How about we start a new conspiracy theory that they actually sent Ryan Gosling to the moon to film the moon scenes. And that that this footage was used to cover it up.
Do you know what a conspiracy is? It is when 2 or more plan a criminal offense. Try again. Moon landing was filmed inside the LEM simulator. No video showing the astroNOTS inside the LEM during ascent and descent. No video of a Geiger counter showing radiation.
Omar Sheriff: Just witnesses during the crucifixion. Please make as many mindless comments as you can. You are definitely going to be in my next video. Thanks! Omar Sheriff29 minutes agoHighlighted reply @Sue Kennedy No videos of God either !
Roger Clemons Why is that? Because it celebrates NASA's great past? Or because it would be more evidence for the hoaxers to support their claim that it was faked? For the first, nothing better could happen to NASA, and for the second, they don't give a shit about what some little educated idiots say.
I saw this in IMAX and it was absolutely amazing! Ryan did an amazing job! My favorite scene was the Gemini launch and them landing at tranquility base, it was breath taking in IMAX
Came here to see the flat earth comments - was disappointed at the amount of comments warning about all the flat earthers instead of being flat earth comments.
Yup, the camera panned up and followed the lunar module as it took off... wonder how they did that? And how did they manage not to disturb the dust when they landed? and where is all the telemetry data of mankind's greatest achievement? lost you say? And why did Van Allen change his tune a full 180 when the tin-foil brigade queried the facts
To answer your question, that was in Apollo 17 and was filmed by a Lunar Rover astronauts used during their mission. The Rover's camera was remotely controlled by the ground control and programmed beforehand to capture the ascent. They first tried it in Apollo 16, but failed. ruclips.net/video/q00LnO-QwG4/видео.html On this video, you can see that the camera is mounted on the rover, being controlled remotely as both astronouts were away.
One Atlanta actor that is a good friend of mine was in the film. Robert Hatch portrays the space suit technician who prepares Neil Armstrong for the launch.
A few years ago I lived about five minutes' drive from Johnson Space Center, having moved from Australia so my wife could be closer to her family, one of whom works for NASA at JSC. I spent one of the most exciting days ever being given a personal tour of the center, with access to some of the places tourists don't see. Phenomenal. When I first moved, I used to pass by JSC every day. On my way to work every morning, I'd hang a right off NASA Road 1 on to Saturn Lane, which splits the complex in two. In terms of getting to work it was a longer journey, but it was worth it to drive past Rocket Park and the restored Saturn V rocket on one side and the replica shuttle sat atop NASA 905 on the other. I used to think that I'd eventually become so used to going by every day that it would end up being one more mundanity. But it never did. I loved it.
Plus while shooting on the moon he saw the earth was flat, that´s why they staged it on the moon, because if it was staged in earth they would expose the truth about earth flatness. Totally true, it´s on youtube, so it´s true.
Seen the movie twice now. The second time was because I enjoyed it so much the first time. A couple of things I noticed. There EVA suits were not inflated when on the surface of the moon. They were not expanded / puffy. The second thing was the space craft they were in were grubby and dirty. Each of these capsules were brand new and sterile from an engineering point of view. In the film there was what looked like years of dirt and grime build up on all the switches and toggles. The thrird was during the launch of the Apollo 11 mission. Neal Armstrong was looking out the window during the launch. This was not possible as the capsule had only one see through window directly above and behind Aldrin's head. The other windows were covered by the LES boost protective cover. These were the only three things I noticed wrong. Its a great movie.
According to flatearthers and conspiracy believers, Nasa never went to the moon but simultaneously discovered an alien moon base at the far side of the moon all while the flat earth is actually hollow.
Just once I'd like to see a flat earther argue with a Moon landing hoaxer. Why don't flat Earthers and Moon landing hoaxers ever argue with each other? Because _neither_ of them have anything objective to argue with.
Imagine living out your whole life thinking mankinds biggest succes was staged..missing out the glory and the feeling that we actually did something great within our short life time in this universe. I feel for those small minded People, I really do.
with all the technology we have in 2018, including digitally removing the camera from the helmet visor to only show the moonscape, people still think we could do this in 1969. Visual effects in movies can't even hold up 10 years later, imagine almost 50
I don't remember specifics but I recall a famous actor smashing what he thought was a prop of a famous guitar(as a joke) once they had finished a shot but it was in fact the actual guitar.
