, but in 1969 NASA had batteries that lasted THREE DAYS!! Bull Sh--!! Now do you see how stupid you sound? Grrrrrrr
@@muffspanker you could be the dumbest guy I've ever communicated with.. So I'll type very slowly. While it's true that the temp in sunlight on the moon is approx 250 degrees F, like on the side of Lunar Lander facing the sun... In the shade, the temp is approx minus 250 degrees F. Like on the side of Lunar Lander facing away from the sun. Inside the lander there was air circulation, as there was inside their suits. It was all worked out by people much smarter than you and doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand. Similar technology works very well here on planet earth and is used in energy efficient houses.
@@muffspanker spaceflightblunders.wordpress.com/2017/03/03/the-fuel-cell-powered-lunar-module/ Silver Zinc batteries were placed around the lander and were more than enough to provide power for the 2 day stay. Even more batteries were added for the three day missions. So as long as the astronauts didn't forget to turn off the lander's headlights, they were fine.
The Russians know we would be dead. We work with them now. The argument that I hear most is the Apollo 11 put "lunar reflectors" on the moon so they had to have done it. The Soviets did the same thing in 1970 with a rover, which is what we used. If it was seriously done wed be doing it all the time and there wouldnt be so many anomalies around it. It's obviously a hoax.
@@blacksabbath1022 Why would we "be doing it all the time" now? The Apollo missions accomplished all that was really desired: to beat the Soviets and to research the Moon. Been there, done that, and it's extraordinarily more expensive than sending unmanned probes.
@@therealzilch oh so no reason to drill into the core of the moon? Perhaps their is diamonds, gold or even oil there. Why not find out? Why not put the Space force Military base on the moon? We have many reasons...
There would be no "debunk"(🤣) without bunk. Love his above average highly intelligent Believer /Debunker looks (+hat too).🤯 (More to be seen on his Account👍) (😂)
@@narajuna ◁==== keep in mind that this troll is a 'closet' adherent of the Flat Earth and Magical Dome Cult. It only 'outs' itself as such when the comments indicate that it's safe do do so. Go on Mr WO. Tell us all about how you believe the Earth is a flat disc. We all know you want to. 🙃
To assist in the greatest scam pulled on Humanity. Well maybe the second, or third.The word NASA is a derivative from these words used in the Bible. In its original Hebrew it is נָשָׂא (naw-shaw’) spelling “Nasha” Strong’s Concordance Hebrew Dictionary list the definition for word #5377 (beguiled as used in Genesis 3:13), … So NASA’s prim. Root; is: to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce:-beguile, deceive., X greatly, x utterly.
Not same spelling but same prononciation. No just heard he lended his 2001 studio for them to use. How much he assisted on least the first one I dont know, NASA /NSA had their crew.The rest was done in USA, they have similiation grounds, just as the Mars practice landscapes.
The most important part of his message is the last part when he talks about the unjust laws that we have today that we never questioned coz we are focused on many petty issues that has no bearing in our way of life at all.
Yes maybe that was the real reason the Philosopher made the video, much ignore conclusion, still we the carring thinking People are affected by forced lies, even many G Followers are affected by it: by Deniers with no faith, calling Gov tales fake :( :( This Genius did a video about it... as MANY with LOTS of videos, and numerous websites= more impact then TV it seems. “For evil to flourish it only requires good men to do nothing” - Simon Wiesenthal
"To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth, all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances." - Lee deForest (1873-1961) (American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube.) Feb 25, 1957. "Space travel is utter bilge." - Dr. Richard van der Reit Wooley, Astronomer Royal, space advisor to the British government, 1956.
Wild Boar science does not operate to convince those who refuse to believe. Science operate to know what is true even if you don’t believe it. That’s the reason we have these technological advancements today while no conspiracy theorists had contributed to any of these advancements.
@@jrsanti Oops that last dump got you involved, SHE operates does SHE? Well HER followers sure operate against the heretics that refuse faith. See little value is this rant... CTs are supposed to contribute to tech advancements???? That presupposes knowledge of basic science.... What have You contributed? Your prayers? Or pray what has boywonder Hawkings contributed to Technology? ps: SCIENCE does not operated in knowings, it is the search for knowledge, her "truths" are always getting self corrected...
Wild Boar must have contributed to something because YT deleted his channel. Seems many Scientists operate on TV & YT to con_vince. Sure introduced quickly the Piltdown Man, among other proofs, in Schools to convince operation: "we are just meaningless Privates out of chemical soup...". Nothing to do with Tech advancements, Believers Wright Brothers operated against MS establishment saying we could not fly!
If you want more photographic proof we landed on the moon consider what you do not see. - The "flapping flag" is often cited as evidence of a hoax because there's no air, hence no breeze, on the moon. - If a breeze caused the flag to flap that would mean the landing was filmed outdoors; there's no wind in a studio. - So, if there was a breeze strong enough to flap the flag why don't we see any blowing dust? Or anything else blowing at the same time the flag flapped? - What if a bee or other insect flew across the scene? Or a spider climbed on the LEM? The people who edited the film might have seen it and edited it out but they could have missed it. After 50 years no hoaxer saw it? - What if a small animal poked his head up for a frame or 2? Again, an editor could have missed it but 1000 hoaxers studying these films for 50 years wouldn't have. To say the least, this is unbelievably unlikely.
You're forgetting that NASA's technology was at least 50 years ahead of what we know. Or maybe they had access to alien technology. Or demons. Or something. Anything, but that the Earth is a globe and NASA landed on the Moon, because that's what the Government says, and whatever the Government says is wrong. Or something.
Yeah we want dust blowing in wind (all we are...), moon stuff is super dry as the atmosphere.... heard Spacewinds rounded the rocks off. I see a mouse run around the moon videos.
The body of the mouse in the SpaceX video is clearly dwarfed by its enormous ears, leading to only one conclusion, it’s a long eared mouse. The problem here is that the long eared mouse is brown whereas as the so-called space mouse is most definitely dark gray. Perhaps more baffling is that if the video in question is said to be CGI, so why would the mouse be there in the first place? A prank maybe, but then the ‘footage’ would have to be viewed over and over by its creator to find any errors. Then you have the rotoscoping, another person involved. And then the big boss man in charge of the ‘faking department’ would have to approve its release. I’m pretty sure the prankster would be rumbled at this point. The likely response from the boss would be, “How are we expected to sell this if there’s a frikkin mouse in there?” And then there’s the problem with the artists, after the prank they would need to be placed under surveillance surely? NASA must be running low on nondescript blue sedans at this point? Of course they could be ‘train crossinged’ but then you would need to hire new artists, more headaches, more blue sedans. Round and round we go......,
@@nicsandee123 . Ha ha. You're all funny, but guess what, if you take 10 seconds to think about it you'd know I'm not wrong. And smart people only need 2 seconds not 10.
@@nicsandee123 I suspect the mouse is there for the same reason that NASA admitted that the Earth is flat in all those flight manuals: Satan made them do it, so that anyone who still believed in the Moon landings even so would have had a chance to see the truth, but rejected it, and thus rendered his soul forfeit. The Devil is very cunning.
Actually all he did was prove it could be faked in a studio. He makes the assumption that it was a live broadcast when film was found of them rehearsing and screwing up the reflection of the Earth in low orbit.
@@nihorothereal Sure, go nuts. ruclips.net/video/mCHG6uJH5L8/видео.html Also if you could let me know how they had lagless radio communication in 1969 from the Earth to the Moon that would be great since we still struggle with that today.
@@fivefingerfullprice3403 You didn't watch, did you? He indicated which steps would be required for a live broadcast of film. Even if it was VTR, same thing. But still, if you don't believe that the US put man on the moon, then you ignore evidence. Where's that film you allude to? Non-existent, of course.
Sillyness sometimes cost the price of dying young and fast, like with NASA Director Brian Welch. Contrary to nasa agents, APOLLO Moon denial started without Bill Kaysing, 1/4 Americains did not buy it then. Doubts about the authenticity of the Apollo Moon landings *appeared first in December 1968 when Apollo 8 was launched.* The almost perfectly executed odyssey of Apollo 11 amazed many around the world, and some people doubted it was real.[17] The first book on the subject ("Did man land on the Moon?") was issued in Texas *by the mathematician James J. Cranny in 1970.* Brian D. Welch, a veteran public affairs officer for the space agency and NASA's Director of Media Services, suffered a heart attack days after a public response to accusations. He was 42. NASA commented on some of the conspiracy theories in June 1977.[19] But in August 1997, their Director of Media Services (1998-2000) Brian Welch (1958-2000) said in an interview with Sky TV News: “This is thirty year old stuff... I don't understand why we should spend the time to... prove to people that we went to the Moon; in fact of matters we did go to the Moon.” - THAT'S IT FOLKS, MAN COULD NOT DO IT.
Repression is full on this video; now only pro comments are allowed in the TOP Comment section. In thee other one threads get deleted if not Accounts. Never so much policing inside Hoax videos.
I really hope that someday Buzz Aldrin watches this video so that when the narrator reaches the part where he says "I wasn't on the moon in 1969 and neither were you", Aldrin can be like OH YEAH??
😲@@MuchWhittering Tell that to all the Shills and Quora parrots. @apolloskyfacer5842 RC 3 HOW COME NOT ONE PROFESSIONAL SPACE FLIGHT EXPERT AGREES WITH YOU ''MOON HOAXTARDS ? Were all 400,000 scientists, engineers and technicians who were involved in the Apollo Moon Program bribed or threatened into silence ? How did that world-wide cover-up work exactly ? And what happened to those who refuse to cooperate ? Were they murdered ? Were they zapped by that little flashy thingy the MIB used to stealthily reprogrammed their memories ?" xhundreds by Bot and Others
oho not passing the censorship test ? What excuse this time??? Now what happen to the Classic >>>Were all 400,000 scientists, engineers and technicians who were involved in the Apollo Moon Program bribed or threatened into silence ?" All those are apparently *knowing* on Moon...
His sarcasm ("Excellent! My check came from NASA") is a wonderful touch, but I am afraid the people who most need to learn from this video are also those who don't get the sarcasm. It also made quite a contrast to the very serious words of warning he had for us all starting at 11:08, why it is so important NOT to believe the Moon hoaxers. These are my favorite words in the whole video.
***** You have failed to follow the argument. His argument is that it is the technology to FAKE the landings on film and video that did not exist. The technology to do the landings DID exist. It is a surprising argument, but quite sound. There is another point he could have made, though, even more convincing: look at the difference between the way scifi films, even Kubrick's sci fi, faked zero gravity, and the way the astronauts really did move in zero gravity. The two are VERY different. Only the latter looks realistic. Kubrick just make it look like they were wobbling at the knees. Star Trek just gave up on zero gravity completely, inventing the convenient fiction of artificial gravity even when the Enterprise was having power failures due to being attacked.
***** No, that is not what I do. You are just talking nonsense in your failed attempt at a straw-man fallacy. What he says is easily _confirmed_ with a Google search. You cannot READ if you think it is refuted with a Google search. Besides: I have an even better proof that it could not be faked: the video of the Apollo 17 astronaut dropping a feather and hammer at the same time proves not only is he in a vacuum, it also proves he is in low gravity: the hammer took 2S to fall about 4 feet, which is impossible in Earth gravity.
TammoKorsai There is a reason NASA doesnt train astronauts in a vacumn. It's "dangerous". But apparently no problem when out in the open vastness of space lol
shillslayer deny science, you mean like anyone who uses the word shill? You woketards have turned the word shill into a badge of honor. Shill seems to mean someone who understand basic science and who doesn't believe every conspiracy video they see. Do you also believe the Earth is flat? People who call others shills and sheep usually also believe the Earth is flat.
Pete Piper no problems? Wether they really went to the moon and back they sure at least faked a bunch of problems. Take Apollo 13 for instance because they encountered major problems.
There are lots of pictures of places with lots of lights, which are sharp. As every photographer will tell you, the brightness makes it easy to get everything in focus as the depth of field is a lot broader than in a dark setting. Something you obviously neither knew nor bothered to look up when you wrote your comment. So, that is your level of expertise and research...
@@WilliamBTCWallace do you REALLY ACTUALLY BELIEVE that Nixon had a live phone call (with no time delays, by the way) with an astro-NOT from (supposedly) 200,000+ miles away, while thousands of people TODAY cannot even get a cell phone signal???? It was staged in a Hollywood basement by Stanley Kuberick! WHY are no stars there? WHY are there shadows from multiple angles if the sun was the only illuminating source? WHY were there NO "lunar dust" on the landing pads? WHY were the (supposed) "moon rocks" given to the Netherlands to be analyzed determined to be FAKE? WHY do you and millions of others have cognitive dissonance? ARE YOU GETTING THE PICTURE NOW? The government has been LYIING to everyone for decades!!!! WAKE UP, sheeple!!!
If only JFK, was still around, he was all for doing the HARD TO DO, than easier :) Nice to find out finally Sheeples were having a meaningful debate with ME before i became one 😵💫 strange thou these Meaningful's were calling me flatearther as debate before that.....
seem this guy hasnt any more to say, the meaningfulness is somewhat left to be desired.... liked to see some of his honest fairplay frustrated attempts to communicate with those Flatearthers.... :) Very sought out those Creatures.
@@Xernive ALL IS FLAT No? why not, its a recent revival, this ape didnt even mention that powerful deragatory Primate subclass. Widespread of that "accusation' (/compliment) started in the 2015 on hoax videos. Still plenty of Globers not into the APOLLO cult. Has gone over 50% already???
I love when conspiracy theorists say I have seen no evidence of the moonlandings but when they are shown evidence they assert it is fake based on how they feel and what they believe.
cjfilmproductions Not only that, but they use NASA data to try to disprove NASA claims! So NASA is 100% reliable when they Moon Hoaxer thinks the data from NASA agrees with him, but 100% unreliable otherwise.
We don't need to worry about the deniers watching this video. They're not interested in hearing the facts. They are all stuck in their own little fantasy worlds. This is a great video!
@@wildboar7473 I scrolled through so many comments just to see your comments everywhere and you're like the only one that seems to think that way + it feels like you keep copy pasting info from various websites, i even saw you quoted wikipedia which is not reliable because it can be edited by any one. the point I'm making right now is that no one gives that much shit about the moon landing apart from you. Are you trying to prove something to yourself by spending your whole day answering to youtube comments?! its only showing you need to constantly remind yourself of what you believe to actually believe it and it looks ridiculous. Anyways, have a good day.
According to NASA, the primary materials used in the lunar module were aluminum alloy, stainless steel, titanium, nickel steel alloy, and heat-resistant glass. The melting points of these materials range between 671°F and 2750°F. However, the heat in the thermosphere - which the Apollo space craft would have to travel through in order to get to the moon - reaches temperatures of more than 3600°F. It is quite clear we don’t have materials on earth able to withstand those temperatures. Therefore, there’s no way the lunar module ever went to the moon. Mr Awesome ruclips.net/video/-jRMUX2-6Zc/видео.html 👍
? You are his 'Companion'? Rather broad, no specifics on community, the One that a *LOT* outside HELP at refuting still its Skeptics way after (2012) this.... roast ?
?@@marcelinepink I dont know, could be, not a reddit man, nor a HOMOerectus either, so your man roasted who? Far as I know he got directly roasted by Jarrah White, and the "impossible" became possible "bloody unlikely" she cried....
@@marcelinepink sure still refuse to answer what you do with Your Man! (you better be a man....too), well some homo"sapien" you are, your elegance and roasting is to be desired. ((ruclips.net/video/-3zhZqiSe5c/видео.html))
Thousands actually saw the three astronauts board the space capsule and get launched into space!! They were not seen in over a week!!! These IDIOTS are unbelievable! Thank you for this great video, and your common sense.
I doubt I could have couched it quite as well as you did Declan. It really is astonishing how wilfully dumb, ignorant and gullible some supposedly educated adults can manage to be. It is also cringeworthy to witness the spectacle of other human beings struggling and wrestling with basic ideas, thinking and demonstrable facts that even schoolchildren realise and can grasp. The Dunning Kruger effect rears it's head yet again.
My Grandfather was 90 years old when this happened. He said it was a fake. He had never seen a rocket launch. I took him to Cape Canaveral to watch a launch. Before he died at 99 he told me that he believed because he had seen it take off. He wanted to believe.
That is awesome Steve! My granddad was 93 when the Apollo 13 mission "changed". I asked him if it was fake. He said no way. I asked him if they would make it home, he said, there are 100's of thousands of people working on it. They will come home. :Engineers are very crafty." That statement stuck with me for my entire life. (he was an power system engineer that helped set up commerical power grid in Salt Lake and San Fran). I miss that guy.
All theater to enliven ever sagging TV ratings. Who wanted to watch a lot of terribly blurry film made in the Apollo Valley in Hawaii? All made intentionally blurry to better deceive the public of NASA's chicanery. Our Deep State in full throttle action after killing the president that first envisioned a moon landing after he publicly criticized them and then profiting making billions of dollars off faking his vision. Just terrible times all wrapped around that same Deep State's Vietnam War that dragged on a damn decade killing 55,000 when bombing Hanoi which was finally done in very late 1972, would have ended that war in a few months at any time. The Deep State elitist had to reap those war machine profits just like on those bullshit moon landings faked on TV over & over six times by Nixon for bucks. Nixon stopped them after he became entangled in the Watergate Hotel burglary that caused his resignation before certain impeachment. Just bad times as now.
@@WarHog38KCS The moon landings were an inspiration that really helped a troubled world -- I was there -- so many great technologies came out of it, including those that lead to the internet and the very computer you are using to read this. If we in the same bad times now, then doing another landing (fake or not) again in 2025(?) will be an inspiration to help jump us to the next level in soceity. People need something to believe in, something that we create ourselves across all beliefs and walks of life. What I really don't get is how you convert facts into fiction. Yes there are lot's of facts that neighsayers bring up, and EVERYTIME they just reinforce we went to the moon. Thse are facts and proofs, not just words and are repeatable everytime. But just because you SAY it's a lie, then it's a lie? I say it's the truth, so it's the truth... NO! I make mistakes, they get corrected and we move on with the tested truth. But I support your cause, so I challenge you to this... Why don't you test it yourself, try to prove we DID go to the moon, play devils advocate, using the best hardest facts and deepesr research you can. Let's say you (like me) are actually being fooled into thinking we didn't go when we really did, so you set out to prove we went. If you are right and we didn't go, then your test will fail and you will be right. And if you cannot prove it, and I mean dig like you MUST prove it. Then have a math or physics person check your answers. If you fail to provide absolute proof we went, then you have a fighting change of being belived. But you got to try really really hard to provde we went if you want to lift the vail of lies... If not, you are just another bag of air making baseless assertions on partial facts and ignorance. What a sad use of a brillant mind if you don't try.
@@scottl5000 I was aware of the moon landings as a big about grown boy. I watched very little of that blurry moon film when in comparison a person could watch crystal clear real good regular TV programming. However I did watch Armstrong descend that ladder. I did believe the moon landing then and did so until the computer age. I really actually never thought much about them. I have had my decades believing for the good of this country. I also had the battle you suggest within my psyche when I started watching the vast amount of material on the internet that questioned the validity of those moon landings. I initially thought those people questioning the government & media narrative on those moon landings & 9/11, were total crackpots. Then I diligently studied it all as you suggested. Immense radiation problems concerning the Van Allen Radiation Belts and Deep Space Heavy Particle Radiation throughout space caused by solar flares and quasars and the like. I even studied recent NASA released information where scientists & physicists fully acknowledging those deadly radiation problems concerning humans in space travel outside earth's orbit. All this while knowing the Apollo astronauts had absolutely no radiation shielding. Then I saw film where several supposed Apollo moon astronauts didn't even know the Van Allen Radiation Belts existed. I saw the somber film of those Apollo 11 astronauts at their post moon mission news conference. Somber as at mom's funeral instead of happy about just completing that supposed spectacular moon mission and crazily talking of never seeing stars the whole mission. Orbiting the moon, they should have logically seen stars. Then I saw where an airliner that was nearly 50 feet high and 147 feet in width disappeared inside a 20 foot circular hole at the Pentagon with over 150 people on board. I saw where an actual airliner crash at Camp David was first reported that same 9/11 morning and then forever ignored by the media thereafter. I saw where five Israelis with several being Mossad members set up cameras prior to the twin towers being hit and were seen celebrating as the towers exploded. They were arrested by NYC police and then released a few days later. You can believe government versions if you so wish through hell & high water. I just will not anymore. I see it all as a evil Deep State of globalist zionist billionaire elites that have this nation by the throat with the intention to destroy this country while they reap billions. Read the Georgia Guidestones.
He's absolutely right. I was nine years old and just glued to the television, but it was BORING outside of 20 minutes or so. Not much chatter, just Armstrong and Aldrin doing some bounding around. Setting up experiments is not very interesting. As a kid, the excitement was there for the achievement, but the actual business of collecting samples, setting up reflectors and all that other stuff was not exactly riveting stuff. Nice touch with the NASA check at the end... hilarious.
What you watched as a nine year old was footage taken from someone filming a screen in the NASA mission control. The feed was never direct from the moon. It was second hand film (the feed went to NASA with broadcasters filming the screen to broadcast to the public). This was to disguise the fact they were filming it in a studio. I never used to believe the conspiracy either till I grew-up, woke-up and realised it was all bullshit. They were all freemasons who were in on it. Why do you think we have never been back? We should have had moon-bases decades ago. It's incredible people still believe everything they're told.
@felix mendez The fact is, there is no claim that has ever been made that hasn't already been debunked. Just because you're too ignorant, uneducated, and ill-informed to know that, doesn't mean it is so. Every claim ever made in the last 50+ years has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. Most of them long before you ever heard of them. Science is not magic. They landed. Six times. Q.E.D.
@felix mendez As soon as you can provide some valid, factual, independently-verifiable, documented, scientifically-accurate, legitimate, mathematically-sound evidence to back up your claim, you might be on to something. Until then, we're going to have to watch you flounder around coming up with these lame attempts at ad hominem insults. There is no claim you can make that hasn't already been debunked before you ever heard of it. I'll wait for you to come up with something, but it's a near-certainty that I've already debunked it somewhere. They landed. Six times. Deal with it.
@felix mendez If the only claim you're making is that the "technology was destroyed" then you're even more ignorant, uneducated, and ill-informed than I originally thought. You're saying that since the tooling to build B-17 bombers from 1942 was destroyed after the war, that it is impossible to build one today? Are you really that ignorant? To confirm, it is your position that obsolete, outdated, surplus, and unnecessary equipment for a program that is no longer active, should have been maintained in operational condition, just to prove to you that the program existed? Seriously? How vain and arrogant of you. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to accept any facts, since you clearly don't know that most of the documentation of the program, (over 20,000 box-feet of documents) is in the Ellenwood, Ga. National Archival Storage Facility. There are another 150,000+ box-feet of documents spread among the other National Archives Storage Facilities, and tens of millions of other ancillary pages of prints, film, memos, etc. that are in other storage archives around the country. Those are hard documents. First-level sources that outweigh, override, and completely refute any claim you might make. And if you try to say that they're fake, then you have to prove they're fake. Your say-so isn't enough. To inform you, so that you'll be less ignorant than you are, only about 3% of the documentation of the program has ever been scanned and released on the Internet. That includes the 170,000 + box-feet of documents that you didn't even know existed, because they've never been scanned for the Internet. The fact that you didn't know they exist and are stored in archives across the country, doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means that you are ignorant of their existence. For the record, a "box-foot" is the amount of documents it takes to fill up a box that is 1 foot (12 inches) deep. According to International Paper, 500 sheets of standard 8½ x 14 in (216 x 356 mm) Legal size, 75 g/m sq, sheet of paper has a measured thickness of 51.5 mm, or about 2.027 inches. Multiply 500 x 6 (because 500 sheets is roughly 2 inches, and 2 x 6 = 12) and you get 3000. Three thousand sheets of paper is roughly one box-foot. There are 60 million sheets of Apollo documentation stored at Ellenwood alone. And another 450 million sheets in storage around the country. To verify this, all you have to do is, contact the National Archives, ask if they have any Apollo documentation, and ask how you can personally see it. You can contact any one of the other Archives Storage Facilities, the Library of Congress, or similar archival institutions, and see for yourself. That would require intellectual honesty on your part, and you have demonstrated that you have none. Who knows, you might actually learn something. But since you're so sure, why don't you get the New York Times, Washington Post, or some other big newspaper to do an article on this fakery for you? I'm sure you can convince them of it. Before you do that, however... You still haven't made a legitimate claim. You've provided no evidence, no facts, no documentation, and no proof of your claim. In other words, you fail. They landed. Six times. Deal with it. Q.E.D. .
The funniest thing though is that Kubrick wanted a four person gold leather couch as part of his payment, that was the deal breaker...NASA went to the moon instead, it was cheaper. Kubrick threw a fit, and told NASA he would ruin them, that’s when the KGB stepped in, Kubrick was introduced to Bill Kaysing. After that meeting Kubrick put that stuff in ‘The Shining’ as a result. The true reason behind the KGB’s involvement has always been a mystery, but theorists believe it was a behind the scenes attempt to delay the US space program in order for the Ruskies to get the N1 to work. With the ‘Kubrick plan’ now in tatters, the KGB renditioned Kaysing to an underground facility in Siberia, he was brainwashed, fed drugs and sent back to the US via mule train through Alaska. On his return Kaysing began his anti NASA campaign in earnest, guided by his KGB handlers. The whole operation came to a grinding halt in 1968, Majestic and a detachment of Illuminati special tactics operatives discovered the KGB hideout in Minnesota, raided it and ‘accidented’ all of the occupants. Although many people in the small Minnesotan town questioned the probability of four crashes on the same railroad crossing in one day, the Freemasons soon quelled the suspicions of the townsfolk by offering free tacos for life
You got 2 likes, but no one expanded on your very complimentary posting here...without a doubt video is most definitive evidence that man stepped on the moon, hands down! I’m gonna give you a like for this one because it is what is expected from the schoolteacher😎👍 >>>> American Moon (English Version) ruclips.net/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/видео.html
Collins claim on this video has been completely DEBUNKED. Just because a person (Collins) says it does not make it any more fact.... ruclips.net/video/_x49lImzw5s/видео.html
@@shawncrossen7580 yeah well that is what the self declared "Qualified" do all the time, then they ask you for Definite Evidence. He is not sure they walked on Moon, but sure the had the Tech, was sure of film tech after asking others then less sure, so "impossible" turned to "unlikely".
@@wildboar7473 Even if this Collins is an expert and even if he was right in what he said, which he wasn't, his sense of arrogance and snippy attitude in this video really makes him unlikable, for lack of a better word.
@@shawncrossen7580 yeah the homosapien had the nerve to accuse Jarrah of being condescending... rant about selling the Soul... when he has no belief in that. One wonders what state his rational Mind is.
Establishment puppets...right? Of course but what if the idea of going to the moon appeals to my sense of adventure and that’s it? I know it’s cool to be anti-establishment and all, but at the end of the day ya gotta eat
The Kubrick thing always cracks me up! As you say, it seems to be based entirely on the fact that he made 2001. But if we take off our rose tinted glasses and watch 2001 - and actually OBSERVE it- the effects are terrible! For the main part they amount to photographs cut out and pasted onto glass. And his depiction of the moon is primarily a 2d matte painting, that looks NOTHING like the moon in NASA's footage. Can you imagine the speed that disk would be running if it was 95 times bigger! Wow, the technical obstacles alone make the idea laughable! Glad you mentioned the bank bailouts. Those who criticise space exploration are usually unaware that the bailouts cost more than NASA has in its entire history!
And your argument consists entirely of a crass obscenity. that's the kind of incisive reasoning that it the mark of the true tinfoil-hatter; well done madam!
Evil Twin And don't forget, the video only deals with ways to record and store the faked imagery; you'd still need ways to create convincing fake imagery, or you'd have nothing to to put on the storage media
Evil Twin _"a 2d matte painting, that looks NOTHING like the moon in NASA's footage"_ So the picture of Earth that Neil Actor holds up to the window to *fake* being halfway to the moon, during their 3 day low earth orbit, was that also a 2d matte painting ? I thought it looked quite real. *UNTIL I SAW HIS ARM IN THE SHOT*
ᚱᛰUᛠӖᚱ ᚦᗩӖϻᛰᚤ Neil armstrong does no such thing. The con man Bart Sibrel deceptively edited Apollo 11 telecast footage and SUGGESTED that what appeared to be silhouetted arm was Neil's , and that Neil was faking the mission. But looking at the UNEDITED Apollo 11 footage proves this could not possibly be so.
This is pretty damn wonderful. Also, it's always interesting when you find an old video whose comments have been so consistently active and populated by regulars that it's pretty much become like an entire subreddit.
More brainstorming! Intersting indeed, bet you dont remember Me here ("for yearS"), O some Regulars "partimers" have returned and a few have taken leave... perhaps due to One insufferable incomprehensible wordsalad ignorant guy.... But the *wonderful* Filmaker (who doesnt care at all for APOLLO) is receiving many praises anymore. The Sapien intelligence and hat looks dont compensate.
@@Vanished_Mostly the more comments i posted , the more youtube notification will drag me back here again, resulting in me posting more comment... seem like downward spiral isnt it.
Also, it doesn't take into account that if you 'speed up' the so called 'slowed down' footage to match an Earth 1G environment (i.e. such as you might find in every studio on the planet), that things still don't jive. Saw a RUclips video where a guy did the adjustments using thrown objects and a cover with a connecting chain (that swung like a pendulum), to do the calculations for the adjustments, sped up the film, and the result is odd, overly fast motion by the astronauts. So, doing any sort of slow motion to fake anything is completely impossible from the get go, not to mention all the filmmaker knowledge you bring to the table about the technical aspects of doing it (if slow mo actually worked).
_"doing any sort of slow motion to fake anything is completely impossible from the get go"_ No it just eludes you and some guy doing a video on youtube. Hardly the most discerning sleuths in Christendom are you ?
@@user-tt5js4bh2v Nothing is eluding anyone. It's basic physics. If slow motion was used, you can do the math to figure out how slow it would have to be done on Earth to make it appear to be on the Moon. It's basic math. It can't be done with slow motion. Try it for yourself, see if you do it. You can't. Also, remember this was a live continuous broadcast for long periods of time, and back then, the only 'live' slow motion replay was a few seconds for sporting events. No such machine existed that could slow mo that length of time.
@@johanlaurasia _"It can't be done with slow motion"_ Where did I say it was done using slow motion? Oh that's right *I did not* it's actually just your simple minded straw man argument. Small thoughts in a small mind. Now run along.
You quoted me saying: "doing any sort of slow motion to fake anything is completely impossible from the get go", then you said: "No it just eludes you and some guy doing a video on RUclips.", so you implied that it was possible and everyone else was just too stupid to figure out how to do it. Also, I'm just trying to have a conversation about it, and your responses are full of trolling comments about how small my mind is. You seem to have pretty big balls trolling from the internet, but I doubt you'd talk shit like that to me if you were standing in front of me. So, you can believe whatever retarded bullshit it is that you want, I won't respond to any more of your trolling bullshit though.
I was a teenage Radio Amateur in 1969. Not one one hoaxer has been able to explain why, in the UK, i was only able to intercept the audio broadcast back channel at 2230 MHz with the directional dish aerial pointing at the moon......and dont even bother suggesting it was reflected ,at that frequency, with that technology, and with the inverse square law the signal would have needed a disc ten times bigger than Jodrell bank to hear it.
A repeater was placed on the prior lunar surveyor missions that were already on the surface of the moon, you were listening to a hoax. Get over yourself, you actually think that you cannot be fooled
@Cliff Walden every single piece of evidence presented, these idiots will create some elaborate conspiracy to deny it. It shows that constantly cutting education is creating some really stupid people
@@brianmenendez so NASA was able to land a radio on the Moon? Maybe you should tell this to all the Moon landing deniers who claim that space doesn't exist. When you get your stories straight then come back.
Wait, let me ask you to clarify. You did get the back channel? We did too and more -- We got full S-Band (2 to 4 Ghz) just fine in Seattle, so did the Italians, but we used high-end systems at Boeing -- UHF crosses over to SHF at 3GHz. You were at 2.2Ghz (UHF). Did you have the modulator or whatever (I'm not a radio guy) for SHF? Most amateur's I know didn't. But again I'm asking (not doubting) because I'm not a radio guy. Analog is a lost art.
Very convincing. People who aren't 70 like me don't recall how bulky and primitive tech was years ago. I used to program a huge disk based IBM 1130 with a stack of punch cards.
Break? And nothing, really, is better than Bach. Hard to argue: was a devout Lutheran, and it is clear that his Christian faith informed his work as a musician (opposed to the Great Nothingness, Bang or Soup). Bach's compositions include hundreds of cantatas, both sacred and secular. He composed Latin church music, Passions, oratorios, and motets. He often adopted Lutheran hymns, not only in his larger vocal works but, for instance, also in his four-part chorales and his sacred songs. (Jesu Juva) with which Bach begins each composition is to him, the orthodox Lutheran, a humble prayer for God's assistance and inspiration, the S D G (Soli Deo Gloria) with which he closes his work is the thanksgiving for the prayer heard. 🙏 Psalm 42 NIV - BOOK II Psalms 42-72 Why, my soul, are you downcast? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God.
What religious faith is Bruce Springsteen? Catholic Bruce Springsteen & REM - Man on the Moon - Live in Cleveland (10/02/2004) note: the Brain is not Vestigial garbage, its God given computer :) Use it!
No welcome back for Herr Schultz ? Hans Schmidt also not averse to plagiarizing talent. He doesn't wants to wake up from monkey teachers. Encourage people to heil Silverback$ sieg. "...some skylord🧠 randomly influencing the system or other silly nonsense"? "Some of them need a compass in this jungle (nasa & dawson science) Because they can't find their way in this jungle (spin globe find...) So much hate and contempt is in the jungle (EU DisinfoLab howls) So be careful who you make a pact with in the jungle" (/nasa haeckel...) ...ape-pride Advocates (+other prides...) wont be playing harp latter...
"All quiet on the eastern front." (NOT!) 😎 Why is Psalm 19.1, “the heavens declare the glory of God,” and “the firmament showeth his handywork” on Wernher von Braun's gravestone? >> he turned christian after nasa experience, as Others. What was Wernher von Braun's famous quote? I believe in an immortal soul. Science has proved that nothing disintegrates into nothingness. Life and soul, therefore, cannot disintegrate into nothingness, and so are immortal. (
@@therealzilch "That proves Kubrick was behind it. Perfectionist that he was, he would have insisted on shooting on location." The same Stanely Kubrick who was such a perfectionist, he shot Full Metal Jacket, a film set in Vietnam, in London?👍
I met Neil Armstrong through a family friend back in 2002 and had a lovely tour of his home. He showed me so many pictures and just by talking to him you know he lived it. Too many dumb people in the world believing others and in most cases they have never done a single bit of research. Great video
Supermanbrl- that’s awesome! Must have been a great experience, and I agree, if you talk to people who have the experience of something with great risk attached, you know they are telling you how it was, it’s in the language used to describe the event. Simple really, strange how some people just can’t accept that?
@@nicsandee123 I met Dr. Wernher Von Braun through my father's cousin and visited his home before his death. He told me that Apollos were all fake, and that they were Hot-Hydrogen-Balloons, and that he had screwed NASA for his own survival, and the survival of thousands of captive German POWs, brought over as engineers, so he had to sell the Moon-Hoax to NASA, but since it didn't work he had to fake it, but that his smoking gun was in the fake TWR===1.2 with which NO rocket could get off the ground, even one inch!!! So, he gave me the mission to disclose that secret, which I eventually did, with my short videos, linked at my name-link above!!!
@@kareemsalessi "but that his smoking gun was in the fake TWR===1.2 with which NO rocket could get off the ground" Poor Kareem. Tries to tell some elaborate lie and then stumbles over the fact that he never looked up what TWR describes...
I work in the film industry but I never really thought about this the way you present it. Great work, and love your very low key aproach and tone. Thanks!
And thousands of people would have had to know it was being faked, and all of them have kept it secret all these years. This is an excellent take and hilarious as well. Well done S.G.
Not billions? Yes all those guys (shopworkers) working on Moon would of witness first hand with own eyes. And been happy towards treason to their Employer /Government, putting their Country in shame. Perhaps they become loved heroes? Least get a raise by those cooperating Aviation Industries. All major MS corporate Media would of been so happy (more than Watergate. Only 1 dared with Proof) to print, or broadcast to happy grateful Americans already proud with Vietnam and social racist turmoils. note: before she passed away this "sapien" H thing..... admitted defeat to critic Amateur Jarrah White on all these "impossibles".
I've never understood how anybody could come up with the (moon landings were fake) conspiracy, if they only did it once I could see people thinking that, but six times?
Exactly, even just faking it twice would be a miracle....but faking this worldwide event 6 times? Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17, and then keeping it a secret for over 50 years while fooling every scientist in the world including the Soviets? Not even a miracle can save the ridiculousness of this stupid conspiracy theory. This is not even including the 3 extra manned missions that only orbited the moon, Apollo 8, 10, and 13, and all the rocket test and test flights from Apollo 1-7, Mercury, and Gemini missions combined. If they were going to fake the moon landings, why go through all the trouble and effort building those expensive rockets, risking lives, spending lots of money, working diligently day in day out, for over a decade, only to fake it in the end, knowing one day they'll get caught eventually? AND then faking 5 more times increasing the risks of the getting caught...just complete nonsense, absolute rubbish.
Getting away with it six times just proves how big the conspiracy is. I suspect demonic involvement. Might even be a personal project of the Horned God Himself.
interestingly its the christian church that made popular the term flat earth nitwits. during the "dark ages" ie times when christians were not free to murder, rape, oppress, steal what they wanted without consequence... the opposition were cast with every slur they could find retrospectively. irony being that christians were the ones that thought the heavens revolved around earth and that earth was centre of the universe. Eratosthenes had already calculated the circumference of the earth in about 240bc.
And this is where your brainwashing has worked as you associate people who think and have very good logicle arguments against the moon landing with mindless lunatics who believe the earth is flat! This was the purpose of the flat earth psychological operation they have done on your mind...
@@alienscientist8893 The point is, the hoax believers do NOT have good logical arguments against the Moon landings. They just come out with the same Gish gallop stuff that has been debunked a thousand times. Not one of them has ever come up with actual evidence for a fake. Not one has ever come up with a narrative that explains how the landings were faked, where they were faked, how they were organised, how they kept it secret for half a century, why they presented so much visual material when they could have got away with stills, and so on. Hoax believers are little better than flat earthers. If that offends you, learn some science.
@@paulbeardsley4095 Hahahahahaha that's funny as there's dozens of films on RUclips pointing out the totally fakery of it,, try looking at the luna model take off from the moon,,, No I don't give a shit about who operated the camera,, im looking at a piece of plastic on wires,, I mean you can lie to your self about what you are looking at if you like,, some fucking idiot film maker is not going to be able to tell me that is real.. I think some of the shots of actual wire on the space station is also a dead give away.. But again the religion is strong with you so seeing is not believing with you lunatics.
Your attempt to wake them up has failed. They aren't concerned about facts. They just want to believe that it's a conspiracy and conspiracy videos are all that they'll watch.
Most believers (including you) would continue to believe in the Moon landings even if there were irrefutable proof that it didn't happen. Like, someone else goes there and bring today's tech and film the empty landing sites.
Simboiss, did you even watch the entire video, or did you dive straight into the comments first? This *movie director* explains how faking the moon landings in 1969 is impossible, if not, very, very hard/impractical. The Chinese rover went to the moon and saw no stars in the sky and the regolith changed colour depending on how you look at it. The Soviets claimed to have tracked Apollo 11 on it's way to the moon and back (with shock and shame), and so too did the Spanish. Other non-NASA parties relayed the moon missions, such as Spain and Australia. Since this is fact, it means that not have NASA created a huge hoax to cover up the faked moon landings, but the Russians, the Spanish, the Chinese AND the Australians are also all in on the conspiracy (the Soviets were supposedly the ones being lied to). "BUT THEY JUST PAYED THEM ALL!" Yeah, you really think that Russia, America's former mortal enemy, would have been willing to accept money in exchange for losing the space race (and then pretend to be bankrupt)? They would have spread the news like wildfire, and the US would have been in shame for attempting to lie to the entire world. I'd like to see a *rational, factual and non-crazy* explanation to the above. Citations: www.honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/fresnedillas/index.html www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutu_(rover) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Well, I can refute briefly. The point of the movie is interesting, but the real-time aspect of the videos was not needed. Also, the quality of the videos diffused, especially Apollo 11, was so low that any "defect" would have went unnoticed. Who cares about dust and weird cuts when the video is so low quality because of the various "convertions". The other points. The problems with the absence of stars is for the astronauts, not the photos or videos. The astronauts said they couldn't see stars, either on the surface of the Moon, or en route to it. The Soviets didn't have the necessary tech to track anything that could give Apollo away. I don't know about the Spanish. The third-party proofs are either inexistent or flimsy. Normal citizens don't have the gear for that, and the frequency bands used by Apollo were high and out of allowed bands, which is suspicious in itself. Those who had enough tech were part of the NASA network. As for the Chinese, it's big "meh". It's more plausible today to send unmanned robots, but humans, it's another story. The change of color could be attributable to the white balance, but yeah, it's possible that the Moon has some color.
Two Australian buildings relayed signals from the moon while the USA was turned away from the moon, and in fact the Parkes Observatory was the first entity to receive signals of Neil Armstrong making his first steps on the surface, and these signals were relayed from Parkes to NASA mission control in Houston. The Spanish "Madrid Deep Space Communication Complex" also relayed signals (but they are part of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, so I guess that makes them 'in on the conspiracy' by default). So are the Australians in on the conspiracy? www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/ www.honeysucklecreek.net/msfn_missions/Apollo_11_mission/index.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Deep_Space_Communications_Complex
@@narajuna who’s whining...I think maybe it’s those who dwell in hoax Nation that do the most, what with the ‘Shills’, ‘GOV agents’, ‘sheeple’, ‘NASATURDS’ and I almost forgot the old classic...‘ NPC’s’. They do tend to get upset by some facts, I know it must be a bummer for them... that’s life I guess. As for losing ground... who be doing that? Not I say the hoaxers just before slipping on their own snake oil!😎👍
@@nicsandee123 WHO? You dont say, dont you read other comments then mine? Poor Eventcon :( >>> ; "If you want to comment then educate yourself, or otherwise refrain."[1] "You make continuous attempts to cast doubt on this or that aspect of the Apollo missions based on what amounts to nothing more than your own ignorance." ( - not much of attempts= but he's at them...) " - the hoaxuts are just going to run with it like the satire was true." 'Indeed - people seem to be claiming "truth" as their own personal property. Truth is what they believe, and they can believe whatever they want. Which is indeed insanity." - decent no name calling etc "They've just completed humanity's first manned lunar landing and you want to lambaste their presentation? Now THAT's "pitiful"." WHO? YOU! ; "I’d say most folks come here with the preconceived notion that the moon landings are fake." "Ahh, but in this age of ‘fakeness’ and conspiracy. A person need only to keep repeating one point to hammer home any kind of nonsense they want to sell." "you young hoax folks always dismiss us older guys as ‘dumb boomers’ - from a guy who did that to me. "In a world gone insane, a world where people would rather believe something is fake first,'" "I think what’s pitiful is the amount of people who blindly accept that the moon landings were fake." - ...love and respect you show to all those who might disagree with you or have a valid point,??? PALS ; "stop spreading your false flat eather rumor/hoax here. you've been doing this for the pass 3 years" "You conspiracists swallow any old shit." "People say FAKE then never even try to refute what this guy says." "As they say: people who rely on gut feelings have shit for brains." - a decent non name caller. "Or are you just another hoax coward and will now run away?" - you see no complaining therein? Perhaps english cognitiveness is not your thing..... YOU dont for sure👍 😃 (eyes with no sunglass blinders) note: primitive snakes present quite simple eyes, with only rods which allow them to distinguish light and darkness. That explain something. hey it was worth a shot I suppose? [1] (oh and I’ll write whatever I please in the comments section,)
@@narajuna 1] (oh and I’ll write whatever I please in the comments section ---please do, I always appreciate a nice big wall of text... they really get my motor running 😎👍
AWESOME! (I posted that after the first couple of minutes because it is so refreshing to hear someone talk about things they actually KNOW about - but then I got to the end and wow, that's where the real content is). This is what I keep trying to explain to alternative reality believers/conspiracy theorists: they're definitely not all that good at spotting real conspiracies which, as you say, happen all over the place. Really glad to see someone who gets it.
Now we have the technology to fake the moon landing, but we no longer have the telemetry data etc. nor the ability to go to the moon? Fair enough, we should fake a Mars mission.
Whoever told you we have no telemetry data lied to you. And we _do_ have the ability to go to the Moon - we just need to build the actual spacecraft to do so.