The 35 foot LED screen wasn't used just to make the actors feel more comfortable. DoP Linus Sandgren wanted to avoid green screen at all costs, meaning all VFX shots were done in camera.
I enjoyed the movie very much and by looking the behind the scenes it makes it even better. A very good production and team this all was. Talented people. Congrats.
Happy Practical Effects were used, thats why I am in! Movie CGI is starting to look like the Gaviscon commercials these days.... less is definitely more! "The easiest way to make a beautiful movie is to put something beautiful in front of the lens" Sir Ridley Scott
I really enjoyed the effects in this movie, and the movie itself of course. The Dunkirk dog fight scenes are my favorite plane scenes in a movid period, this man and his team are incredibly good at what they do.
@@machinimux There is a BBC documentary proving otherwise. Check it out. Also, check out Buzzfeed when they recreate the moon landing in 1 day using only equipment available in 1969. Also, do your own research, and don't be an NPC.
@@The_Curious_Cat With your logic, why believe anything ever? But if there are 2 sides making opposing claims, then it helps to develop a mind of your own to see what is true.
Guys.... this is 2018. They recreated it in 2018. You really think they faked it the same way or faked it at all back in the 70's? Lol oh and btw the earth isnt flat. #triggered
I really hope First Man wins the Oscar for Visual Effects. A lot of people want Infinity War to win, but I don´t forget that the best vfx are those you don't notice or are hard to spot on.
Yeah I totally agree with you. I understand what they were going for but at a certain point I don't want to feel like my head is being dragged on the pavement by a car.
dude it was handheld for the majority of the movie, that is not a shaky cam... shaky cam came in the cockpits, at launch of the spaceship, when it spins... to give you the feeling of beeing shot into the sky with the feeling of being torn apart at any moment... I loved it. You do you... you do you.
Any evidence of this? So far nothing. Strange since 400,000 people were involved, and it’s been 50 years. How amazing that everyone kept their mouth shut lol
felix mendez actually yes there is, unfortunately where you’re looking is not the place to find real facts. This is why scientists and engineers invent so many things, and conspiracy theorists invent baseless conspiracies 😉
felix mendez Anyone who believes in these hilarious conspiracies should have their head checked. Scientists are moving humankind forward while conspiracy theorists are dragging their knuckles back in the stone ages
They just used the old set..... And I never believed the moon landing was fake until the original footage with background noise! P.S. sound don't travel in space!!!!
Moon landing was filmed inside the LEM simulator. No video showing the astroNOTS inside the LEM during ascent and descent. No video of a Geiger counter showing radiation.
Another plus is that NASA have requested every discarded footage to be used for "educational purposes". Soon in a live streaming in your own computer screen.
Go see the movie, it’s insanely well done. The production designer is the same guy who worked on Interstellar, I could not tell what was cgi and what was real, amazing. Must see in IMAX
-Retro reflectors, -Physical satellite imagery of the actual landing sites, -The fact that people watched them launch in person, -That in 1969 it'd be easier to go to the moon than actually fake going to the moon with technology of the time, -Footage of the landing and recovery of the capsule back on Earth, a week after launching, -The fact that virtually anybody who disagrees its authenticity is almost never a scientist let alone somebody with an educated opinion supported with *actual* factual statements/proofs. -And the fact that there's yet to be any real solid proof that can be verified without some kind of digital editing that the moon landing didn't in fact happen. There's no reason to doubt the moon landings, this is a behind-the-scenes of a movie so stop polluting this comment section with your baseless opinions.
I can’t believe there are still people out there who think man landed on the moon in the 60s, we barely have the technology to do such a thing today. And they just stopped trying after 1972?? Ok then, guess we know everything about the moon lets move on to mars
Smellygoat235 sure thing buddy, keep sipping that cool aid, your government has lied to you on so many occasions its beyond a joke. If they can get people to believe in scientology then they can get people to believe in anything
Smellygoat235 theres a difference in being gullible and believing so called “scientific evidence” which raises more questions than it actually proves. Which would be easier to do, go to the moon or film a fake moon landing?