@@Jan_Strzelecki The telemetry data was erased. This is old news, my man. NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing. www.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-tapes/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716 'NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing. Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking for them. The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed - magnetically erased - and re-used to save money." Anybody who told you NASA needed to save money by ERASING THE TELEMETRY DATA -- that's the person that lied to you. Cheers
@@anotherlover6954 : likely 50 year old tapes wouldn't be much good anyway. They degrade in storage. Likely all the important data can still found, in books, or other copies. Also, why would NASA chose to rebuild 60 yr old tech to go back to the moon?
Brilliantly executed, wonderfully informed, technically explicit, verifiable and humorous, but with a note of serious, soul-searching inquiry. I can't praise this highly enough. Should be on the syllabus for 'Critical Thinking' courses.
NASA had billions of dollars to work with at the time of making the landing on the moon look real, although they had men orbit around the earth for 8 days, they never landed on the moon, that was staged with lots of money like I said, NASA had billions of dollars to worth it, and at that time it was a RACE TO SPACE and if they couldn't make it, they faked it to beat the Russians or anyone at the time. that's what won the war!!!!! also there is creators that look like the moon at AREA 51.
What a load of autofellatory rubbish. This video is testament to how broken the USA actually is. Doesn't it occur to you that the greatest country in the world shouldn't have to blackmail people into making such facile tub thumping ?
ᚱᛰUᛠӖᚱ ᚦᗩӖϻᛰᚤ ....glass houses.... So then, foul-mouthed, preening, perversion preoccupied fakir, why don't you tell us what country YOU hail from, so we may avoid the cesspit it must surely be?
*S－Ｏ－D－Ｏ－Ｍ－Ｉ－Ｔ－Ｅ* You probably have to justify your own abject cowardice on a daily basis. It's what has created the majority of your acute schizophrenia. Avoiding being rightfully kicked to death in prison may seem like _self preservation_ to you, but really it was just sinking even lower than you already had. I mean, consider the advantages of killing yourself - no more bills / monitoring of your every movement / being told what to do by civil servants in their 20's who look at you like a fresh pile of dog shit. It's a win win situation.
We got to stay home from school on the day of the first lunar landing , but then the school went and ruined it for us by making us write a report the next day.
@Star Trek Theory nope catholic nuns. wasnt a big deal cuz i was glued to the tv set the whole day, for some reason i was the only one of six boys that stuck it out day after day. watched on a sylvania black and white with an oval shaped picture tube that was big as a volkswagen!
A photograph was taken by the Apollo 15 astronauts in 1971. There can be no dispute it was taken at the time as it would have been available soon after the crew's return. Much more recently the Japanese sent up a lunar orbiter which mapped the surface of the moon in 3D. This was then used to recreate the view from the point at which the Apollo 15 shot was taken. The topography was identical. There is no way NASA or anyone else could have created the exactly correct moonscape in the background of the Apollo 15 shot in 1971. www.ianridpath.com/moon/moon17a.htm
Don't you know the US government had super advanced technology that no one knew about. So instead of using that to just go to the moon they faked it and got hundreds of thousands of people to swear to perfect secrecy including members of enemy governments.
slayedshiller The apollo photography is all genuine! Established physical facts ALL prove it: 1) Light CAN be diffused on the Moon and is. Lunar "soil" - called "regolith" - consists largely of microscopic volcanic glass spheres, which exhibit "retroreflection". This is the phenomenon in which sunlight is reflected back approximately in the direction from which it came. So then, an object in shadow on the lunar surface is softly and diffusely lit by the surface down sun of it. But that is not the only effect of retroreflection. Any view cross-sun will exhibit a darker tone up-sun and a lighter tone looking down-sun because the retroreflected sunlight is away from a viewer looking up-sun, and toward the same viewer looking down-sun. The Apollo photos ARE NOT "all the apollo photos are perfectly, evenly exposed " Have you ever looked at Apollo photos in you life? Try this one: (remove 1 space) tinyurl. com/y82o8may 2) Then you say; " tack sharp infinity focus on a camera is not just a matter of pointing and clicking, you have to set the appropriate apertures then reference the lower third of the frame to achieve perfect focus. " Have you ever used a camera in your life? Shooting a landscape with a wide-angle lens set to a at high f/stop, if the nearest object of interest is more than a few feet away, all you need to do is set the focus ring's minimum hash mark to the object's distance, and everything further out WILL be in sharp focus. For that reason, Apollo panoramas would be simplicity itself: set the focus ring so that the infinity mark is on the far depth of field hash mark, and further adjustment would be unnecessary, as everything from a few feet out to infinity would be in focus at the f/stops used.. 3) Finally, you say: ' the hasselblad also had no sheilding from the harsh conditions without an atmosphere and van allen belts to deflect all the solar radiation. ' Yes it did: The camera was coated with a special heat-reflecting paint; (remove space) sterileeye. com/2009/07/23/the-apollo-11-hasselblad-cameras/ But the cameras DID NOT NEED radiation shielding because the only radiation exposure on the Moon was the 0.5 millirem/ hr GCR. And the cameras were in the heavily shielded Command Module for the brief skirting of the VAB's, so were not exposed to significant radiation there. It makes no sense to talk about " the 100 year solar flare spike between 70 and 72 " because no Apollo missions flew during this event. And it makes no sense to talk about gamma radiation, as gamma output from the Sun in normal conditions - as when Apollo missions flew - is essentially zero. tinyurl. com/y9gzts9u No, sorry friend, your posted no "facts", at least none that mean what you think they mean. Your arguments are garbage, plain and simple.
slayedshiller Gets it all wrong again. No idiot, it you who play MY game without knowing it: You begin by showing how illogical, egotistical and wackily unscientific Moon Hoaxers are. i post links for people who are trying to decide about Moon Hoax claims, and want to know more. So by dealing with you, I kill two birds with one stone, and only need to do half the work: You kill-off the Moon Hoax by being yourself, acting like a vulgar idiot who cannot think logically. I provide valid information that is also RELEVANT to the question at hand - something you do not know how to do. There are two kinds of idiots in the world: Plain old idiots, and then YOUR kind: the USEFUL idiot. So by all means DO post and post away to your hearts content. idiot.
slayedshiller Then you have nothing to look forward to except a continuation of the unbroken stream of disappointments your tiny brain has so far earned you.
Another reason why Stanley Kubrick wouldn't have faked the moonlanding is because he wouldn't have allowed Neil Armstrong to mess up his line. :D He would've had him going back up the ladder and say it again a hundred times before it was juuuust right!
Well, yes but’s let’s not forget the good ol’ flag. I doubt Kubrick would have missed that, and the editor Ray Lovejoy (2001) would definitely would not have missed it. The scene would have definitely been reshot. Although there is one explanation that fits but strangely ignored by hoaxers. If the ‘fake landings’ were shot at Shepperton studios in the UK then the tea lady bringing refreshments would be a problem, ask James Cameron. During the shooting of ‘Aliens’ those big studio doors would open, the crew would just drop everything, turn into a mob and grab whatever food they could off that trolley the lady was pushing. The studio doors would be open during this melee. An errant breeze may have snuck in during that time.
I think Stanley would have insisted on a better screenplay. I mean, yes, I know some of Stanley's movies were slow-paced with boring dialogue (Barry Lyndon anyone?) but honestly - there's no way he would have settled for all that interminable technobabble. I mean there's hours of that stuff! I also think the computer would have been a lot more menacing. 1201 alarm? Pffft!
Critics on Superhero Neil Armstrong...line? What is(n't) "just right"? Maybe it was just right for the situation and circonstances, was supposed to be at his best at that point, in front of Millions of Viewers, the camera shy man? Maybe HE make him do just that, supposing that it was him in the suit.... Guess an Other Media food feed guy that prefers nice fakery to the truth. On July 20, 1969, an estimated 650 million people watched in suspense as Neil Armstrong descended a ladder towards the surface of the Moon. As he took his first steps, he uttered words that would be written into history books for generations to come: "That's one small step for man. One giant leap for mankind." Or at least that's how the media reported his words. But Armstrong insisted that he actually said, "That's one small step for a man." In fact, in the official transcript of the Moon landing mission, NASA transcribes the quote as "that's one small step for (a) man."
1:18 Nascissist's ruse of 'correcting grammer when you dont have too (YT comments) strategy.' They always pretend to know, bluffing and when revealed they commonly claim "not literal or just to trigger" an answer. 10 Things Narcissists do to Appear Smarter than They Really Are (they know who they are) ruclips.net/video/OMkrosLHIEs/видео.html >>> @eventcone ...That all kind of funny, giving such a shit to thee after over a year :) of "Boring and wrong bullshit" and yadida dida da! :) :) (well more close to 2 years with 40 critics to ME + his usual sweet pals qualifying over & over...) eventcone 3 weeks ago @Wild Boar Oh you poor dear! Why so sensitive? ...No, I have criticised you for your lousy grammar, indeed at times a total absence of grammatical construction in your comments, which makes them meaningless - a veritable salad of words thrown at the screen! This is a an example: "That all kind of funny, giving such a shit to thee after over a year :) of Boring and wrong bullshit and yadida dida da! :) :)" ... *Your* full time RUclips posting results in so much stuff being posted... (English speaker...) The hilarious irony in all of this is that, whilst you yourself clearly have no idea how to spot moonlanding fakery, you deign to argue with the very people equipped to do so. (HA HA HA!) - his first on Someone's Comment directed at me... followed by 4 more....? Hilarious or irony state? - apparently I am the only One with no expêrience qualifications.. to judge MOON conditons... not clear wich CT Nasa Unbelievers have that... but the very people who are full /part time at CT "bullshit" have such "equipment"? NASA videos?
@@wildboar7473 I noticed my username mentioned twice in your post above. Unfortunately I could not understand a single sentence in your entire posts (other than those I had written for you). Why do you do this? Are you becoming obsessed with me?
Gary You expect WAY too much. And, BTW: Truth, logic, facts and common sense only infuriate these conspiracy morons. They couldn't detect the difference of shit from Shinola if they had their noses rubbed in them!
@@douglang5568 - No important telemetry data is lost, that's a distortion of the facts by conspiracy theorists who never cared about telemetry data in the first place.... UNTIL they incorrectly thought it was lost. Like yourself :-)
@@douglang5568 And if you had any idea, you'd just told what you know, as that would have been a killer argument. But you didn't. Instead you answered with the typical whining of a clueless person who has been identified as a clueless person.
It occurs to me that conspiracy theorists may actually be encouraging critical scientific thought by forcing people to sharpen their own scientific knowledge in order to refute their theories. The people who get sucked into these outlandish ideas were never going to contribute anything meaningful to society to begin with, so I don't honestly mourn their loss. But they help make the rest of us better. They're kind of like the practice squad who aren't good enough for the varsity team, but still contribute by serving as tackling dummies for the gifted players.
You're the type of guy who watches a magician sawing his assistant in half on t.v and wonders how the hell he's going to put her back together again - right ?
@shillslayer You talk really weird....maybe you're a bot. Probably pointless to even answer you. Especially since it has nothing to do with the video at all.
I have always said it would have been easier to go to the moon then to fake it, when a person adds the information in this video to the rest of what was needed for it to be a hoax and you have to conclude that it was easier to goto the moon then to hoax it.
NOMAD FILMS The supporting evidence is this video combined with all of the other evidence video pictures moon samples and the thousands of people whom witnessed and a few years they even photographed one of the landing sites to the point where you could see the trails the astronauts made what I said is not merely assertions. What I said is based on all of the current information, perhaps your reading comprehension needs improvement! I say again. When a logical person adds the information in this video, to the rest of what was needed to hoax the moon landings then a reasonable person has no choice but to conclude that it would have been easier to goto the moon, then to hoax it.!!! This is not an assertion as you put because it is based on knowledge and facts...
no mainstream scientist will admit to the hoax only because its a cultural taboo to do so. the science is in on the matter and several legit analysts have debunked every aspect of the moon landing hoax. furthermore, China recently sent a probe to the moon to the very same location that the USA ostensibly landed and there was absolutely no evidence of the landing. they also discovered that the surface of the moon is not at all the same color as depicted in the NASA photos. the moon is a copper brown color, not gray as depicted by NASA. the surface is also rough, not smooth as depicted in the NASA (faked) photos.
The slow motion techniques would not do. In the moon videos you can clearly see that only the free fall vertical moving is slowed down, while the horizontal movements are at the expected speed (like the dust thrown from the rover wheels). So, it was absolutely impossible without the nowadays technology.
So you don't believe they sent men into space during the 60s? You don't believe they kept men alive in space for weeks during the 60s? You don't believe they landed unmanned craft on the moon during the 60s?
A silly man called Felix said, "In this world there are two kiinds of people, my friend: those who don't take this clown seriously and those who do it. These last are the one who spent their entire lives digging." I replied that I would rather dig for the truth than believe conspiracy theories that fly in the face of evidence. Guess what? Felix deleted it. He does that because he cannot stand being challenged by wiser posters.
You are a waste of time:A fake anyone who cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy is a fake.What is the name of your fake book and how many did you sell.Give me the name your. of your college you graduated from.
@@antjuanmcghee2797 Like most conspiracists, you know you will never achieve anything yourself, so you are bitter about anyone who actually has achieved something.
@@antjuanmcghee2797 "You are a waste of time:A fake anyone who cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy is a fake." So that makes you a fake then...
You said "Guess what? Felix deleted it." Yep, he does that frequently, and then gets upset when you call him a coward for deleting the threads *he* started :-)
@TwentyEighthParallel Also, Pete Conrad-Alan Bean, Alan Shepard-Edgar Mitchell, David Scott-James Irwin, John Young-Charles Duke, Gene Cernan-Harrison Schmitt.
@@howardbaxter2514 pretty sure is not definitely , even your subconscious being has doubt. I also like chess, is this is when you flip over the board and walk away cursing
PERFECT! One reason these guys are missing this is not only that they misunderstand basic filmmaking and lighting, but also basic physics! I have gotten involved in discussions where I was accused of being brainwashed by NASA because I believe in gravity, and Newton, last time I checked, didn't work for NASA. Their favourite argument is the Van Allen Belt impossibility, which Van Allen addressed himself. And most of these deniers weren't alive at the time of the moon landings. They are younger kids just starting out, and can't understand physics, and that is a perfect storm.
....funny not what he (/she) said, Impossible turned to "bloody unlikely" after being beat up by amateur Jarrah White. Hard to believe as stupid as that... not an other aerospace engineer? Few of them, with rocket scientists and brain surgeons.... Actually ALL our favorites are mega "debunked" by Physics Knowers.... You dont say, not sure about most, hell of lot of folks did not buy it TV show. This is a favorite of yours? You bark a lot, nothing Physic wise, just emotional karen stuff :)
ha ha 2 old shills thumbed up *that!* 😂 Sure got shy those old Stalkers.... Other dummy asking me if i can see stars in daytime.... doesnt seem to like....
"Pretty sure / think" Dude complained quickly about this being a awful period of his life and wanting to move on. Forced to conceed with a "bloody unlikely". sgcollins 10 years ago hi jarrah, yes it's really two different subjects. i was aware of some 60s era high-speed imaging systems that could register short bursts of action at low resolution. but not video per se, as in NTSC resolution video. i think what you're suggesting is that they recorded the action at 29,97 fps on quad, then made frame-accurate edits from that tape to a disc recorder, then made frame-accurate edits from that to another quad machine. is that how you really think they did it? /-3zhZqiSe5c "This video is intended as a follow up to my two earlier rebuttals to S.G. Collins. The latter part of this claim can be debunked on the fact that you don't need to store the entire video on the disk recorder. You can record the whole thing on videotape and then feed each 30seconds into the HS-200 and then transfer the slowmo playback to a second videotape. Collins himself acknowledged that this method was theoretically possible for Apollo 11, but is adamant that colour high speed video cameras were not available in time for Apollo 14. Wrong again: the Video Logic Corporation released a high speed system called InStar in 1970. Collins claims it could only do black and white and thus could not be used for the latter Apollo telecasts. Not according to Video Logic Corporation's own M. Chan, who assures his readers that this system was capable of both B&W and colour." JARRAH WHITE
![Yeat & Quavo - 5BRAZY [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4XxnTAwyxus/mqdefault.jpg)
If you want to perpetrate a gargantuan hoax, you do it once, heave a sigh of relief if you think you've succeeded and leave it at that. You don't go repeating it multiple times with ever-increasing chances of being found out. The hoaxers sometimes forget that there were nine moon missions, six of which landed on the lunar surface . . .
Okay WE sometimes forget, even if every kid in the block comes out with that original rational, but hey we are not taken seriously and dont love the apollo program. Found out by WHOM & HOW? Not like down here where there are lots of Folks and Clues be found.
Nothing changed in those 3 years, so what goes on in SPACE stays in SPACE back then.
Not like now 50 years latter everyboyd is driving around up there. Remind WE of the increased risk.
@P. Spit You don’t have the slightest clue what a hoax would actually involve.
@P. Spit As I said, you don’t have the slightest clue.
@P. Spit Your surrender is noted.
@P. Spit People don’t resort to kindergarten insults when they are winning an argument.
funny
in 69 they could go to the moon and not fake it
in 2018
they can fake it but cant go the moon anymore
Exactly. Makes no sense.
We can go there... Nobody wants to PAY for it...
In 1969, we could go to the fucking moon.
In 2018, we need to tell people not to eat tide pods.
hahaha. so true
In 1911 Norway beat Britain to the South Pole in their equivalent of the _space race_ . Britain was a bit peeved, but 'tally ho chaps' and all that.
As far as I know, this did not in any way prevent Britain and many other countries providing large funding to explorers for the continuing exploitation of Antarctica. To the extent that it's now a bustling hive of secrecy and clandestine military bases.
This gigantic _waste of money_ being spent on something with _zero public interest_ must surely all be down to the fact that there are no penguins on the moon.
Remember when the russian's totally called bullshit on this whole thing and went on telling the whole planet that their worst enemy is pranking everyone?
Neither did I.
You'll upset Felix with this.
It's a real thorn in his side. It's fun watching him trying to explain why Russia didn't cry foul.
@@paulbeardsley4095 It is, you spacecadets do work hard for all that fun.
They cheated and USA could prove it, plus get got a least big grain payoff to shutup. Same bankers with same agenda, ennemies as the top 2 political parties are...
@@wildboar7473 They didn't get the grain payoff, though. They bought it through intermediaries at a normal price, without the USA initially catching up, and _then_ the market reacted and the grain price rose accordingly. This claim is putting the cart before the horse.
@@Jan_Strzelecki No? My bad!
The Great Grain Robbery was the July 1972 purchase of 10 million tons of United States grain (mainly wheat and corn) by the Soviet Union at subsidized prices, which resulted in higher grain prices in the United States. ... In a 10-month span food prices around the world rose 30% in 1973.
en.wikipedia.org/en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Great_grain_robbery
Great grain robbery - Wikipedia
In November 1969, the U.S. Air Force sent Russia an early Christmas gift.???
It was a sleek flying machine that bore an uncanny resemblance to the SR-71 Blackbird spy plane.
The American generosity was purely unintentional.??? :)
@felix mendez _Nowhere near their minuscule minds has the idea crossed that the Russians may have kept silence on the matter for the simple reason that they didn’t give a shit._
Except that they _did_ give a shit, Felix. Even though they didn't officially acknowledge the challenge (which I'm not even sure is factually correct, but it's beside the point) we _know_ that they _did_ plan on going to the Moon themselves.
And, again, revealing the fakery would prove the superiority of the Soviet technology to the other Soviet block countries. Do you really imagine that Soviets wouldn't "give a shit" about _that?_ :)
_THEY DIDN’T PLAN TO SEND ANY MEN TO THE MOON BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T NEED TO AS THEY COULD DO EVERYTHING ON SITE WITH ONLY UNMANNED MISSIONS_
Except for taking the lunar rock samples, and core samples, etc. :)
_AND THEY COULDN’T PROTECT EITHER THEIR COSMONAUTS AGAINST DEADLY RADITION-Funny thing, the same problem NASA has now, FIFTY YEARS LATER_
No, it's an entirely different problem altogether, Felix. The "problem" NASA had and solved *six years* ago was protecting the astronauts from radiation during *long term missions* - like, um, I dunno… *landing on Mars?!* You _do_ know that Mars is much farther from Earth than the Moon is, Felix, right? _Right?_ :D
_That is what many (smart) people think also._
Oh, no, not at all, Felix. The whole scientific and professional world accepts the Moon landings as true.
_At the time the Soviet regime was having big problems tryng to feed their population and annual deficits in the output of grain, mainly wheat, used to run into several millions of tons._
Wrong year, Felix. The first Moon landing was in 1969, and the grain shortage started happening *two years later* :)
_Coincidentally, only a couple of years later_
Note the "later" part here? Your narrative doesn't fit the facts, Felix :)
Had the Moon landings been faked, Soviets and China would've denounced them in 1969. Not two years later, not "couple of years" later, but in 1969.
A true RUclips classic. I wanted to find it again after many years
YT Classic is good? Many say its not a place to get anything good, huge danger of being Brainwashed! But yeah it will last despite the hate. What matters is the gov lies all the time & perpertrating real Conspiracies regularly on Us.
@@narajuna Get off the drugs.
@@Jellybeantiger to be able to type THAT?
Thank you for bringing up The Patriot Act, the biggest piece of anti-American tyranny of this Century. And this Century is still young.
Get a skull enema or shut up.
The Patriot Act sucks but it really has not effected day to day life in the US like say prohibition did. I am not a fan of The Patriot Act but I still feel the need to keep it in historical context.
This statement has nothing to do with patriotism, just with pure logic.
Luna EB Have you looked into WHY we have never been back? Context is real important...
win ring have you looked into why or how they lost or destroyed all evidence of going? Every, single, bit of it. Don’t bother all you’ll find is some tard saying “I’d go back in a nano second”.
“Make sure everybody in the filming set died mysteriously in a car crash”
And yet they didn't.
@@paulbeardsley4095 That's true many lived, just a few in cars & planes got eliminated, Reagan got the President reward for it!
@@wildboar7473 Wernher von Braun worked for NASA, Walt Disney did films for them, and President Eisenhower established NASA in the first place. Where are they all now? Dead.
@@therealzilch Kaysing claimed Irwin was just about to "spill the beans" and reveal the hoax, and suggested that's why he was "killed".
Apollo did have military aspects: Project Chapel Bell remains classified to this day, the CIA connection got exposed, all illegal stuff.
@@wildboar7473 Kaysing was a nutcase.
RIP Collins. Thank you for everything you've given us as an artist, and an intellectual.
He just left? Knew he been in hospital, not sure about the rest, this had been a awful period in his life, none of his Admirers can name one real Conspiracy...
Obviously yet an other who had not read The Demon-Haunted World.
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've (Sheeple norm) been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.(event con)😎 We're no longer interested in finding out the truth.(self thinking) The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been (Nasa) taken (School programming). Once you give a charlatan (Gov) power over you, you almost never get it back." ― Carl Sagan
Oh no. I sent him a thank you for this video years ago, and he was kind enough to send a thank you email back. I've sent this clip to hundreds of people when they question :/
RIP indeed
wonder what folks think when these superior intellectual full of proof videos have many hidden replies?
I normally ignore debunks because hoaxers' arguments just don't pass basic burden of proof tests; but here I actually learned something positive about history, and that's well worth it!
@@narajuna Is that English?
@@sntslilhlpr6601 It's a lousy variation of it.
Sure lot of inputting by the english, least top dog did more then a line.
Leaving aside these english carring youtubers
Since when does a ARGUEMENT require burden PROOF TESTS ???
Sounds lame variation of scientific approch.
SOMEONE THAT DIDNT IGNORE....
One 1 ONE UNUS wild guy without a job wrote 1 book with no Publisher.
A man always denigrated by hateful stalking Preditors as being NOBODY:
not a scientists, no qualifications, knows nothing about rockets, many cats.
BILL KAYSING
Kaysing thus wrote a book titled We Never Went to the Moon:
*America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle* *in 1976*
*ONE 1 UNOS Year latter.....*
*National Aeronautics and Space Administration* (Gov agency)
Prints a >>> FACT SHEET
[ From time to time we are asked the question above as a result of at least one book and recurring articles in various publications based either on its content or individuals' expressions of their opinions.]
FACT >> *- USA GOV* does not make such ISSUES on all non arguements
I can not even find such for JFK Assasination rumor plots !
Video in 1969. With video tape. Not disc. ruclips.net/video/yddRRExWEvs/видео.html
@@narajuna I had a stroke reading this
This might be the single best response I've ever heard from the photography perspective, retorting against the 'fake moon landing' story. Very methodical, informative, humbly presented and entertaining. It's refreshing to hear a mellow voice narrating a monologue on RUclips rather than full-blast the whole time like a lot of presenters.
So the proven apollo reality episodes need responses? Humbly?? The Honno Sapien was respectful to Others?
Many with more 'knowledge' have debunked him, just like Jarrah White, She has more than just mellow voice....
/_x49lImzw5s /-3zhZqiSe5c /zE6OIPlQ3-8 2:50 😃
ruclips.net/video/wqDUnUbrf84/видео.html&ab_channel=ApolloDetectives
Here is more of less talk and more Evidence of the HUGE retorting against the "total nonsense debunked thousands of times" that goes on despite ARTEMIS ! *Apollo 16 - Astronauts on Wires* ruclips.net/video/WrwR2C9kgLY/видео.html used to a few of these displays of glittering lines :)
ps: nothing humble about this non-straight sapien, but yes the "man" or evolved Primate of sorts.... did huge research to makeup this entertainment.
Ever research Operation Fishbowl?
@@ViralOpinion what's that have to do with the fact it was impossible to fake the moon landing with the film technology available in the 60s?
I haven't watched this video in awhile. Every time I watch it, it's better than I remembered.
well nice someone appriciates taking on hoaxsters such zeal.
[ NASA has been confounded by these questions, though not because the agency is unable to answer them. Rather, the old science geeks believe it is beneath their SAT scores to respond at all. As James Oberg, a noted space writer, recalls: ''NASA put out this press release in 2001 that said something like: 'There's a debate about whether we went to the moon. We did.' End of press release. They are hampered by their own conceit.''
The nasa.gov Web site, for example, refuses to debunk hoaxers directly.
But not long after Oberg was hired, NASA was embarrassed by press reports of the assignment and panicked at the thought of being seen as surrendering intellectual equivalence to the hoaxers. ''We canceled the program,'' a spokesman, Bob Jacobs, told me. ''There is no book deal. We are not taking on the hoaxers.'']
www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/magazine/lunar-tics.html
It’s awesome! ❤️ It inspired me to make my own video, focusing on different evidence! ruclips.net/video/03qPteWBVTc/видео.html
The G joy man is full of it, no wonder he takes a beating here on the TOP & Newest comment section.
MoonFaker: Disk Recorders & High Speed Video Cameras ruclips.net/video/_x49lImzw5s/видео.html
Wild Boar lol! Okaaay 😂😘
@@mesonparticle Talking about AWESOME, In Death Valley you would see the stars. The best place to see stars is the desert *at night,* in Nevada it is amazing. Did you know that?
This video is phenomenal however I have to disagree with his statement that "nowadays it would be easy to fake the moon landings", I am sure what he means is that it would be easy to fake some of the footage but there is still no way to fake the tracking of the Apollo missions. Transmissions from the Apollo crafts moving from earth orbit, to the moon, into moon orbit, landing and returning to earth were tracked by people all over the world. The transmission source can not only be pinpointed as to how far it is from earth but also the speed of the craft due to doppler effect. There was no way to fake it then and there still isn't. Another detail is that the radio and television signals traveled at different speeds, as the Apollo crafts moved further and further from earth the delay between the signals increased which is another giveaway that they really were transmitting from the moon. Oh and one more detail, by Apollo 14 we began using the rovers of which there exists hours of footage. The footage of the dust being kicked out by the tires not only proves that they were in 1/6th of earths gravity but also in a vacuum as the dust clearly is not being met with air resistance. If you think NASA had a way of creating a movie set in 1969 that was not only 1/6th earths gravity but also a vacuum about 2 acres in size and in which you are unable to see the supporting walls and structure on film you are certified batshit crazy and not to mention crazy, crazy dumb!
Well said. However, when Collins is talking about faking it, I think he means solely in film/video terms.
It certainly wasn't possible to simulate 1/6 gravity and vacuum convincingly back then. It's probably not possible now either, but I'm not sure about that.
@@paulbeardsley4095 I think we're very close to photorealistic human simulations (at least Hollywood seems to be), so if you put such footage through a low res filter, and simulate all the physics... Maybe? :)
@@Jan_Strzelecki I wouldn't be surprised if they could do it now. But they didn't even try to fake Mars' gravity when they filmed The Martian 5 years ago.
@@paulbeardsley4095 They did, however, try to fake lunar gravity in "The first Man". And if they really wanted to make a convincing fake, they would have tried to fake the proper gravity as well.
Jan Strzelecki I’ve not seen First Man yet. Did you think it was convincing?
Thank you, S G- As a fellow professional 61 year old cinematographer/videographer who also worked for 12 years as a union assistant cameraman working with Arriflex and Panavision et alia film cameras back in the 1980s-90s, may I say that you are 100 percent correct! :)
Soapbox proof? 100%....aint what HE said after dealing with amateur Jarrah White.
Anyway happy for you he helped /saved your faith. But really SOMEONE got to deal with the REAL ones other than Hoaxsters.
@@narajuna consider this: conspiracies are real and happen all the time - and the powers that be are provably laughing all the way to the bank while people like you bark up this tree which ISN’T a hoax. Every minute of effort you spend chasing this dog makes you blind to the ones that actually happened.
@@lowbrow Government always has specials.... even then as Jarrah White showed there was tricks a Filmmaker could of done to do the impossible.
@@narajunajarrah essentially reframes the same tired talking points and appeals to advanced technologies being secretly available to nasa, decades before they actually existed.
He makes claims. He doesn't support them. And he doesn't refute anything.
"If they haven't lied to you today, maybe they haven't had coffee yet."
brilliant
Daniel Griffin, he had his coffee just before he made this video.
@@watchcitydog Prove it.
@@watchcitydog Prove "he had his coffee just before he made this video"
I haven't had my coffee yet, so I guess that government has lied to me today (side note: it is 5:30pm for me).
@@Lamster66 Sounds like a *Conspiracist!* is he Crazy or just doesnt understand GOV working for our good?
Mr 66 (like #11 helicopher) deleted all, NASA GOV takes coffee early everyday, some juicy material >>>>
"THE APOLLO MOON HOAX: HOW DID THEY DO IT?" COMPLETE VIDEO!
ruclips.net/video/68DRuJrv8Ls/видео.html
As a photographer, myself, you were dead on. Something that no one has ever mentioned is that the tracking of the Apollo missions took place in all the first world countries. No one ever seemed to question its validity. Excellent exposé.
Yank ee, Watch the Fox special where the camera maker Hasselblad is being interviewed and is at a loss.
MrLibertyHugger you guys don't stop, do you...? Like roaches...
@@MrLibertyHugger at a loss as to what?
@@martijnvandenakker803 reaches like you are believers of a fake NASA moon landing
DAH! Everyone tracked, yet the Soviets actually had to rely on our telescopes to track their own lunar probes right up until 1976. The telescopes that the communists were dependent on were the Lovell Telescope and the one at Jodrell Bank. Also, HAM Radio operators could not have tracked the Apollo missions.
Neither could the Russians - this is because of the frequency that Apollo transmitted on: 2GHZ.
*ASP is an acronym for "Apollo Simulation Project",* which was created in 1961 and operated by the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) to "help" NASA with their technical problems by establishing a totally simulated moon mission.
The moon landing was actually filmed in a film studio on Mars, using Stanley Kubrick's iPhone.
So THAT`S what they did! I KNEW IT! Damned NASA fakers!
He was the highest paid boy scout in vietnam
LMAO
@Lissajous Curved im a paddy but what are u doin here ?
They not only never went to the moon, they never even went above low earth orbit.
Knowing a tiny bit about audio and video technology, this makes perfect sense but what makes even more sense are his comments at the end.
THANKS FOR THIS
WELL I dont know about sense making, but shown as not true or reality. Much easier to fake than do....
At thee end.... no Gov Believer has ever backed any *real* conspiracies the gov would dare. Dont look like it blinds much CTs on that.
I love how NASA hires one of the greatest film makers of all time to fake the moon landings, but he and all of the engineers forgot to put stars in the sky, forgot there was no air on the moon to move a flag (how did wind get in a movie studio?), forgot everything they know about lighting and shadows, left marks on props and forgot about how footprints might work in dust.
You have to believe all of that was missed, so actually their own claims of problems in the filming prove that no movie person was used at all, because no one would have made those idiotic errors.
I guess the film maker you are talking about ("one of the greatest film makers of all time") is Stanley Kubrick.
Yet his movie 2001: A Space Oddyssey contains a huge number of errors.
Whilst the Apollo Program footage contains ZERO "errors" (whatever you and assorted other idiots may think).
If you're incapable, as your post suggests, of spotting any of the multitude of errors in 2001, who are YOU to judge the Apollo footage?
Tanstible- footprints in dust test, the easy way.
1. Get a bag of dry Portland cement.
2. Put 1/2 of it on on a large baking tray and then turn to oven to low and leave for 30 minutes.
3.this test is best done in winter after a period of very cold, dry weather > less moisture
4. Pour dry cement on a dry surface, make it about 1 1/2 “ deep (plywood or plastic sheet.
5. Walk in it , and guess what you get footprints. Cohesion is the key, that’s why sand don’t work.😎😉
The fakers also forgot that the stones and rocks they photographed were not possible on the earth and that the sand they used and claimed was 'sharp dust' was retroreflective.
1A Photos:
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5912.jpg
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11140.jpg
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-106-17377.jpg
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-106-17393.jpg
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-116-18629.jpg
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-140-21496.jpg
1B Physics:
1. How can an object land on a soft dusty surface yet make no mark?
2. How can an object become buried in dust yet remain free of dust?
3. How can an object have it's corners worn away?
1C Proof:
Either the NASA photos were taken on the earth or the laws of physics are all wrong.
2 Moon dust retro-reflection effect - reflecting the light straight back stronger.
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5882.jpg
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5854.jpg
Indicates the photos were taken on sand rather than the footprint friendly sharp dust that NASA claims.
www.roadvista.com/reflective-glass-beads/
@@nicsandee123 Portland cement doesn't exhibit the retro-reflection we see
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5882.jpg
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5854.jpg
so they had to have used damp sand.
@@eventcone "Whilst the Apollo Program footage contains ZERO "errors""
Haahaha!! It is loaded with major errors.
ive watched this three times, love this man and his deadpan delivery. You think, this is boring...and suddenly you see the twinkle, and start really listening to what he's saying. Especially at the end.
Judy yes he is not boring, as he is a 11:23, (there is some debate of the rationality of that thing..), One can not know what someone else has as Rationality. The end Twinkle starting at 12:10 ? Too bad he did not make any videos on Real things that matter, just cared for non sapiens blindness like many many smart educated sane people, who dont seem to care for those real Things, as much as many of us blinded Conspiracy Theorists do :)
It is so buzy on the section but here in the TOP one very little movement...
Regarding us Hoax_ters sources, one I used that was "not credible" /Nasa has been vindicated on one video :)
Extraordinary Until Proven Otherwise ruclips.net/video/SpeSpA3e56A/видео.html
- so now atheist cryers Aliens are not fake :) so some spacetrucking is going on :)
This entire claim he makes has been debunked. ruclips.net/video/_x49lImzw5s/видео.html
@@shawncrossen7580 He is a very debunked man, despite not selling his soul he never took on the real conspiracies, always the badguys that go against their own rational mind that get all the attention and efforts.
@CRIMNALSNEAK Not to mention that slow-motion video of people acting in earth gravity would look nothing like the actual footage - moon-landing denialists always ignore the fact that if you speed the footage up to what would have been the real speed according to their own claims literally everyone will see how _simply wrong_ it will look like.
Sure, they have sped up selected pieces of the footage to make their claims seem legit - but they will never put together and upload a video where all of the footage is sped up, because even they see how ridiculous the end results end being, so they pick the convenient parts and use them.
I think it was SciManDan who first demonstrated this part, but you never see the denialists address it, because they can't. And yet they still double down :D
Hahaha "my check came from NASA." Great video, well explained!
@@davidfann3433 You have no mind : you're an adept of the flat earth CULT... then nothing to change !
@@davidfann3433 Have you ever heard of burden of proof?
I'm curious - but not very curious - why people like you think anybody cares what you believe.
The simple fact is, there are people who don't know much about the Moon landings. They are the ones who think it was all fake. There are other people who have a reasonable knowledge of the Moon landings. They are the ones who know it really happened.
@@davidfann3433 try lithium, that should change your mind.
Why is it that you people always attack the person and never address the facts?
6Your responses combined amount to a personal attack suggesting the gentleman has no mind(impossible) a baseless assertion that "NO ONE" cares to hear the gentlemans thoughts or ideas(dismissive) along with a suggested psych medication being the answer for this gentleman and his underlying mental disorder(convenient)
There are over 15 thousand unedited photos from the moon missions online. Look them up and go through them. They are amazing, showing every element of each mission including all the dud photos that were taken. That anyone could fake so many pictures is impossible.
A real impossible, but USA government someone? May be less impossible.
Much actually, for a far mission with so much cinematograhy, what other mission has so much coverage?
It’s easy to poke holes in any part of the moon landing while seated in an armchair.
LOL Impossible
15000 from apollo 11?
@@IA100KPDT Think not, just 2.5 hours eva walks, but I dont think many or any remain unedited, since CTs picking at them so many have gone Photoshoped.
"In 2017, NASA released over 10,000 photos from Apollo -- While NASA has successfully removed from circulation most of the more egregious errors in identical backdrops, as well as errors in continuity and scale -- Nevertheless it is impossible to account for the time necessary to take the number of photographs on record . . 11,000 photographs taken during 4882 minutes total for all EVA's from hatch opening to close again . . This amounts to more than two perfect photographs each minute -- not nearly enough time to account for them -- in addition to all other activities they engaged in. This is not even taking into account all of the outtakes from bad exposure. We give NASA credit for being able to crop and frame the subject matter properly; however, our astronauts had no way to read and adjust the settings for exposure in a camera that had no auto exposure function, yet all 11,000 photographs having perfect exposure, regardless of which direction the sun was or how much lunar surface was in view. This puts the actual number of photos taken at an astronomical number -- while there were far too many for them to have ever taken, even in perfect conditions."
As an IT professional and worked with mainframes before. The Moon Hoaxers said it were (during 1969 - 1972) were CGI, but for the CGI to be possible, you need humongous computer power with TODAY's miniaturized chips. The CPU in your iphone would have occupy several warehouses. The kind of computer did not exist then.
It was not CGI, but don't pee all over NASA's commuting power in the day. They did have buildings full of computers.
Nordburg yeah they probably did. Back then one building full of valves wires and huge relays was equivalent to about 1kb, the clock speed was likely around 1 MHz. Not fast enough to keep up with the refresh rate of a cathode ray tube if you are gonna do flicker free animations with relatively large pixels. Sounds like technical doo doo but’s it’s not!
@@DeputyNordburg Big computers to crunch numbers, not millions of pixels.
@@DeputyNordburg The CGI claimed by those Moon Hoaxers would not be possible because of the amount of storage, CPU power and memories needed - the buildings would fill up a whole state (if not causing power outage when they were running)
If they had amazing CGI in 1972, then how do you explain Pong? The video game is just 2 rectangles and tiny square...
So they faked it on the moon to make it more realistic?
It was the only way to make the fake convincing.
@Huy Taing No, "Nasa" in Hebrew means "to lift or raise". "Nasha" means "to deceive". Look it up- the standard work is Strong's Concordances.
Not that it makes any difference. Why would NASA put their real intentions in plain sight, if they aim to deceive? It makes no sense whatsoever.
@Huy Taing No, I'm a globe Earth knower.
@Huy Taing There are many words in Hebrew that mean lie or deceive and nasa is not one of them.
The fact you believe this without checking is why you believe lots of other nonsense, it's called gullibility.
@@imagoportraits562 so to believe we are on a spinning ball that is moving through space and spinning/moving at astronomical speeds is not being gullible
The thing about a fake moon mission is you still have to build and launch a gigantic expensive rocket to convince people you went, which just so happens to be the majority of the cost of an actual moon mission.
TheRedScourge but the majority of funding comes from private investors witch the amount dose not require a disclossure
@@RichardLoveless Even if that were true, it doesn't change the argument.
Scourge- Kareem will be here soon to tell you that the Saturn V rockets were balloons. I kid you not.
@@therealzilch Indeed. I've stopped reading Kareems posts
@@paulbeardsley4095 I just skim them for juicy insults. But he's been repeating himself a lot recently. He seems deflated somehow, if you know what I mean.
And now they successfully launched and brought back splashdown the Artemis 1 Orion capsule. Looks like the we're going to the moon again.
Okay kind of looklike the show will go on, cannot wait to see them skip hop fall golf and ropejumping & hopscotch? 😊
@@narajuna wut
Nothing to attract Smarts (sane ones) like good old *gibberish* 💥👍
With their classic Science inputs🤓
*successfully launched and brought back*
On April 12, 1961, cosmonaut Yury A. Gagarin, onboard the Vostok 1 spacecraft, became the first human in space. The voyage, which began with launch at 9:07 am Moscow time, entailed one orbit around Earth, lasting 1 hour 29 minutes, and ended at 10:55 am in the Soviet Union with his safe return to Earth.
Everything hoaxers bring up has been widely debunked over and over yet their confirmation bias won't allow them to even consider what is presented in this video. Having your eyes pinned wide open is useless if you've got blinders on!
@@hankkingsley9183 Wow how original, sea of knowledge you are! So why do anti hoaxers continue to be so active? Why Articles continue to be birthed? Why so many debunk videos? Why so much hope to be saved by ARTEMIS ?
Important Message:
No Astronauts got hurt in the making of this video
youre great!
I’m sure they didn’t but unfortunately over the years I’m sure some their feelings were ask Bart Sibrel he was there when Buzz smacked him! Nice👍
No, they were all killed after this video was made, so they'd keep stumm. ^___^
Additionally ... No lunar dust was disturbed during the landing either.
Yeah, those astro-nots were more than heros.
They were ... MAGICAL.
@@marshalllhiepler No dust was disturbed? There are photos of dust trails caused by the landing, as might be expected.
I really feel pity for all those who thinks Moon Landing was a conspiracy.
Ask yourself why did a fakre the whole earth.
I feel pity for those who still believe in governments lies. Take your blue pill again and keep dreaming.
Check out the picture of Earth form Apollo 11, called the "Blue Marble". See clouds in the Southern area around Antarctica are cloned (copied /pasted). The picture is a photoshop, not a simple picture.
@@@peterlukaszyk1719ot sure how much your into truth searching of great lies. All these clueless people don't get the serious implications of what were all doomed to suffer for their refusal to research a little even on premise to have real ammo to debate us with. That would + has awoken many, exposed + stopped serious stuff by people starting out to prove it wrong only to be forced to face it was true. Sorry for rant as I only mean't to refer a channel called Quantum conscious as he has such a deep high intellect and knows how much they have planned and are decades a head of us. That we may be doing exactly as they planned we would in just another form of distraction to occupy us while they get more time to screw us, no matter how right we are.
@@peterlukaszyk1719 I feel contempt for people who try to conflate accepting the official Apollo account with believing governments.
When they went to the Moon, they sent back proof and they brought back proof. Whatever else Nixon lied about, it has no bearing on this.
"My check just came from NASA". BAHAHAHAH!!!🤣🤣🤣.
THAT WAS AWESOME!!
Thanks for the great video.
You're so right 😂
My parents are pissed because they wasted all that money on my education and I am still so stupid. Dumb idiots.
@@watkinsrory If you were stupid you would never say so. Actually all stupid ones that I ever meet think thenselves as the smartest. Conclusion : your parents did the right thing.
Too true, I'm afraid. "In plain sight" etc...
@@watkinsrory found an American.
Oh poor thing, look what politics did to you.
No need for an explanation point in the title. Not surprising, because anyone who understands photography immediately sees that moon landing deniers do not understand photography.
so you are saying this guys is an idiot? Still strange, so many explanations on Photography cause by Deniers 🤔
I’ve never been taken in by the whole moon landing hoax idea but never before thought that, from a filmmaker’s perspective, it just wasn’t possible to fake it back then. Love the video and and the wonderfully sarcastic presentation. Great job.
...but you still made it here? ONE filmmaker, one, never heard of, no Kubrick, and sure never any any thing close to NASA Studios budget and ressources.
@@wildboar7473 The Military couldn't fake it back then and their budget was a lot bigger than NASA's. Look at the facts, don't be an idiot. Idiot
@@DevinJarosz Fact what Facts? You a 5 star General or what, an other top Filmmaker? Collins looks like and idiot, and is :(
Really no one having filming history could buy the crap of this video.
Yes slow motion was a thing back in 1950's and perfected in the 1960's.
The sales to the public was not till the late 1970-1980's.
However companies such as NASA or the developers had full access to the system and testing steps.
Suggesting that the companies like NASA could not use said things is just ridicules..
In the movie production there is a list of equipment that in fact does do slow motion in 1950's
The technology was not cheep. Okay
However by the mid 1965's the technology was able to be used may times at a much better value.
This technology by the 1969 was not only reliable but they could create hours of the effect.
By the 1970's this was so simple to do that cost and effect was simple.
Yet that is a editing tool. We also know that they had cameras that also could do the effects. The first one was in 1962.
The fun thing is the film used was a standard used in these type of cameras.
Suggesting this technology was not created when it is documented it was is a slap in the face of every movie creator and editor in the world.
During the movie 2001 space odyssey they did use this technology a few times they only found that they only used it a few times because most of the effects could be done practically.
This Collins is very silly to suggest many of what he states.
Just to be clear this Collin is a idiot. No wonder produces nothing.
A Filmmaker could spend hours pointing out the error in this guys babble, no wonder no one with back him up even if many are Believers.
Wild boar the filmmaker is not disputing the existence of filming in slow motion. He’s taking about the viability of transferring the motion caught on 35 mm film to video tape. And some of the things that may happen while doing so. If you state that is live footage on that little screen they filmed for TV. If it didn’t look convincing someone would notice. One day you will have to except the fact that not everyone is stupid, it’s easy to everyone is stupid but it’s just not the case!
I think the biggest more obvious thing to me was the Soviet Union would have screamed it was fake if it was a hoax. They had their own monitoring stations and they undoubtedly saw stages of the landing, rockets and other maneuvers.
this is a great well made interesting video .....but there are still some doubts that even fair minded people have about NASA , the politics of the time , the fact Richard Nixon was President , the reality that NASA still to this day says we are working on how to manage the radiation of the van allen belts , the reality that if you look at still photos ( for example the boots on the astronaut decending have a very distinctive reflection more common with a second source of lighting - he dodnt rebuff that in this ) and finally in the height of the cold war nothing the Russians would have said would have been believed - their actions are more curios - having beaten the US in all other apsects of space exploration - first sputnik etc etc - they didnt put humans on the moon ? Ever ? hmmm...wonder why ??
360noscope How do you know? What if they faked it because it is impossible to ever go and they all know it but still want their people to believe in space so they can keep extracting money from them just like our government.? Think.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Actually he did talk extensively about the 2nd source of lighting theory. You might want to watch the video to get that.
I think the biggest most obvious thing to me is that the Space Shuttle cost exponentially more than the Saturn V yet it could only manage 1/6th of the payload. Then there's the black smoke coming out of an apparently solid fuel pyro rocket ...... very suspiciously looking like a (liquid) fuel rich burn. Oh and then there's the complete and utter lack of any actual evidence of 1/6th earth gravity in any Apollo EVA footage.
I used to work in broadcast engineering back in the 80's. Everything you said about how primitive analog video was is absolutely true. I used to run those old 2" reel to reel ampex tape machines. yea some tv stations in the outback still used them. 1 hour reels if I remember correctly, no way to get bigger, slowing down the speed would fry the tape, especially back in the 60's. Tape had a shelf life of 10 minutes. Thank you for the video. Great points made here for all to see.
Yep, early 2" magnetic video was so unreliable that US Navy SONAR tapes off the submarines were sent *with* their recording unit (the unit replaced with another in the sub) to ONI to better ensure accurate playback. I've heard this anecdote now from nearly a dozen former USN sonar techs.
Yes but all your guys practical experience is meaningless to the hoax believing crowd. Something doesn't look right to them so the only explanation is it was faked.
@@mako88sb Yep. Belief in the hoax is a kind of religion for them, and the way things actually are in the real world doesn't matter.
@@therealzilch basically for them, whatever they don't understand is fake! They have no problem believing in heaven and hell but did we land on the moon? Neh that's fake!
Danstaafl, How much did NASA pay YOU? 😁
A very entertaining intelligent man. Hi take on photography solidified any remanence of doubts. Love the tongue-in-cheek humour delivered tastefully and intelligently. Thanks Collin
The smartest looking genius of your liking? Very nice. He take WHAT? Many have doubted the famous genius FILMMAKER, he cried about Jarrah White rebutal. And altered his song, good humour, but dont you love that it all doesnt matter, and poor Conspiracists are blinded to the *real conspiracies* ?
More the the intelligent looking "man", without her funny hat !
ruclips.net/video/naYN8lYG7Ac/видео.html 😂
Meanwhile, a real forensic film expert actually recreated "Moon landings" footage using 1960-s technology and also did full show-and-tell of that.
You are so gullible.
The Camera Man Explains: How did NASA fake it's images from the Apollo Moon Missions? A master explains...
Leonid Konovalov is an associate professor @ the Moscow School of Cinema and the All-Russian State Institute of Cinematography, VGIK, in Moscow. He is an expert in camera operation, cinematography, film projection, film negative developing, among many other related things.
In this ongoing series of weekly articles, which he began in 2020, he explains how NASA really achieved it's impressive images from the Apollo Missions (and much more!).
He analyzes the “lunar” photos and videos from the cameraman's point of view - how were they filmed?
- this is what we no science Conspiracists want, more then lip talk :)
The thing that strikes me again and again about Apollo deniers is how credulous they all are.
I've tried to imagine what I would be like if I were an Apollo denier. First off, I'd be like, "Wow, it was all faked, was it? Well I guess that would explain the absence of stars, the waving flag, surviving the Van Allen Belts and so on."
But I wouldn't stop there. I would want to know what really happened. I've read a lot about the official account, and the more I learn, the more it fits together. So the "true" account should fit together even better, right?
Yet nobody even tries to answer the question, "What REALLY happened?" Occasionally someone replies with, "Well, they faked it, of course!"
But when you press them, they go silent, or say something stupid.
Ask them how they faked 1/6 gravity and vacuum. Some of the answers I've received are: helium pouches, bouncy castles, falling lifts, as well as the old favourite, slo-mo and wires. Never mind that nobody has been able to replicate the effect.
One person even replied with, "No need for me to explain how they faked it..."
Ask them how come NASA brought back more than a thousand times as much rock as the USSR. They will do one of the following:
a) Ignore the question.
b) Mention the petrified wood in a Dutch museum, as if that were relevant.
c) Suggest NASA had an unmanned probe. Because speculation about a major engineering work that nobody has ever witnessed counts as evidence, right?
d) Tell you Von Braun went on a meteorite-gathering trip in Antactica, and then remind you that Von Braun was a Nazi, as if that were relevant.
Imagine, you are "in the know" about the biggest secret in history, yet you lack the curiosity to find out how it was done. You can't even agree with your fellow deniers if it was filmed in a Hollywood basement or in some unspecified part of a desert that nobody has been able to locate in the 50 years since.
If I were an Apollo denier, it would bother me that the US government were able to convince the people who MATTER.
But all you ever hear from the actual deniers (apart from childish abuse) consists of reasons to be suspicious of the official account. You NEVER hear positive evidence of an alternative account.
It's like listening to a politician telling everybody how bad his opponent is. But when someone asks, "But what do YOU have to offer?" he'll just come out with some more dirt (probably made up) about the other one.
And it's obvious why.
There is no coherent alternative account to the official one. Not even a draft one that mostly fits the facts more or less.
Excellent post Paul that goes right to the heart of the whole Apollo Hoax myth.
@@eventcone Thank you for your kind words.
I am just so bored of the endless array of piddling little "anomalies" that we get challenged to debunk for the billionth time, whereas the other side produce nothing - NOTHING - of substance.
The Moon landings happened, no doubt about it. We don't need to defend them. It's the deniers who should be defending their position.
@@paulbeardsley4095 It may be that we are too defensive - I mean unnecessarily defensive. Just a thought.
@@paulbeardsley4095 P.S. Have you ever checked out www.apollohoax.net? It's not what it sounds like. The people there are highly competent engineers, scientists etc who know Apollo happened, and they invite Hoax Believers to bring their claims to them. But they have to be prepared to defend those claims. It's a great resource.
@@eventcone "It may be that we are too defensive"
I'm not sure. I sometimes think that if we respond to every "debunk this!" post there's a danger that we give them the wrong impression that they might actually have a point. We can appear to be playing by their rules, and we shouldn't be.
It’s gets better every time I watch love that ending
That was a real check.
TOP Comment section sure has the cream of the cream of inputs.
He know some people will shout "hOw MUcH nASa pAy Y0u", so he make it anyway
agreed..
Lets All agree on watching the mouse run on the MOON. YES there is Life in Space.
NASA Apollo 11 moon landing faked? Coke bottle on set? Not quite.
Running behind left to right on ruclips.net/video/sCwFiqtfijw/видео.html&feature=emb_logo (1/2 speed!)
Bravo!!!! Well done, Mr. Collins. Love that punch line at the end. My ex-next door neighbor is a Flat-Earther and NASA non-believer and there was simply nothing that I could present to him that would sway his unwavering belief system, no matter how factual, demonstrable, or logical the information. He would go on and on about how there is only one picture of Earth from space (huh?) and that every single photo of Earth was faked. No matter what I would say to him, I got an explanation of how and why it was a fake. Too much radiation, it would have destroyed the film, blah blah blah. The astronauts would not have survived the trip through the Van Allen Belt, etc. etc. He was convinced that I was just another indoctrinated fool led to believe the big lie. The sad part is that he is actually a very bright and intelligent individual, which confused me even more that he couldn't get his head wrapped around the evidence. For him, it is somehow easier to believe that the Earth is flat, the Moon, stars and planets are holograms and we live under a giant sapphire dome, surrounded by a 150 ft. wall of ice, off limits and protected by a global army. I'd love to hear his rebuttal to your video here. Thanks for sharing!
I've heard it said that while the moon landing was 100% legit, the filming is faked. This is because camera would not work due to solar radiation or some shit that. This makes 100% sense to me for some reason even though i dont know the theory behind it
These types are simply delusional.
@@josefdenis3799 It depends on the type and strength of the radiation and the shielding from it. Do some research and you will have your answer.
10 years later and this is still relevant. Incredible!
Yes unbelievable!!! "Some people" full of nonsense sure occupy intelligent science people pushing "sense", not so sane.... when it only matters because blinds (Conspiracists) to other real conspiracies.... Yet still many APOLLO Witness fanatics still claim it is impossible to fake today! Incredible!
@@narajuna Show us the actual technology that was used then
Talking about showing yours.... like Jarrah White any showing of mine get ghosted here too.... for some reason.... :)
Dude, this was awesome! As a photographer for over 40 years the crazy hoaxers have made ME crazy. The stuff you say about lighting is SO obvious but I LOVE the deeper dive into the tech. Fabulous!
The shadows !
How did they went through the Van Halen belt ?! Asshole !!!
@DrBarrymoreDude The answer of another asshole who can not argue!
What a Knob you are.@@JoeJohn777
You really think they would have gotten the lighting wrong for such a project? XD
Many hoaxers are just stupid religious people that also believe in flat Earth...others are intelligent individuals that don't have the blind trust of the US most others have...
Thank you so much sir I just found this today. 50 years ago today I was in a jail in Texas with my brother my cousin and his best friend. We had done a few bad things. 😬 The police in Sherman Texas would not let us watch the moon landing, bastards. I’ve always believed we went to the moon and your explanation/satire is seriously best and most straightforward explanation I have ever seen. I will be sharing this for the rest of my life. And yes we got out of jail. Our actual lawyers name was Dean Martin. May I hope to shake your hand someday.
Uncle Freddy first of all I was not in prison I was in jail. I’ve never been in prison. Why, well luck and good lawyers..That and I don’t engage in juvenile trolling. Grow the fuck up and go away
@@shockingguy well said
@Uncle Freddy do you like being a loser?
@whodannywho Hey there. Watch the recently released documentary Apollo 11. It’s not a traditional documentary in the sense that it doesn’t have a narrator. Instead, they coupled original 70mm footage with original sound from various sources. They don’t tell the story but instead let the story tell itself. As one reviewer said,
“Go. Rush out. Find this film now. Find it on the biggest possible screen, accompanied by the best, loudest sound. And sit back and marvel.” I rented it on Vudu then was so amazed I luckily found it in the theaters still and went and saw the last showing locally. It’ll make you feel like you got to witness it. I’m sorry you didn’t get to back then. I wasn’t born yet so it was a gift getting to watch this. Here’s a link.
www.amazon.com/Apollo-11-Todd-Douglas-Miller/dp/B07RDY2QF1
@Etypeman I’ll ignore your partially veiled insult. And am not going to get into an argument about it. I’ve done my own thinking. The radio signal from the lunar module was independently verified by Larry Basinger with homemade equipment. You can listen to it here. observatory.jctcfaculty.org/APOLLO11/Default.htm And that’s all I’m contributing to a discussion on this branch of the subject. Oh, and this. ruclips.net/video/xc1SzgGhMKc/видео.html Cheers.
I learned, that almost everybody who does not believe in the landing just does not want to believe it for any reason. You can tell them everything - even if it is rediculous what they say, and you have a pure evidence, they do not (want to) believe. I am a film-producer and many things what that guy said, is just what I also told to many people - technically ment. A production like that was also not possible to produce at that time. And by the way, Chinese and Russians also have plenty of pictures from the landing site. There is no doubt, the US astronauts have been on the moon.
Yes, the determination some of them have to ignore evidence is astonishing. Almost as astonishing as their determination to keep presenting the same old debunked evidence (no blast crater, waving flag, astronauts looked glum etc) as if it trumps the actual evidence.
My belief is that conspiracy theoriests are talentless and uneducated people who need to feel superior, so they tell themselves that they know the truth whereas everyone else is a sheep.
You did??? *How did you learn that?* Please tell all the people how you accomplished that "almost" learning sir??? Well I THINK Most used to believe before becomming Unbelievers!
Only during 70's were there 25% USA DO-NOT-WANT-TO people. After that it took YT time to finally convert Believers as myself.
So pray Mr Psy what is the percentage of 'Everybody's' who dont believe but that want to....? Or that believe that... *believe* but dont want to?
Dear everything-Teller what pure evidence do you have?
Why do you even concern yourself with Others beliefs, or Want's?
Yes I have seen many FILM guys active at GOV tales defense, strong Believers?
@@wildboar7473 "Why do you even concern yourself with Others beliefs, or Want's?"
Why do you?
Because of previous huge demand from myself : I care because Human Consciousness has meaning, now and much latter.... and some beliefs (despite being "insane") are repressed, mocked, censored (as non hypocrites well know). So they need concern for fair chance to study.
@@wildboar7473 And how do you explain tons of photos, made by Russians and just recently by Chinese, from the landing sites ? I am sure, you have lot of new excuses and claims.("which photos... " ) thats what comes as the answer, I am very sure.
The guy is an expert, a natural comedian who spit facts. He really knows how to narrate deadpan but not boring.
You think the USA GOV hires unprofession idiots with no talent? Da Comedian he is ....because film wise.... aint no Kubrick :) (Likes to pick all sorts of cherries)
Note: here is the typical follower of this genius :
ruclips.net/user/shortsAblOHbFKCp0
Too bad he can not do same with historical forward Leap ARTEMIS , the incredible Technology to film fake exist now :( So we could witness just *anything* ....
You are not addressing the issue at hand. Did you even watch this video? This is about the live broadcast in 1969 and your claim that everything is fake. A massive preponderance of the evidence supports that the moonshot happened and every single hoaxer claim has been debunked again and again.
Your argument seems to be that because something could possibly be fake that therefore everything IS fake. I suggest studying the laws of logic with a side helping of learning about how to think rationally.
Ah that famous massive preponderance /mountain of proof..... yet many Engineers and books and videos and documents and media address the issue.... again and again
no one literally no one:
conspiracy theorists: science doesnt exist
dear dear are you upset? They need your help to make up more rejections, not enough for you?
That's Theorists, Some Reality doesnt exist, all sorts of mad philosophing, some say Mankind is an 'error of Nature';
and we are just meaningless purposeless chemical driven blobs going back to eternal oblivion bliss.
Are you a sane believer in Primate origin? Happy & Proud, why you love Science Academia, so forget Those who speak of Intelligence and futur. In NASA trust.
O the existencial question... does *SCIENCE* exist or not?
Is She in Space with The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
O SCIENCE take *mercy* on us poor wretched creatures out of Nothingness, have piety on us Adolerators!
@@wildboar7473 Wow. THAT sort of rant is why people laugh at you insane, self-deluding, scared shitless of reality conspiracy theorists. You people are naïve sheep who believe whatever you're told.
Normal people: It's science.
Conspiracy theorists: CGI, fake news, hoax, liars!
That sort of rant gets rattled good boys, gets lots of attention, just got 5 letters from One courageous :)
ps: YES the Vatican has created Science, but as Her existing, being cognizant?
People forget that there is more audio than video. Much more. The video and/or film cache is a relatively small part of the Apollo programme - basically the TV footage shot on the moon plus the stills and the odd TV broadcast en route. It's what the doubters like to concentrate on. The audio, however, covers nine moon missions, each of which lasted a week or more. The astronauts were in pretty much constant communication with Mission Control, so (allowing for sleep periods etc) we're probably looking (at a rough guess) at 30 to 40 days' worth of audio taped material, somewhere between 720 hours and 960 hours. Now, how would you like to be the script-writer tasked with creating a radio programme lasting 720 to 960 hours? That's what you would need to fake it. Or the actors, or the director for that matter. Fortunately some of the tapes are extant so each of us is free to make a judgement about the material's authenticity. A good place to start (it's on RUclips) is 'Apollo 13 Accident: Flight Director's Loop', all 6 hours of it . . .
James, yes, and let's not forget the lunar transcripts, which anyone can read.NASA needs to better organize the historical and scientific databases on Apollo, making it easier for the layperson or conspiracy believer, to find this information. The internets algorithm is will quickly send a conspiracy believer deeper into the rabbit hole NASA should also direct people to Kipp Teagues www.apolloarchive.com/ an excellent resource of Apollo images "The Apollo project ", and other resources, if we're going to pull people out of the rabbit hole, let's make sure they have easy access to the correct information.
Don't be STUPID!! NASA says it's 250 degrees on the surface of the moon. How the hell did they keep cool in 250 degree heat for 3 days with just battery power? So they had batteries in 1969 that lasted 3 days AND could keep your azz cool in 250 degree temps., but in 2019 your car is hot as hell in 90 degree temps. Where are those 1969 3 day batteries? There should be one standard in all cars. Dozens of kids die every year in hot cars because NASA won't share their battery technology from 1969. GTFOH!!!
If you leave your cars headlights on for ONE HOUR, your car battery will be stone cold dead, but in 1969 NASA had batteries that lasted THREE DAYS!! Bull Sh--!! Now do you see how stupid you sound? Grrrrrrr
@@muffspanker you could be the dumbest guy I've ever communicated with.. So I'll type very slowly. While it's true that the temp in sunlight on the moon is approx 250 degrees F, like on the side of Lunar Lander facing the sun... In the shade, the temp is approx minus 250 degrees F. Like on the side of Lunar Lander facing away from the sun. Inside the lander there was air circulation, as there was inside their suits. It was all worked out by people much smarter than you and doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand. Similar technology works very well here on planet earth and is used in energy efficient houses.
@@muffspanker spaceflightblunders.wordpress.com/2017/03/03/the-fuel-cell-powered-lunar-module/
Silver Zinc batteries were placed around the lander and were more than enough to provide power for the 2 day stay. Even more batteries were added for the three day missions. So as long as the astronauts didn't forget to turn off the lander's headlights, they were fine.
Him: “If you shoot 1000 ft loads...”
Me: Giggity!
Leave your fiddly bits out of this.
Celery, zinc capsules and water in large quantities will do the trick
The Russians know we would be dead. We work with them now. The argument that I hear most is the Apollo 11 put "lunar reflectors" on the moon so they had to have done it. The Soviets did the same thing in 1970 with a rover, which is what we used. If it was seriously done wed be doing it all the time and there wouldnt be so many anomalies around it. It's obviously a hoax.
@@blacksabbath1022 Why would we "be doing it all the time" now? The Apollo missions accomplished all that was really desired: to beat the Soviets and to research the Moon. Been there, done that, and it's extraordinarily more expensive than sending unmanned probes.
@@therealzilch oh so no reason to drill into the core of the moon? Perhaps their is diamonds, gold or even oil there. Why not find out?
Why not put the Space force Military base on the moon?
We have many reasons...
This is my favorite debunk video. Short, concise, perfect.
There would be no "debunk"(🤣) without bunk. Love his above average highly intelligent Believer /Debunker looks (+hat too).🤯
(More to be seen on his Account👍) (😂)
@@narajuna ◁==== keep in mind that this troll is a 'closet' adherent of the Flat Earth and Magical Dome Cult. It only 'outs' itself as such when the comments indicate that it's safe do do so. Go on Mr WO. Tell us all about how you believe the Earth is a flat disc. We all know you want to. 🙃
Why did the apollo 11 post-flight media conference resemble a funeral?
Because they were tired and wanted to get home. Also it is not uncommon to be in a low mood the weeks after some life changing event.
Because the so called astronauts were actually Plutonians and Plutonians are naturally dour.
@@therealzilch Neil A.=== Alien! :D
BECAUSE::: any one of the NassHoles blowing the whistle would have resulted in their collective DEATHS !!!!
@@kareemsalessi And yet, you're still alive.
Lol my check came from NASA
Kubrick and a lot of studio, and artists got such cheques!
To assist in the greatest scam pulled on Humanity. Well maybe the second, or third.The word NASA is a derivative from these words used in the Bible. In its
original Hebrew it is נָשָׂא (naw-shaw’) spelling “Nasha”
Strong’s Concordance Hebrew Dictionary list the definition for word #5377
(beguiled as used in Genesis 3:13), … So NASA’s prim. Root; is: to lead
astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce:-beguile,
deceive., X greatly, x utterly.
Not same spelling but same prononciation. No just heard he lended his 2001 studio for them to use. How much he assisted on least the first one I dont know, NASA /NSA had their crew.The rest was done in USA, they have similiation grounds, just as the Mars practice landscapes.
No idea, if impossible to alter I guess that guess is wrong, but he obviously knew much about, became paranoid for one reason.
Delow USMC
"check from NASA".
My favorite part of Mr. Collins' video!!
The most important part of his message is the last part when he talks about the unjust laws that we have today that we never questioned coz we are focused on many petty issues that has no bearing in our way of life at all.
Yes maybe that was the real reason the Philosopher made the video, much ignore conclusion, still we the carring thinking People are affected by forced lies, even many G Followers are affected by it: by Deniers with no faith, calling Gov tales fake :( :(
This Genius did a video about it... as MANY with LOTS of videos, and numerous websites= more impact then TV it seems.
“For evil to flourish it only requires good men to do nothing” - Simon Wiesenthal
"To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth, all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances."
- Lee deForest (1873-1961) (American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube.) Feb 25, 1957.
"Space travel is utter bilge."
- Dr. Richard van der Reit Wooley, Astronomer Royal, space advisor to the British government, 1956.
Wild Boar science does not operate to convince those who refuse to believe. Science operate to know what is true even if you don’t believe it. That’s the reason we have these technological advancements today while no conspiracy theorists had contributed to any of these advancements.
@@jrsanti Oops that last dump got you involved, SHE operates does SHE? Well HER followers sure operate against the heretics that refuse faith. See little value is this rant... CTs are supposed to contribute to tech advancements????
That presupposes knowledge of basic science.... What have You contributed? Your prayers?
Or pray what has boywonder Hawkings contributed to Technology?
ps: SCIENCE does not operated in knowings, it is the search for knowledge, her "truths" are always getting self corrected...
Wild Boar must have contributed to something because YT deleted his channel. Seems many Scientists operate on TV & YT to con_vince.
Sure introduced quickly the Piltdown Man, among other proofs, in Schools to convince operation: "we are just meaningless Privates out of chemical soup...". Nothing to do with Tech advancements, Believers Wright Brothers operated against MS establishment saying we could not fly!
If you want more photographic proof we landed on the moon consider what you do not see.
- The "flapping flag" is often cited as evidence of a hoax because there's no air, hence no breeze, on the moon.
- If a breeze caused the flag to flap that would mean the landing was filmed outdoors; there's no wind in a studio.
- So, if there was a breeze strong enough to flap the flag why don't we see any blowing dust? Or anything else blowing at the same time the flag flapped?
- What if a bee or other insect flew across the scene? Or a spider climbed on the LEM? The people who edited the film might have seen it and edited it out but they could have missed it. After 50 years no hoaxer saw it?
- What if a small animal poked his head up for a frame or 2? Again, an editor could have missed it but 1000 hoaxers studying these films for 50 years wouldn't have.
To say the least, this is unbelievably unlikely.
You're forgetting that NASA's technology was at least 50 years ahead of what we know. Or maybe they had access to alien technology. Or demons. Or something. Anything, but that the Earth is a globe and NASA landed on the Moon, because that's what the Government says, and whatever the Government says is wrong. Or something.
Yeah we want dust blowing in wind (all we are...), moon stuff is super dry as the atmosphere.... heard Spacewinds rounded the rocks off. I see a mouse run around the moon videos.
The body of the mouse in the SpaceX video is clearly dwarfed by its enormous ears, leading to only one conclusion, it’s a long eared mouse. The problem here is that the long eared mouse is brown whereas as the so-called space mouse is most definitely dark gray. Perhaps more baffling is that if the video in question is said to be CGI, so why would the mouse be there in the first place?
A prank maybe, but then the ‘footage’ would have to be viewed over and over by its creator to find any errors. Then you have the rotoscoping, another person involved. And then the big boss man in charge of the ‘faking department’ would have to approve its release. I’m pretty sure the prankster would be rumbled at this point. The likely response from the boss would be,
“How are we expected to sell this if there’s a frikkin mouse in there?”
And then there’s the problem with the artists, after the prank they would need to be placed under surveillance surely? NASA must be running low on nondescript blue sedans at this point? Of course they could be ‘train crossinged’ but then you would need to hire new artists, more headaches, more blue sedans. Round and round we go......,
@@nicsandee123 . Ha ha. You're all funny, but guess what, if you take 10 seconds to think about it you'd know I'm not wrong.
And smart people only need 2 seconds not 10.
@@nicsandee123 I suspect the mouse is there for the same reason that NASA admitted that the Earth is flat in all those flight manuals: Satan made them do it, so that anyone who still believed in the Moon landings even so would have had a chance to see the truth, but rejected it, and thus rendered his soul forfeit. The Devil is very cunning.
"Excellent, my check came from NASA" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That was great... XD
Great video.
@felix mendez : yes, I just got my cheque too!
it might be true though
@@3ossomok588 : yes, I got my cheque.
Absolutely!
Excellent work! The dose of satire is well presented.
Actually all he did was prove it could be faked in a studio. He makes the assumption that it was a live broadcast when film was found of them rehearsing and screwing up the reflection of the Earth in low orbit.
@@fivefingerfullprice3403 Yes, now, but not then, as he clearly has stated. Can we get the evidence for your claim of said film? Reflection from what?
@@nihorothereal Sure, go nuts. ruclips.net/video/mCHG6uJH5L8/видео.html Also if you could let me know how they had lagless radio communication in 1969 from the Earth to the Moon that would be great since we still struggle with that today.
It's comedy, not exactly satire. but great video yeah!
@@fivefingerfullprice3403 You didn't watch, did you? He indicated which steps would be required for a live broadcast of film. Even if it was VTR, same thing. But still, if you don't believe that the US put man on the moon, then you ignore evidence. Where's that film you allude to? Non-existent, of course.
Great ending my check came from nasa . Priceless
Is he ashkenazi jewish decent? Amy Shira Teitel with her Vintage space videos rakes in cash, only CT's are not allowed to.
Sillyness sometimes cost the price of dying young and fast, like with NASA Director Brian Welch.
Contrary to nasa agents, APOLLO Moon denial started without Bill Kaysing, 1/4 Americains did not buy it then.
Doubts about the authenticity of the Apollo Moon landings *appeared first in December 1968 when Apollo 8 was launched.* The almost perfectly executed odyssey of Apollo 11 amazed many around the world, and some people doubted it was real.[17]
The first book on the subject ("Did man land on the Moon?") was issued in Texas *by the mathematician James J. Cranny in 1970.*
Brian D. Welch, a veteran public affairs officer for the space agency and NASA's Director of Media Services, suffered a heart attack days after a public response to accusations. He was 42.
NASA commented on some of the conspiracy theories in June 1977.[19]
But in August 1997, their Director of Media Services (1998-2000) Brian Welch (1958-2000) said in an interview with Sky TV News:
“This is thirty year old stuff... I don't understand why we should spend the time to... prove to people that we went to the Moon; in fact of matters we did go to the Moon.” - THAT'S IT FOLKS, MAN COULD NOT DO IT.
Repression is full on this video; now only pro comments are allowed in the TOP Comment section.
In thee other one threads get deleted if not Accounts. Never so much policing inside Hoax videos.
I really hope that someday Buzz Aldrin watches this video so that when the narrator reaches the part where he says "I wasn't on the moon in 1969 and neither were you", Aldrin can be like OH YEAH??
Little obtuse, he is speacking to the common viewers, not nasa employees.
Most NASA employees have never been to the moon. Only 12 people have ever been.@@narajuna
😲@@MuchWhittering Tell that to all the Shills and Quora parrots.
@apolloskyfacer5842
RC 3 HOW COME NOT ONE PROFESSIONAL SPACE FLIGHT EXPERT AGREES WITH YOU ''MOON HOAXTARDS ? Were all 400,000 scientists, engineers and technicians who were involved in the Apollo Moon Program bribed or threatened into silence ? How did that world-wide cover-up work exactly ? And what happened to those who refuse to cooperate ? Were they murdered ? Were they zapped by that little flashy thingy the MIB used to stealthily reprogrammed their memories ?" xhundreds by Bot and Others
oho not passing the censorship test ? What excuse this time???
Now what happen to the Classic >>>Were all 400,000 scientists, engineers and technicians who were involved in the Apollo Moon Program bribed or threatened into silence ?" All those are apparently *knowing* on Moon...
His sarcasm ("Excellent! My check came from NASA") is a wonderful touch, but I am afraid the people who most need to learn from this video are also those who don't get the sarcasm.
It also made quite a contrast to the very serious words of warning he had for us all starting at 11:08, why it is so important NOT to believe the Moon hoaxers. These are my favorite words in the whole video.
hhahahhaa I know he kills me!
***** You have failed to follow the argument. His argument is that it is the technology to FAKE the landings on film and video that did not exist. The technology to do the landings DID exist.
It is a surprising argument, but quite sound.
There is another point he could have made, though, even more convincing: look at the difference between the way scifi films, even Kubrick's sci fi, faked zero gravity, and the way the astronauts really did move in zero gravity. The two are VERY different. Only the latter looks realistic. Kubrick just make it look like they were wobbling at the knees. Star Trek just gave up on zero gravity completely, inventing the convenient fiction of artificial gravity even when the Enterprise was having power failures due to being attacked.
***** He is the film maker, not you. He says based on his expertise, that that technology did not exist. If you believe otherwise, then show it to us.
***** No, that is not what I do. You are just talking nonsense in your failed attempt at a straw-man fallacy. What he says is easily _confirmed_ with a Google search. You cannot READ if you think it is refuted with a Google search.
Besides: I have an even better proof that it could not be faked: the video of the Apollo 17 astronaut dropping a feather and hammer at the same time proves not only is he in a vacuum, it also proves he is in low gravity: the hammer took 2S to fall about 4 feet, which is impossible in Earth gravity.
Chris Hansen By now you must have seen the video, so where is your retraction?
Like they said in the Mitchell and Webb sketch, "Wouldn't it be easier if we just popped to the moon and faked the landing there?"
TammoKorsai There is a reason NASA doesnt train astronauts in a vacumn. It's "dangerous". But apparently no problem when out in the open vastness of space lol
Where does he talk about rocket engineering?
shillslayer deny science, you mean like anyone who uses the word shill? You woketards have turned the word shill into a badge of honor. Shill seems to mean someone who understand basic science and who doesn't believe every conspiracy video they see. Do you also believe the Earth is flat? People who call others shills and sheep usually also believe the Earth is flat.
Pete Piper no problems? Wether they really went to the moon and back they sure at least faked a bunch of problems. Take Apollo 13 for instance because they encountered major problems.
There are lots of pictures of places with lots of lights, which are sharp. As every photographer will tell you, the brightness makes it easy to get everything in focus as the depth of field is a lot broader than in a dark setting. Something you obviously neither knew nor bothered to look up when you wrote your comment. So, that is your level of expertise and research...
love the "oh my check from NASA" LOL
.....because THAT was the ONLY true part!
Instead, describe what is wrong about what he says, please...
@@WilliamBTCWallace do you REALLY ACTUALLY BELIEVE that Nixon had a live phone call (with no time delays, by the way) with an astro-NOT from (supposedly) 200,000+ miles away, while thousands of people TODAY cannot even get a cell phone signal???? It was staged in a Hollywood basement by Stanley Kuberick! WHY are no stars there? WHY are there shadows from multiple angles if the sun was the only illuminating source? WHY were there NO "lunar dust" on the landing pads? WHY were the (supposed) "moon rocks" given to the Netherlands to be analyzed determined to be FAKE? WHY do you and millions of others have cognitive dissonance? ARE YOU GETTING THE PICTURE NOW? The government has been LYIING to everyone for decades!!!! WAKE UP, sheeple!!!
Wayne Reynolds poor Sheeple, I’m glad I’m not in the loop.
The moon landings were an epic human achievement.
@@ArboristUk How's the Kool Aid taste????
It’s significantly easier to put a man on the Moon, than to have a meaningful debate with a flat earther 😵💫
If only JFK, was still around, he was all for doing the HARD TO DO, than easier :)
Nice to find out finally Sheeples were having a meaningful debate with ME before i became one 😵💫
strange thou these Meaningful's were calling me flatearther as debate before that.....
seem this guy hasnt any more to say, the meaningfulness is somewhat left to be desired.... liked to see some of his honest fairplay frustrated attempts to communicate with those Flatearthers.... :) Very sought out those Creatures.
@@narajuna Just remember that without flat earthers, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
@@Xernive ALL IS FLAT No? why not, its a recent revival, this ape didnt even mention that powerful deragatory Primate subclass. Widespread of that "accusation' (/compliment) started in the 2015 on hoax videos. Still plenty of Globers not into the APOLLO cult. Has gone over 50% already???
I love when conspiracy theorists say I have seen no evidence of the moonlandings but when they are shown evidence they assert it is fake based on how they feel and what they believe.
Exactly!
cjfilmproductions
Not only that, but they use NASA data to try to disprove NASA claims!
So NASA is 100% reliable when they Moon Hoaxer thinks the data from NASA agrees with him, but 100% unreliable otherwise.
It's ironic that There's more evidence for the moon landings, than most other historic events
OK, that's enough cool-aid for you!
What evidence???
We don't need to worry about the deniers watching this video. They're not interested in hearing the facts. They are all stuck in their own little fantasy worlds. This is a great video!
Exactly right.
ruclips.net/video/9AeoMUkEX9g/видео.html
This guy is awsome. I’ve never seen some one debunk so much.
A conspiracy people hater like you must not see much of 'moms basement' Debunkers. But Some can not stay away....
@@wildboar7473 I scrolled through so many comments just to see your comments everywhere and you're like the only one that seems to think that way + it feels like you keep copy pasting info from various websites, i even saw you quoted wikipedia which is not reliable because it can be edited by any one. the point I'm making right now is that no one gives that much shit about the moon landing apart from you. Are you trying to prove something to yourself by spending your whole day answering to youtube comments?! its only showing you need to constantly remind yourself of what you believe to actually believe it and it looks ridiculous. Anyways, have a good day.
Ever research Operation Fishbowl?
According to NASA, the primary materials used in the lunar module were aluminum alloy, stainless steel, titanium, nickel steel alloy, and heat-resistant glass. The melting points of these materials range between 671°F and 2750°F. However, the heat in the thermosphere - which the Apollo space craft would have to travel through in order to get to the moon - reaches temperatures of more than 3600°F. It is quite clear we don’t have materials on earth able to withstand those temperatures. Therefore, there’s no way the lunar module ever went to the moon.
Mr Awesome ruclips.net/video/-jRMUX2-6Zc/видео.html 👍
Meanwhile, a real forensic film expert actually recreated "Moon landings" footage using 1960-s technology and also did full show-and-tell of that.
"No, they don't, go outside and see how shadows work."
My man roasted an entire community with such elegance 💀
? You are his 'Companion'? Rather broad, no specifics on community, the One that a *LOT* outside HELP at refuting still its Skeptics way after (2012) this.... roast ?
@@narajunaAre you some kind of parody of a reddit user, or...?
?@@marcelinepink I dont know, could be, not a reddit man, nor a HOMOerectus either, so your man roasted who? Far as I know he got directly roasted by Jarrah White, and the "impossible" became possible "bloody unlikely" she cried....
@@narajuna I don't even know what you're on but I want some of it.
@@marcelinepink sure still refuse to answer what you do with Your Man!
(you better be a man....too), well some homo"sapien" you are, your elegance and roasting is to be desired. ((ruclips.net/video/-3zhZqiSe5c/видео.html))
Thousands actually saw the three astronauts board the space capsule and get launched into space!! They were not seen in over a week!!! These IDIOTS are unbelievable! Thank you for this great video, and your common sense.
Spaceships no fly straight up they fly diagonally so they just landed somewhere else so what's your fucking point?!
They just chilled in the capsule while orbiting inside the Van Allen belt for a few days.
They just parked their ship on the firmament and spent a week gorging in the McDonald's there.
I doubt I could have couched it quite as well as you did Declan.
It really is astonishing how wilfully dumb, ignorant and gullible some supposedly educated adults can manage to be.
It is also cringeworthy to witness the spectacle of other human beings struggling and wrestling with basic ideas, thinking and demonstrable facts that even schoolchildren realise and can grasp.
The Dunning Kruger effect rears it's head yet again.
My Grandfather was 90 years old when this happened. He said it was a fake. He had never seen a rocket launch. I took him to Cape Canaveral to watch a launch. Before he died at 99 he told me that he believed because he had seen it take off. He wanted to believe.
Steve, You did Good!
That is awesome Steve! My granddad was 93 when the Apollo 13 mission "changed". I asked him if it was fake. He said no way. I asked him if they would make it home, he said, there are 100's of thousands of people working on it. They will come home. :Engineers are very crafty." That statement stuck with me for my entire life. (he was an power system engineer that helped set up commerical power grid in Salt Lake and San Fran). I miss that guy.
All theater to enliven ever sagging TV ratings. Who wanted to watch a lot of terribly blurry film made in the Apollo Valley in Hawaii? All made intentionally blurry to better deceive the public of NASA's chicanery. Our Deep State in full throttle action after killing the president that first envisioned a moon landing after he publicly criticized them and then profiting making billions of dollars off faking his vision. Just terrible times all wrapped around that same Deep State's Vietnam War that dragged on a damn decade killing 55,000 when bombing Hanoi which was finally done in very late 1972, would have ended that war in a few months at any time. The Deep State elitist had to reap those war machine profits just like on those bullshit moon landings faked on TV over & over six times by Nixon for bucks. Nixon stopped them after he became entangled in the Watergate Hotel burglary that caused his resignation before certain impeachment. Just bad times as now.
@@WarHog38KCS The moon landings were an inspiration that really helped a troubled world -- I was there -- so many great technologies came out of it, including those that lead to the internet and the very computer you are using to read this. If we in the same bad times now, then doing another landing (fake or not) again in 2025(?) will be an inspiration to help jump us to the next level in soceity. People need something to believe in, something that we create ourselves across all beliefs and walks of life.
What I really don't get is how you convert facts into fiction. Yes there are lot's of facts that neighsayers bring up, and EVERYTIME they just reinforce we went to the moon. Thse are facts and proofs, not just words and are repeatable everytime. But just because you SAY it's a lie, then it's a lie? I say it's the truth, so it's the truth... NO! I make mistakes, they get corrected and we move on with the tested truth.
But I support your cause, so I challenge you to this...
Why don't you test it yourself, try to prove we DID go to the moon, play devils advocate, using the best hardest facts and deepesr research you can.
Let's say you (like me) are actually being fooled into thinking we didn't go when we really did, so you set out to prove we went. If you are right and we didn't go, then your test will fail and you will be right. And if you cannot prove it, and I mean dig like you MUST prove it. Then have a math or physics person check your answers. If you fail to provide absolute proof we went, then you have a fighting change of being belived. But you got to try really really hard to provde we went if you want to lift the vail of lies...
If not, you are just another bag of air making baseless assertions on partial facts and ignorance. What a sad use of a brillant mind if you don't try.
@@scottl5000 I was aware of the moon landings as a big about grown boy. I watched very little of that blurry moon film when in comparison a person could watch crystal clear real good regular TV programming. However I did watch Armstrong descend that ladder. I did believe the moon landing then and did so until the computer age. I really actually never thought much about them. I have had my decades believing for the good of this country. I also had the battle you suggest within my psyche when I started watching the vast amount of material on the internet that questioned the validity of those moon landings. I initially thought those people questioning the government & media narrative on those moon landings & 9/11, were total crackpots. Then I diligently studied it all as you suggested. Immense radiation problems concerning the Van Allen Radiation Belts and Deep Space Heavy Particle Radiation throughout space caused by solar flares and quasars and the like. I even studied recent NASA released information where scientists & physicists fully acknowledging those deadly radiation problems concerning humans in space travel outside earth's orbit. All this while knowing the Apollo astronauts had absolutely no radiation shielding. Then I saw film where several supposed Apollo moon astronauts didn't even know the Van Allen Radiation Belts existed. I saw the somber film of those Apollo 11 astronauts at their post moon mission news conference. Somber as at mom's funeral instead of happy about just completing that supposed spectacular moon mission and crazily talking of never seeing stars the whole mission. Orbiting the moon, they should have logically seen stars. Then I saw where an airliner that was nearly 50 feet high and 147 feet in width disappeared inside a 20 foot circular hole at the Pentagon with over 150 people on board. I saw where an actual airliner crash at Camp David was first reported that same 9/11 morning and then forever ignored by the media thereafter. I saw where five Israelis with several being Mossad members set up cameras prior to the twin towers being hit and were seen celebrating as the towers exploded. They were arrested by NYC police and then released a few days later. You can believe government versions if you so wish through hell & high water. I just will not anymore. I see it all as a evil Deep State of globalist zionist billionaire elites that have this nation by the throat with the intention to destroy this country while they reap billions. Read the Georgia Guidestones.
He's absolutely right. I was nine years old and just glued to the television, but it was BORING outside of 20 minutes or so. Not much chatter, just Armstrong and Aldrin doing some bounding around. Setting up experiments is not very interesting. As a kid, the excitement was there for the achievement, but the actual business of collecting samples, setting up reflectors and all that other stuff was not exactly riveting stuff.
Nice touch with the NASA check at the end... hilarious.
What you watched as a nine year old was footage taken from someone filming a screen in the NASA mission control. The feed was never direct from the moon. It was second hand film (the feed went to NASA with broadcasters filming the screen to broadcast to the public). This was to disguise the fact they were filming it in a studio. I never used to believe the conspiracy either till I grew-up, woke-up and realised it was all bullshit. They were all freemasons who were in on it. Why do you think we have never been back? We should have had moon-bases decades ago. It's incredible people still believe everything they're told.
@@khemikora Have you actually watched the video and seen how these theories of yours were debunked?
@felix mendez The fact is, there is no claim that has ever been made that hasn't already been debunked.
Just because you're too ignorant, uneducated, and ill-informed to know that, doesn't mean it is so.
Every claim ever made in the last 50+ years has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. Most of them long before you ever heard of them.
Science is not magic.
They landed.
Six times.
Q.E.D.
@felix mendez As soon as you can provide some valid, factual, independently-verifiable, documented, scientifically-accurate, legitimate, mathematically-sound evidence to back up your claim, you might be on to something. Until then, we're going to have to watch you flounder around coming up with these lame attempts at ad hominem insults.
There is no claim you can make that hasn't already been debunked before you ever heard of it.
I'll wait for you to come up with something, but it's a near-certainty that I've already debunked it somewhere.
They landed.
Six times.
Deal with it.
@felix mendez If the only claim you're making is that the "technology was destroyed" then you're even more ignorant, uneducated, and ill-informed than I originally thought.
You're saying that since the tooling to build B-17 bombers from 1942 was destroyed after the war, that it is impossible to build one today? Are you really that ignorant?
To confirm, it is your position that obsolete, outdated, surplus, and unnecessary equipment for a program that is no longer active, should have been maintained in operational condition, just to prove to you that the program existed? Seriously? How vain and arrogant of you.
Of course, I wouldn't expect you to accept any facts, since you clearly don't know that most of the documentation of the program, (over 20,000 box-feet of documents) is in the Ellenwood, Ga. National Archival Storage Facility. There are another 150,000+ box-feet of documents spread among the other National Archives Storage Facilities, and tens of millions of other ancillary pages of prints, film, memos, etc. that are in other storage archives around the country.
Those are hard documents. First-level sources that outweigh, override, and completely refute any claim you might make. And if you try to say that they're fake, then you have to prove they're fake. Your say-so isn't enough.
To inform you, so that you'll be less ignorant than you are, only about 3% of the documentation of the program has ever been scanned and released on the Internet. That includes the 170,000 + box-feet of documents that you didn't even know existed, because they've never been scanned for the Internet.
The fact that you didn't know they exist and are stored in archives across the country, doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means that you are ignorant of their existence.
For the record, a "box-foot" is the amount of documents it takes to fill up a box that is 1 foot (12 inches) deep.
According to International Paper, 500 sheets of standard 8½ x 14 in (216 x 356 mm) Legal size, 75 g/m sq, sheet of paper has a measured thickness of 51.5 mm, or about 2.027 inches.
Multiply 500 x 6 (because 500 sheets is roughly 2 inches, and 2 x 6 = 12) and you get 3000.
Three thousand sheets of paper is roughly one box-foot.
There are 60 million sheets of Apollo documentation stored at Ellenwood alone. And another 450 million sheets in storage around the country.
To verify this, all you have to do is, contact the National Archives, ask if they have any Apollo documentation, and ask how you can personally see it. You can contact any one of the other Archives Storage Facilities, the Library of Congress, or similar archival institutions, and see for yourself. That would require intellectual honesty on your part, and you have demonstrated that you have none.
Who knows, you might actually learn something.
But since you're so sure, why don't you get the New York Times, Washington Post, or some other big newspaper to do an article on this fakery for you? I'm sure you can convince them of it.
Before you do that, however...
You still haven't made a legitimate claim. You've provided no evidence, no facts, no documentation, and no proof of your claim.
In other words, you fail.
They landed.
Six times.
Deal with it.
Q.E.D.
.
The joke is that they wanted Stanley Kubrick to do the hoax, but be insisted on shooting on location.
The funniest thing though is that Kubrick wanted a four person gold leather couch as part of his payment, that was the deal breaker...NASA went to the moon instead, it was cheaper. Kubrick threw a fit, and told NASA he would ruin them, that’s when the KGB stepped in, Kubrick was introduced to Bill Kaysing. After that meeting Kubrick put that stuff in ‘The Shining’ as a result.
The true reason behind the KGB’s involvement has always been a mystery, but theorists believe it was a behind the scenes attempt to delay the US space program in order for the Ruskies to get the N1 to work.
With the ‘Kubrick plan’ now in tatters, the KGB renditioned Kaysing to an underground facility in Siberia, he was brainwashed, fed drugs and sent back to the US via mule train through Alaska. On his return Kaysing began his anti NASA campaign in earnest, guided by his KGB handlers. The whole operation came to a grinding halt in 1968, Majestic and a detachment of Illuminati special tactics operatives discovered the KGB hideout in Minnesota, raided it and ‘accidented’ all of the occupants. Although many people in the small Minnesotan town questioned the probability of four crashes on the same railroad crossing in one day, the Freemasons soon quelled the suspicions of the townsfolk by offering free tacos for life
@@nicsandee123 What you say makes sense but the truth is rarely as straightforward as that.
I came here watching because Everyday Astronaut recommended it. Great video :)
You got 2 likes, but no one expanded on your very complimentary posting here...without a doubt video is most definitive evidence that man stepped on the moon, hands down! I’m gonna give you a like for this one because it is what is expected from the schoolteacher😎👍 >>>> American Moon (English Version)
ruclips.net/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/видео.html
Collins claim on this video has been completely DEBUNKED. Just because a person (Collins) says it does not make it any more fact.... ruclips.net/video/_x49lImzw5s/видео.html
@@shawncrossen7580 yeah well that is what the self declared "Qualified" do all the time, then they ask you for Definite Evidence. He is not sure they walked on Moon, but sure the had the Tech, was sure of film tech after asking others then less sure, so "impossible" turned to "unlikely".
@@wildboar7473 Even if this Collins is an expert and even if he was right in what he said, which he wasn't, his sense of arrogance and snippy attitude in this video really makes him unlikable, for lack of a better word.
@@shawncrossen7580 yeah the homosapien had the nerve to accuse Jarrah of being condescending... rant about selling the Soul... when he has no belief in that. One wonders what state his rational Mind is.
3.8k people are definitely area 51 stormers
for now...
Law of Perspective nice joke
22k people are definitely establishment puppets
Establishment puppets...right? Of course but what if the idea of going to the moon appeals to my sense of adventure and that’s it? I know it’s cool to be anti-establishment and all, but at the end of the day ya gotta eat
Whaaaaat happened... I was driving drinking coffee with a Sgt. Waiting for the 40cal too rip. Smart move bozos
The Kubrick thing always cracks me up! As you say, it seems to be based entirely on the fact that he made 2001. But if we take off our rose tinted glasses and watch 2001 - and actually OBSERVE it- the effects are terrible! For the main part they amount to photographs cut out and pasted onto glass. And his depiction of the moon is primarily a 2d matte painting, that looks NOTHING like the moon in NASA's footage.
Can you imagine the speed that disk would be running if it was 95 times bigger! Wow, the technical obstacles alone make the idea laughable!
Glad you mentioned the bank bailouts. Those who criticise space exploration are usually unaware that the bailouts cost more than NASA has in its entire history!
And your argument consists entirely of a crass obscenity. that's the kind of incisive reasoning that it the mark of the true tinfoil-hatter; well done madam!
Evil Twin
And don't forget, the video only deals with ways to record and store the faked imagery; you'd still need ways to create convincing fake imagery, or you'd have nothing to to put on the storage media
slayed shiller
OK let us see.
The only running away so far has been done by YOU.
And the only lying, as you prove with the post you just made.
Evil Twin _"a 2d matte painting, that looks NOTHING like the moon in NASA's footage"_
So the picture of Earth that Neil Actor holds up to the window to *fake* being halfway to the moon, during their 3 day low earth orbit, was that also a 2d matte painting ? I thought it looked quite real.
*UNTIL I SAW HIS ARM IN THE SHOT*
ᚱᛰUᛠӖᚱ ᚦᗩӖϻᛰᚤ
Neil armstrong does no such thing. The con man Bart Sibrel deceptively edited Apollo 11 telecast footage and SUGGESTED that what appeared to be silhouetted arm was Neil's , and that Neil was faking the mission. But looking at the UNEDITED Apollo 11 footage proves this could not possibly be so.
This is pretty damn wonderful.
Also, it's always interesting when you find an old video whose comments have been so consistently active and populated by regulars that it's pretty much become like an entire subreddit.
More brainstorming! Intersting indeed, bet you dont remember Me here ("for yearS"), O some Regulars "partimers" have returned and a few have taken leave... perhaps due to One insufferable incomprehensible wordsalad ignorant guy....
But the *wonderful* Filmaker (who doesnt care at all for APOLLO) is receiving many praises anymore. The Sapien intelligence and hat looks dont compensate.
@@Vanished_Mostly the more comments i posted , the more youtube notification will drag me back here again, resulting in me posting more comment... seem like downward spiral isnt it.
Also, it doesn't take into account that if you 'speed up' the so called 'slowed down' footage to match an Earth 1G environment (i.e. such as you might find in every studio on the planet), that things still don't jive. Saw a RUclips video where a guy did the adjustments using thrown objects and a cover with a connecting chain (that swung like a pendulum), to do the calculations for the adjustments, sped up the film, and the result is odd, overly fast motion by the astronauts. So, doing any sort of slow motion to fake anything is completely impossible from the get go, not to mention all the filmmaker knowledge you bring to the table about the technical aspects of doing it (if slow mo actually worked).
_"doing any sort of slow motion to fake anything is completely impossible from the get go"_
No it just eludes you and some guy doing a video on youtube. Hardly the most discerning sleuths in Christendom are you ?
@@user-tt5js4bh2v Nothing is eluding anyone. It's basic physics. If slow motion was used, you can do the math to figure out how slow it would have to be done on Earth to make it appear to be on the Moon. It's basic math. It can't be done with slow motion. Try it for yourself, see if you do it. You can't. Also, remember this was a live continuous broadcast for long periods of time, and back then, the only 'live' slow motion replay was a few seconds for sporting events. No such machine existed that could slow mo that length of time.
@@johanlaurasia _"It can't be done with slow motion"_
Where did I say it was done using slow motion?
Oh that's right *I did not* it's actually just your simple minded straw man argument.
Small thoughts in a small mind.
Now run along.
You quoted me saying: "doing any sort of slow motion to fake anything is completely impossible from the get go", then you said:
"No it just eludes you and some guy doing a video on RUclips.", so you implied that it was possible and everyone else was just too stupid to figure out how to do it. Also, I'm just trying to have a conversation about it, and your responses are full of trolling comments about how small my mind is. You seem to have pretty big balls trolling from the internet, but I doubt you'd talk shit like that to me if you were standing in front of me. So, you can believe whatever retarded bullshit it is that you want, I won't respond to any more of your trolling bullshit though.
I was a teenage Radio Amateur in 1969. Not one one hoaxer has been able to explain why, in the UK, i was only able to intercept the audio broadcast back channel at 2230 MHz with the directional dish aerial pointing at the moon......and dont even bother suggesting it was reflected ,at that frequency, with that technology, and with the inverse square law the signal would have needed a disc ten times bigger than Jodrell bank to hear it.
Nor did one hoaxer know you’re in fact telling the truth.. just sayin’.
A repeater was placed on the prior lunar surveyor missions that were already on the surface of the moon, you were listening to a hoax. Get over yourself, you actually think that you cannot be fooled
@Cliff Walden every single piece of evidence presented, these idiots will create some elaborate conspiracy to deny it. It shows that constantly cutting education is creating some really stupid people
@@brianmenendez so NASA was able to land a radio on the Moon? Maybe you should tell this to all the Moon landing deniers who claim that space doesn't exist. When you get your stories straight then come back.
Wait, let me ask you to clarify. You did get the back channel? We did too and more -- We got full S-Band (2 to 4 Ghz) just fine in Seattle, so did the Italians, but we used high-end systems at Boeing -- UHF crosses over to SHF at 3GHz. You were at 2.2Ghz (UHF). Did you have the modulator or whatever (I'm not a radio guy) for SHF? Most amateur's I know didn't. But again I'm asking (not doubting) because I'm not a radio guy. Analog is a lost art.
Very convincing. People who aren't 70 like me don't recall how bulky and primitive tech was years ago. I used to program a huge disk based IBM 1130 with a stack of punch cards.
I ran my first programs on the same machine using punched cards in Los Alamitos, Ca
I never programmed with punched cards, but I did program with switches on an Altair 8800.
Nice try apologist, save the bull shit for someone else.
Speaking of saving Mr Marco. Why don’t you spare us from your singular and devastating repartee
@@nicsandee123 Don't rain on his parade. I think he's cute.
You guys still at it? A long break has done me good.
Break? And nothing, really, is better than Bach. Hard to argue: was a devout Lutheran, and it is clear that his Christian faith informed his work as a musician (opposed to the Great Nothingness, Bang or Soup). Bach's compositions include hundreds of cantatas, both sacred and secular. He composed Latin church music, Passions, oratorios, and motets. He often adopted Lutheran hymns, not only in his larger vocal works but, for instance, also in his four-part chorales and his sacred songs.
(Jesu Juva) with which Bach begins each composition is to him, the orthodox Lutheran, a humble prayer for God's assistance and inspiration, the S D G (Soli Deo Gloria) with which he closes his work is the thanksgiving for the prayer heard. 🙏
Psalm 42 NIV - BOOK II Psalms 42-72
Why, my soul, are you downcast? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God.
Welcome back.
What religious faith is Bruce Springsteen? Catholic
Bruce Springsteen & REM - Man on the Moon - Live in Cleveland (10/02/2004)
note: the Brain is not Vestigial garbage, its God given computer :) Use it!
No welcome back for Herr Schultz ?
Hans Schmidt also not averse to plagiarizing talent. He doesn't wants to wake up from monkey teachers. Encourage people to heil Silverback$ sieg.
"...some skylord🧠 randomly influencing the system or other silly nonsense"?
"Some of them need a compass in this jungle (nasa & dawson science)
Because they can't find their way in this jungle (spin globe find...)
So much hate and contempt is in the jungle (EU DisinfoLab howls)
So be careful who you make a pact with in the jungle" (/nasa haeckel...)
...ape-pride Advocates (+other prides...) wont be playing harp latter...
"All quiet on the eastern front." (NOT!) 😎
Why is Psalm 19.1, “the heavens declare the glory of God,” and “the firmament showeth his handywork” on Wernher von Braun's gravestone?
>> he turned christian after nasa experience, as Others.
What was Wernher von Braun's famous quote?
I believe in an immortal soul. Science has proved that nothing disintegrates into nothingness. Life and soul, therefore, cannot disintegrate into nothingness, and so are immortal. (
@@Bnslamb Thanks. How are you and yours?
This clip is dripping with sarcasm!!! 🤣 😂 😅. Hey Maybe they shot on location? Ever thought of that?
That proves Kubrick was behind it. Perfectionist that he was, he would have insisted on shooting on location.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
@@therealzilch yea they went to the moon to shoot it.
It's also littered with pictures and sound.
@@therealzilch "That proves Kubrick was behind it. Perfectionist that he was, he would have insisted on shooting on location." The same Stanely Kubrick who was such a perfectionist, he shot Full Metal Jacket, a film set in Vietnam, in London?👍
I met Neil Armstrong through a family friend back in 2002 and had a lovely tour of his home. He showed me so many pictures and just by talking to him you know he lived it. Too many dumb people in the world believing others and in most cases they have never done a single bit of research. Great video
Well said.
Supermanbrl- that’s awesome! Must have been a great experience, and I agree, if you talk to people who have the experience of something with great risk attached, you know they are telling you how it was, it’s in the language used to describe the event. Simple really, strange how some people just can’t accept that?
@@nicsandee123 I met Dr. Wernher Von Braun through my father's cousin and visited his home before his death. He told me that Apollos were all fake, and that they were Hot-Hydrogen-Balloons, and that he had screwed NASA for his own survival, and the survival of thousands of captive German POWs, brought over as engineers, so he had to sell the Moon-Hoax to NASA, but since it didn't work he had to fake it, but that his smoking gun was in the fake TWR===1.2 with which NO rocket could get off the ground, even one inch!!! So, he gave me the mission to disclose that secret, which I eventually did, with my short videos, linked at my name-link above!!!
@@kareemsalessi
Bullshit. PROVE IT. Why don't you read some other than conspiracy kook horse shit?
@@kareemsalessi "but that his smoking gun was in the fake TWR===1.2 with which NO rocket could get off the ground"
Poor Kareem. Tries to tell some elaborate lie and then stumbles over the fact that he never looked up what TWR describes...
I work in the film industry but I never really thought about this the way you present it. Great work, and love your very low key aproach and tone. Thanks!
And thousands of people would have had to know it was being faked, and all of them have kept it secret all these years. This is an excellent take and hilarious as well. Well done S.G.
Not billions? Yes all those guys (shopworkers) working on Moon would of witness first hand with own eyes. And been happy towards treason to their Employer /Government, putting their Country in shame. Perhaps they become loved heroes? Least get a raise by those cooperating Aviation Industries. All major MS corporate Media would of been so happy (more than Watergate. Only 1 dared with Proof) to print, or broadcast to happy grateful Americans already proud with Vietnam and social racist turmoils.
note: before she passed away this "sapien" H thing..... admitted defeat to critic Amateur Jarrah White on all these "impossibles".
I've never understood how anybody could come up with the (moon landings were fake) conspiracy, if they only did it once I could see people thinking that, but six times?
Exactly, even just faking it twice would be a miracle....but faking this worldwide event 6 times? Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17, and then keeping it a secret for over 50 years while fooling every scientist in the world including the Soviets? Not even a miracle can save the ridiculousness of this stupid conspiracy theory. This is not even including the 3 extra manned missions that only orbited the moon, Apollo 8, 10, and 13, and all the rocket test and test flights from Apollo 1-7, Mercury, and Gemini missions combined. If they were going to fake the moon landings, why go through all the trouble and effort building those expensive rockets, risking lives, spending lots of money, working diligently day in day out, for over a decade, only to fake it in the end, knowing one day they'll get caught eventually? AND then faking 5 more times increasing the risks of the getting caught...just complete nonsense, absolute rubbish.
Getting away with it six times just proves how big the conspiracy is. I suspect demonic involvement. Might even be a personal project of the Horned God Himself.
Scott Wallace LOL Good one, Scott! I suspect you need a lobotomy.
@@lachrymarum_
👏👏👏👍
@@therealzilch here is some beautiful "footage", a great picture for an astronauts signature
www.aulis.com/imagesfurther/15-86-11670print.jpg
3.5K dislikes? Looks like we have 3.5K Flat Earthers.
interestingly its the christian church that made popular the term flat earth nitwits. during the "dark ages" ie times when christians were not free to murder, rape, oppress, steal what they wanted without consequence... the opposition were cast with every slur they could find retrospectively. irony being that christians were the ones that thought the heavens revolved around earth and that earth was centre of the universe. Eratosthenes had already calculated the circumference of the earth in about 240bc.
And this is where your brainwashing has worked as you associate people who think and have very good logicle arguments against the moon landing with mindless lunatics who believe the earth is flat! This was the purpose of the flat earth psychological operation they have done on your mind...
Alien Scientist This is how they have brainwashed my mind? Lol, I’m not a Flat Earther.
@@alienscientist8893 The point is, the hoax believers do NOT have good logical arguments against the Moon landings. They just come out with the same Gish gallop stuff that has been debunked a thousand times.
Not one of them has ever come up with actual evidence for a fake. Not one has ever come up with a narrative that explains how the landings were faked, where they were faked, how they were organised, how they kept it secret for half a century, why they presented so much visual material when they could have got away with stills, and so on.
Hoax believers are little better than flat earthers. If that offends you, learn some science.
@@paulbeardsley4095 Hahahahahaha that's funny as there's dozens of films on RUclips pointing out the totally fakery of it,, try looking at the luna model take off from the moon,,, No I don't give a shit about who operated the camera,, im looking at a piece of plastic on wires,, I mean you can lie to your self about what you are looking at if you like,, some fucking idiot film maker is not going to be able to tell me that is real.. I think some of the shots of actual wire on the space station is also a dead give away.. But again the religion is strong with you so seeing is not believing with you lunatics.
Your attempt to wake them up has failed. They aren't concerned about facts. They just want to believe that it's a conspiracy and conspiracy videos are all that they'll watch.
Most believers (including you) would continue to believe in the Moon landings even if there were irrefutable proof that it didn't happen. Like, someone else goes there and bring today's tech and film the empty landing sites.
Simboiss, did you even watch the entire video, or did you dive straight into the comments first? This *movie director* explains how faking the moon landings in 1969 is impossible, if not, very, very hard/impractical.
The Chinese rover went to the moon and saw no stars in the sky and the regolith changed colour depending on how you look at it. The Soviets claimed to have tracked Apollo 11 on it's way to the moon and back (with shock and shame), and so too did the Spanish.
Other non-NASA parties relayed the moon missions, such as Spain and Australia. Since this is fact, it means that not have NASA created a huge hoax to cover up the faked moon landings, but the Russians, the Spanish, the Chinese AND the Australians are also all in on the conspiracy (the Soviets were supposedly the ones being lied to). "BUT THEY JUST PAYED THEM ALL!" Yeah, you really think that Russia, America's former mortal enemy, would have been willing to accept money in exchange for losing the space race (and then pretend to be bankrupt)? They would have spread the news like wildfire, and the US would have been in shame for attempting to lie to the entire world.
I'd like to see a *rational, factual and non-crazy* explanation to the above.
Citations:
www.honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/fresnedillas/index.html
www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutu_(rover)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Well, I can refute briefly. The point of the movie is interesting, but the real-time aspect of the videos was not needed. Also, the quality of the videos diffused, especially Apollo 11, was so low that any "defect" would have went unnoticed. Who cares about dust and weird cuts when the video is so low quality because of the various "convertions".
The other points. The problems with the absence of stars is for the astronauts, not the photos or videos. The astronauts said they couldn't see stars, either on the surface of the Moon, or en route to it. The Soviets didn't have the necessary tech to track anything that could give Apollo away. I don't know about the Spanish.
The third-party proofs are either inexistent or flimsy. Normal citizens don't have the gear for that, and the frequency bands used by Apollo were high and out of allowed bands, which is suspicious in itself. Those who had enough tech were part of the NASA network. As for the Chinese, it's big "meh". It's more plausible today to send unmanned robots, but humans, it's another story. The change of color could be attributable to the white balance, but yeah, it's possible that the Moon has some color.
Two Australian buildings relayed signals from the moon while the USA was turned away from the moon, and in fact the Parkes Observatory was the first entity to receive signals of Neil Armstrong making his first steps on the surface, and these signals were relayed from Parkes to NASA mission control in Houston. The Spanish "Madrid Deep Space Communication Complex" also relayed signals (but they are part of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, so I guess that makes them 'in on the conspiracy' by default). So are the Australians in on the conspiracy?
www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/news_events/apollo11/
www.honeysucklecreek.net/msfn_missions/Apollo_11_mission/index.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Deep_Space_Communications_Complex
Every dish was part of the NASA network a way or another.
What? Ruining perfectly good conspiracies with facts? How could you?!?!?
It ruined now? Dont think adding FACTS helped, he did this lip rant in 2006, and the Shill are whining they are losing ground :(
@@narajuna who’s whining...I think maybe it’s those who dwell in hoax Nation that do the most, what with the ‘Shills’, ‘GOV agents’, ‘sheeple’, ‘NASATURDS’ and I almost forgot the old classic...‘ NPC’s’. They do tend to get upset by some facts, I know it must be a bummer for them... that’s life I guess.
As for losing ground... who be doing that? Not I say the hoaxers just before slipping on their own snake oil!😎👍
Ross, I have to agree... it’s a crying shame but it is only a ‘theory’ after all😎
@@nicsandee123 WHO? You dont say, dont you read other comments then mine? Poor Eventcon :( >>>
; "If you want to comment then educate yourself, or otherwise refrain."[1]
"You make continuous attempts to cast doubt on this or that aspect of the Apollo missions based on what amounts to nothing more than your own ignorance." ( - not much of attempts= but he's at them...)
" - the hoaxuts are just going to run with it like the satire was true."
'Indeed - people seem to be claiming "truth" as their own personal property. Truth is what they believe, and they can believe whatever they want. Which is indeed insanity." - decent no name calling etc
"They've just completed humanity's first manned lunar landing and you want to lambaste their presentation? Now THAT's "pitiful"."
WHO? YOU! ;
"I’d say most folks come here with the preconceived notion that the moon landings are fake."
"Ahh, but in this age of ‘fakeness’ and conspiracy. A person need only to keep repeating one point to hammer home any kind of nonsense they want to sell."
"you young hoax folks always dismiss us older guys as ‘dumb boomers’ - from a guy who did that to me.
"In a world gone insane, a world where people would rather believe something is fake first,'"
"I think what’s pitiful is the amount of people who blindly accept that the moon landings were fake."
- ...love and respect you show to all those who might disagree with you or have a valid point,???
PALS ;
"stop spreading your false flat eather rumor/hoax here. you've been doing this for the pass 3 years"
"You conspiracists swallow any old shit."
"People say FAKE then never even try to refute what this guy says."
"As they say: people who rely on gut feelings have shit for brains." - a decent non name caller.
"Or are you just another hoax coward and will now run away?"
- you see no complaining therein? Perhaps english cognitiveness is not your thing..... YOU dont for sure👍
😃 (eyes with no sunglass blinders)
note: primitive snakes present quite simple eyes, with only rods which allow them to distinguish light and darkness. That explain something.
hey it was worth a shot I suppose?
[1] (oh and I’ll write whatever I please in the comments section,)
@@narajuna 1] (oh and I’ll write whatever I please in the comments section ---please do, I always appreciate a nice big wall of text... they really get my motor running 😎👍
AWESOME! (I posted that after the first couple of minutes because it is so refreshing to hear someone talk about things they actually KNOW about - but then I got to the end and wow, that's where the real content is). This is what I keep trying to explain to alternative reality believers/conspiracy theorists: they're definitely not all that good at spotting real conspiracies which, as you say, happen all over the place. Really glad to see someone who gets it.
That's exactly how I felt!! :)
The introduction is necessary, it contains the knowledge needed to debunk the conspiracy theories and make sense of the conclusions.
Now we have the technology to fake the moon landing, but we no longer have the telemetry data etc. nor the ability to go to the moon?
Fair enough, we should fake a Mars mission.
Whoever told you we have no telemetry data lied to you. And we _do_ have the ability to go to the Moon - we just need to build the actual spacecraft to do so.
It's already been done. It was called "Capricorn One". And that's probably the movie that started this whole moon landing hoax conspiracy.
@@Jan_Strzelecki The telemetry data was erased. This is old news, my man. NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing.
www.reuters.com/article/us-nasa-tapes/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716
'NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing.
Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking for them.
The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed - magnetically erased - and re-used to save money."
Anybody who told you NASA needed to save money by ERASING THE TELEMETRY DATA -- that's the person that lied to you. Cheers
Jan Strzeleck lol they taped over the original telemetry- all of it.
@@anotherlover6954 : likely 50 year old tapes wouldn't be much good anyway. They degrade in storage. Likely all the important data can still found, in books, or other copies. Also, why would NASA chose to rebuild 60 yr old tech to go back to the moon?
Brilliantly executed, wonderfully informed, technically explicit, verifiable and humorous, but with a note of serious, soul-searching inquiry. I can't praise this highly enough. Should be on the syllabus for 'Critical Thinking' courses.
NASA had billions of dollars to work with at the time of making the landing on the moon look real, although they had men orbit around the earth for 8 days, they never landed on the moon, that was staged with lots of money like I said, NASA had billions of dollars to worth it, and at that time it was a RACE TO SPACE and if they couldn't make it, they faked it to beat the Russians or anyone at the time. that's what won the war!!!!! also there is creators that look like the moon at AREA 51.
What a load of autofellatory rubbish. This video is testament to how broken the USA actually is. Doesn't it occur to you that the greatest country in the world shouldn't have to blackmail people into making such facile tub thumping ?
ᚱᛰUᛠӖᚱ ᚦᗩӖϻᛰᚤ
....glass houses....
So then, foul-mouthed, preening, perversion preoccupied fakir, why don't you tell us what country YOU hail from, so we may avoid the cesspit it must surely be?
*S－Ｏ－D－Ｏ－Ｍ－Ｉ－Ｔ－Ｅ*
You probably have to justify your own abject cowardice on a daily basis. It's what has created the majority of your acute schizophrenia. Avoiding being rightfully kicked to death in prison may seem like _self preservation_ to you, but really it was just sinking even lower than you already had.
I mean, consider the advantages of killing yourself - no more bills / monitoring of your every movement / being told what to do by civil servants in their 20's who look at you like a fresh pile of dog shit. It's a win win situation.
ᚱᛰUᛠӖᚱ ᚦᗩӖϻᛰᚤ
It is obvious that "winning" is something you have no experience with.
Yeah in December 1971 there were 410,000 people working on Apollo and every one of them never said a word that it was all Fake! Amazing.....
? Their shop work was fake !?? They had firsthand knowledge what went on in SPACE !? Amazing.....
@@alanskinner7031 they all dont have to know. Same way janitor does not need to know headmaster corruption
We got to stay home from school on the day of the first lunar landing , but then the school went and ruined it for us by making us write a report the next day.
@Star Trek Theory nope catholic nuns. wasnt a big deal cuz i was glued to the tv set the whole day, for some reason i was the only one of six boys that stuck it out day after day. watched on a sylvania black and white with an oval shaped picture tube that was big as a volkswagen!
@@rmiller2179 we had the hatchback version... doubled as a ping pong table
A photograph was taken by the Apollo 15 astronauts in 1971. There can be no dispute it was taken at the time as it would have been available soon after the crew's return. Much more recently the Japanese sent up a lunar orbiter which mapped the surface of the moon in 3D. This was then used to recreate the view from the point at which the Apollo 15 shot was taken. The topography was identical. There is no way NASA or anyone else could have created the exactly correct moonscape in the background of the Apollo 15 shot in 1971.
www.ianridpath.com/moon/moon17a.htm
Don't you know the US government had super advanced technology that no one knew about. So instead of using that to just go to the moon they faked it and got hundreds of thousands of people to swear to perfect secrecy including members of enemy governments.
Don't you Apollogists ever get sick of using asshole comments to try and prove your point?
Read a fucking science book and maybe you'll see the light.
slayedshiller
The apollo photography is all genuine! Established physical facts ALL prove it:
1) Light CAN be diffused on the Moon and is. Lunar "soil" - called "regolith" - consists largely of microscopic volcanic glass spheres, which exhibit "retroreflection". This is the phenomenon in which sunlight is reflected back approximately in the direction from which it came. So then, an object in shadow on the lunar surface is softly and diffusely lit by the surface down sun of it.
But that is not the only effect of retroreflection. Any view cross-sun will exhibit a darker tone up-sun and a lighter tone looking down-sun because the retroreflected sunlight is away from a viewer looking up-sun, and toward the same viewer looking down-sun.
The Apollo photos ARE NOT "all the apollo photos are perfectly, evenly exposed "
Have you ever looked at Apollo photos in you life?
Try this one:
(remove 1 space)
tinyurl. com/y82o8may
2) Then you say;
" tack sharp infinity focus on a camera is not just a matter of pointing and clicking, you have to set the appropriate apertures then reference the lower third of the frame to achieve perfect focus. "
Have you ever used a camera in your life?
Shooting a landscape with a wide-angle lens set to a at high f/stop, if the nearest object of interest is more than a few feet away, all you need to do is set the focus ring's minimum hash mark to the object's distance, and everything further out WILL be in sharp focus.
For that reason, Apollo panoramas would be simplicity itself: set the focus ring so that the infinity mark is on the far depth of field hash mark, and further adjustment would be unnecessary, as everything from a few feet out to infinity would be in focus at the f/stops used..
3) Finally, you say:
' the hasselblad also had no sheilding from the harsh conditions without an atmosphere and van allen belts to deflect all the solar radiation. '
Yes it did:
The camera was coated with a special heat-reflecting paint;
(remove space)
sterileeye. com/2009/07/23/the-apollo-11-hasselblad-cameras/
But the cameras DID NOT NEED radiation shielding because the only radiation exposure on the Moon was the 0.5 millirem/ hr GCR.
And the cameras were in the heavily shielded Command Module for the brief skirting of the VAB's, so were not exposed to significant radiation there.
It makes no sense to talk about " the 100 year solar flare spike between 70 and 72 " because no Apollo missions flew during this event.
And it makes no sense to talk about gamma radiation, as gamma output from the Sun in normal conditions - as when Apollo missions flew - is essentially zero.
tinyurl. com/y9gzts9u
No, sorry friend, your posted no "facts", at least none that mean what you think they mean.
Your arguments are garbage, plain and simple.
slayedshiller
Gets it all wrong again.
No idiot, it you who play MY game without knowing it:
You begin by showing how illogical, egotistical and wackily unscientific Moon Hoaxers are.
i post links for people who are trying to decide about Moon Hoax claims, and want to know more.
So by dealing with you, I kill two birds with one stone, and only need to do half the work:
You kill-off the Moon Hoax by being yourself, acting like a vulgar idiot who cannot think logically.
I provide valid information that is also RELEVANT to the question at hand - something you do not know how to do.
There are two kinds of idiots in the world:
Plain old idiots, and then YOUR kind: the USEFUL idiot.
So by all means DO post and post away to your hearts content.
idiot.
slayedshiller
Then you have nothing to look forward to except a continuation of the unbroken stream of disappointments your tiny brain has so far earned you.
The best RUclips video of this century? I am beginning to think so.
35% of Americans need to watch it before they vote in November 2020.
35%? Thought it was 20% of unbelievers, bunch of Neutrals thou. What has to do with Elections? Trump is all for a... return :)
People STILL vote? LOL ... why?
Whats the deal, trump is for a 2024 moon land, now for sure it is not happening.
Brilliant video, and commentary. Great job and very well done. Thank You.
You were in need of his /her Brilliance? Feelings of unsafeness face to a few against their own rational minds? Real GOV conspiracies !??
Another reason why Stanley Kubrick wouldn't have faked the moonlanding is because he wouldn't have allowed Neil Armstrong to mess up his line. :D He would've had him going back up the ladder and say it again a hundred times before it was juuuust right!
Well, yes but’s let’s not forget the good ol’ flag. I doubt Kubrick would have missed that, and the editor Ray Lovejoy (2001) would definitely would not have missed it. The scene would have definitely been reshot. Although there is one explanation that fits but strangely ignored by hoaxers. If the ‘fake landings’ were shot at Shepperton studios in the UK then the tea lady bringing refreshments would be a problem, ask James Cameron. During the shooting of ‘Aliens’ those big studio doors would open, the crew would just drop everything, turn into a mob and grab whatever food they could off that trolley the lady was pushing. The studio doors would be open during this melee. An errant breeze may have snuck in during that time.
I think Stanley would have insisted on a better screenplay. I mean, yes, I know some of Stanley's movies were slow-paced with boring dialogue (Barry Lyndon anyone?) but honestly - there's no way he would have settled for all that interminable technobabble. I mean there's hours of that stuff!
I also think the computer would have been a lot more menacing. 1201 alarm? Pffft!
Critics on Superhero Neil Armstrong...line? What is(n't) "just right"? Maybe it was just right for the situation and circonstances, was supposed to be at his best at that point, in front of Millions of Viewers, the camera shy man?
Maybe HE make him do just that, supposing that it was him in the suit....
Guess an Other Media food feed guy that prefers nice fakery to the truth.
On July 20, 1969, an estimated 650 million people watched in suspense as Neil Armstrong descended a ladder towards the surface of the Moon.
As he took his first steps, he uttered words that would be written into history books for generations to come: "That's one small step for man. One giant leap for mankind."
Or at least that's how the media reported his words.
But Armstrong insisted that he actually said, "That's one small step for a man." In fact, in the official transcript of the Moon landing mission, NASA transcribes the quote as "that's one small step for (a) man."
1:18 Nascissist's ruse of 'correcting grammer when you dont have too (YT comments) strategy.'
They always pretend to know, bluffing and when revealed they commonly claim "not literal or just to trigger" an answer.
10 Things Narcissists do to Appear Smarter than They Really Are (they know who they are)
ruclips.net/video/OMkrosLHIEs/видео.html
>>> @eventcone ...That all kind of funny, giving such a shit to thee after over a year :) of "Boring and wrong bullshit" and yadida dida da! :) :) (well more close to 2 years with 40 critics to ME + his usual sweet pals qualifying over & over...)
eventcone
3 weeks ago
@Wild Boar Oh you poor dear! Why so sensitive?
...No, I have criticised you for your lousy grammar, indeed at times a total absence of grammatical construction in your comments, which makes them meaningless - a veritable salad of words thrown at the screen!
This is a an example: "That all kind of funny, giving such a shit to thee after over a year :) of Boring and wrong bullshit and yadida dida da! :) :)"
... *Your* full time RUclips posting results in so much stuff being posted... (English speaker...)
The hilarious irony in all of this is that, whilst you yourself clearly have no idea how to spot moonlanding fakery, you deign to argue with the very people equipped to do so.
(HA HA HA!)
- his first on Someone's Comment directed at me... followed by 4 more....? Hilarious or irony state?
- apparently I am the only One with no expêrience qualifications.. to judge MOON conditons... not clear wich CT Nasa Unbelievers have that... but the very people who are full /part time at CT "bullshit" have such "equipment"? NASA videos?
@@wildboar7473 I noticed my username mentioned twice in your post above. Unfortunately I could not understand a single sentence in your entire posts (other than those I had written for you).
Why do you do this? Are you becoming obsessed with me?
It would be nice if more comments were made by people with common sense.
Gary Go back you fool! This is The Internet!
New to reading RUclips comments?
Define common sense..maybe u meant common beliefs and bandwagon?
There is a funny thing about common sense, it's not all that common.
Gary You expect WAY too much. And, BTW: Truth, logic, facts and common sense only infuriate these conspiracy morons. They couldn't detect the difference of shit from Shinola if they had their noses rubbed in them!
I'll believe it when they let me see the telemetry data.
But as you have no clue what the telemetry data actually is, how would that help you in any way?
Herr Schmidt Only an idiot goes on the internet to tell people that they don't know, what they don't know.
@@douglang5568 - No important telemetry data is lost, that's a distortion of the facts by conspiracy theorists who never cared about telemetry data in the first place.... UNTIL they incorrectly thought it was lost. Like yourself :-)
@@douglang5568 And if you had any idea, you'd just told what you know, as that would have been a killer argument. But you didn't. Instead you answered with the typical whining of a clueless person who has been identified as a clueless person.
Herr Schmidt You've never been to the moon and you have no proof of anything to offer.
I suppose NASA could have had a hundred of those hard disk recorders, but then there's the matter of making sure they're all perfectly synced up.
It occurs to me that conspiracy theorists may actually be encouraging critical scientific thought by forcing people to sharpen their own scientific knowledge in order to refute their theories. The people who get sucked into these outlandish ideas were never going to contribute anything meaningful to society to begin with, so I don't honestly mourn their loss. But they help make the rest of us better. They're kind of like the practice squad who aren't good enough for the varsity team, but still contribute by serving as tackling dummies for the gifted players.
LOL I agree!
I like that analogy
I most definitely learned a _lot_ about _Apollo_ by refuting those conspiracy theories :)
You're the type of guy who watches a magician sawing his assistant in half on t.v and wonders how the hell he's going to put her back together again - right ?
@@nosherz Uh, you do know that magic is not real, right?
Thank you, sir. I hope Neil Armstrong knew of your video before he passed; it's very bad, the way the astronauts have been talked about. Thanks again.
@shillslayer LOL it's me, not a Russian woman.
@shillslayer You talk really weird....maybe you're a bot. Probably pointless to even answer you. Especially since it has nothing to do with the video at all.
@shillslayer
I see you troll people with this line of yours. You're the one who shows up on various pages. Have fun, we can see you too!
@shillslayer OMG! Go away, you pervert.
@shillslayer You sound like Gollum. for God's sake.
I have always said it would have been easier to go to the moon then to fake it, when a person adds the information in this video to the rest of what was needed for it to be a hoax and you have to conclude that it was easier to goto the moon then to hoax it.
that's an assertion without supporting evidence.
NOMAD FILMS
The supporting evidence is this video combined with all of the other evidence video pictures moon samples and the thousands of people whom witnessed and a few years they even photographed one of the landing sites to the point where you could see the trails the astronauts made what I said is not merely assertions. What I said is based on all of the current information, perhaps your reading comprehension needs improvement! I say again. When a logical person adds the information in this video, to the rest of what was needed to hoax the moon landings then a reasonable person has no choice but to conclude that it would have been easier to goto the moon, then to hoax it.!!!
This is not an assertion as you put because it is based on knowledge and facts...
NOMAD FILMS
Like what?
no mainstream scientist will admit to the hoax only because its a cultural taboo to do so. the science is in on the matter and several legit analysts have debunked every aspect of the moon landing hoax. furthermore, China recently sent a probe to the moon to the very same location that the USA ostensibly landed and there was absolutely no evidence of the landing. they also discovered that the surface of the moon is not at all the same color as depicted in the NASA photos. the moon is a copper brown color, not gray as depicted by NASA. the surface is also rough, not smooth as depicted in the NASA (faked) photos.
NOMAD FILMS
We want to understand why it comforts you to believe as you do.
The slow motion techniques would not do. In the moon videos you can clearly see that only the free fall vertical moving is slowed down, while the horizontal movements are at the expected speed (like the dust thrown from the rover wheels).
So, it was absolutely impossible without the nowadays technology.
strange this Expert backed up with "bloody unlikely".
Educated folks just know (usa)Government always has advance technology first.
@@narajuna yes but at the time they did not
@@narajunaexcept that the compute running the ship was tiny, it had 4kb of ram. So did they have advanced technology or not
"You think it would be easier to just go to the moon?" lol I died over here.
So you don't believe they sent men into space during the 60s? You don't believe they kept men alive in space for weeks during the 60s? You don't believe they landed unmanned craft on the moon during the 60s?
@@yazzamx6380 Lol sure I do. I'm not a flat earther or anything. I just found it funny the way he said it.
@@TheNightshotBR I guessed you were laughing with Collins rather than at him, but it's not always obvious. But yeah, his delivery was good!
@@yazzamx6380 Machines can't always differentiate friend from foe.
@@MrMarco855 - Keep on proving my point kid :-)
A silly man called Felix said, "In this world there are two kiinds of people, my friend: those who don't take this clown seriously and those who do it. These last are the one who spent their entire lives digging."
I replied that I would rather dig for the truth than believe conspiracy theories that fly in the face of evidence.
Guess what?
Felix deleted it.
He does that because he cannot stand being challenged by wiser posters.
You are a waste of time:A fake anyone who cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy is a fake.What is the name of your fake book and how many did you sell.Give me the name your. of your college you graduated from.
@@antjuanmcghee2797 Like most conspiracists, you know you will never achieve anything yourself, so you are bitter about anyone who actually has achieved something.
@@antjuanmcghee2797 "You are a waste of time:A fake anyone who cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy is a fake."
So that makes you a fake then...
@@Cod4Wii you are good at changing the subject,and not facing the truth.
You said "Guess what?
Felix deleted it."
Yep, he does that frequently, and then gets upset when you call him a coward for deleting the threads *he* started :-)
Has anyone ever really seen anyone on the moon?
@TwentyEighthParallel Also, Pete Conrad-Alan Bean, Alan Shepard-Edgar Mitchell, David Scott-James Irwin, John Young-Charles Duke, Gene Cernan-Harrison Schmitt.
TwentyEighthParallel ha ha - I don’t have them memorized (but do know a number of them - incl of course some of the command module pilots). :-)
I saw General Zod there.
Pretty sure the astronauts saw each other on the moon. Checkmate.
@@howardbaxter2514 pretty sure is not definitely , even your subconscious being has doubt. I also like chess, is this is when you flip over the board and walk away cursing
PERFECT!
One reason these guys are missing this is not only that they misunderstand basic filmmaking and lighting, but also basic physics! I have gotten involved in discussions where I was accused of being brainwashed by NASA because I believe in gravity, and Newton, last time I checked, didn't work for NASA. Their favourite argument is the Van Allen Belt impossibility, which Van Allen addressed himself.
And most of these deniers weren't alive at the time of the moon landings. They are younger kids just starting out, and can't understand physics, and that is a perfect storm.
....funny not what he (/she) said, Impossible turned to "bloody unlikely" after being beat up by amateur Jarrah White. Hard to believe as stupid as that... not an other aerospace engineer? Few of them, with rocket scientists and brain surgeons.... Actually ALL our favorites are mega "debunked" by Physics Knowers....
You dont say, not sure about most, hell of lot of folks did not buy it TV show. This is a favorite of yours? You bark a lot, nothing Physic wise, just emotional karen stuff :)
ha ha 2 old shills thumbed up *that!* 😂
Sure got shy those old Stalkers....
Other dummy asking me if i can see stars in daytime.... doesnt seem to like....
@@narajuna Beat up? 😂Jarrah White never *proved* they used slow motion, dumdum.
"Pretty sure / think" Dude complained quickly about this being a awful period of his life and wanting to move on. Forced to conceed with a "bloody unlikely".
sgcollins
10 years ago
hi jarrah, yes it's really two different subjects. i was aware of some 60s era high-speed imaging systems that could register short bursts of action at low resolution. but not video per se, as in NTSC resolution video. i think what you're suggesting is that they recorded the action at 29,97 fps on quad, then made frame-accurate edits from that tape to a disc recorder, then made frame-accurate edits from that to another quad machine. is that how you really think they did it?
/-3zhZqiSe5c
"This video is intended as a follow up to my two earlier rebuttals to S.G. Collins.
The latter part of this claim can be debunked on the fact that you don't need to store the entire video on the disk recorder. You can record the whole thing on videotape and then feed each 30seconds into the HS-200 and then transfer the slowmo playback to a second videotape. Collins himself acknowledged that this method was theoretically possible for Apollo 11, but is adamant that colour high speed video cameras were not available in time for Apollo 14.
Wrong again: the Video Logic Corporation released a high speed system called InStar in 1970. Collins claims it could only do black and white and thus could not be used for the latter Apollo telecasts. Not according to Video Logic Corporation's own M. Chan, who assures his readers that this system was capable of both B&W and colour." JARRAH WHITE