Smellygoat235 “the internet doesn’t exist” is your own comment you fuckwit, im not even going to acknowledge it. But they also filmed Lord of the Rings so going by your logic it really happened
Rossa4 I’m just going to say this out loud, the moon landing WAS possible in the 60s, and even if we couldn’t, how would we recreate low gravity? How would we recreate MASSIVE amounts of terrain, without it looking fake? And for goodness sake, HOW ON EARTH WOULD WE EXPLAIN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE APOLLO PROGRAM! So even if the moon landing WAS fake, you can’t film something that big in the 60s, and to answer you, we do not go back because, The Apollo Program costed more than 20 Billion dollars, We already know a lot, thanks to science that was made during the Apollo Missions, and it would be a waste of money going back to do experiments in a place we already have.
TeMmIE have you studied the footage? It is absolutely possible to recreate the scenario. And whats 20billion to a country that is 3 trillion in debt? You just accepted that as an excuse. Sometimes you have to question the information you’ve been given
0:44 You will not believe how many times I listened to No time for caution today.. How is it possible that I saw this? I realized.. Because it’s necessary
I have some problems with whether the Moon landings really did happen but have no problems with some of the arguments put forward to support the idea that the landings were fake. First, the 'absence' of stars in the Moon sky. I never had a problem with this one. I knew that the sun light reflected from the ground is so bright that the camera aperture(?) had to compensate if he were to see any detail and the feeble start light would not register and that gives the impression that there were no stars. Secondly, the flag flapping. Well, precisely because there is no air on the Moon that would slow down and eventually stop thje 'flapping' of the flag, it will continue to flat unimpeded. So that one is not a problem for me either. WHAT DOES TROUBLE ME A LOT is (1) the identical scenery (back drops ?) in different missions and scenery that includes the lander and then the lander is no longer there. That is a massive red flag. Much more troubling tome is the demeanor of the three astronauts in their press conference after Apolo 11 when the three guys were clearly EMBARASSED, ASHAMNED of the situation they were in. At a certain point Armstrong tells Collins to shut up because Collins said something so stupid that supported the idea that the landing had been fake. So the astronauts themselves tell us that the landings were fake. Sad to have to admit it but, well.... !! There are others, like, what are the chances that the Apollo mission that nearly ended in disaster was precisely Apollo.... 13 ?!... and also the undisturbed ground immediately under the giant jet engine of the LM. So I am on the fence but leaning more towards them having been faked.
Amen to all you said, felix and you certai ly speak for me. That point that if they had looked away from the ground etc they would have seen the stars,. I never thought of that one. The other (and there are many) is what Collins said in that press conference " I COULDN'T SEE ANY STARS EITHER !"... when he was in orbit, away from all the glare of light reflected from the ground. Much more recently, several scientists stated that the radiation belts around the earth would kill astronauts trying to go through them . I read that one of those scientists has actually died. He was only in his late 20s/early 30s ! JFK had a dream and I think it has stayed a dream.
I think Collins is the simple-minded of the three. He said that to support the other two and screwed the lie, entirely, LOL .... Yeah, I agree with all you have said.
Good for you for keeping an open mind. The thing with the lander 'dissapearing' in images, though the same background appears, is simple perspective and parralax, plus the fact that without air haze for distance clues the mountains look WAY nearer than they are. I've never seen the same background in different mission photos so you'd have to show me evidence of that before I can comment. Press conference- they were very taciturn people, and not very expressive of feelings. They may also have been nervous! Think that's a poor bit of evidence based on judgement / interpretation, not hard fact. I'm not familiar with the Collins & Armstrong thing you refer to, again, can you direct me to it? Lots of the other arguments (eg no blast crater etc) are all answered here using hard fact- www.clavius.org/
OK found the Collins thing, he doesn't tell him to shutup. There's nothing there but an interpretation of body language. ruclips.net/video/vwPYl7a9Yuk/видео.html
It’s good to ask questions, however your basing your whole world view on the assumption that your ignorance must be an intelligence of a subject you don’t understand, you would prefer to believe an untruth than understand the truth...have you given serious thought and consideration to the explanations given to your questions or just feel comforted with the idea that if you don’t understand it then it must be fake. We only went to the moon a few times, why did they stop? Why not go to mars...why don’t you challenge those that are so adamant it was faked even though they offer no evidence, yet thousands of examples/physical evidence exists to support the case that the moon landings happened but you choose to ignore this...educate yourself away from you tube. Good luck!
Like what? The fake moon or the fake sky? Please, everybody knows earth is a cube, you just think it´s flat because you never visited the other sides of the cube.
Dude, you can say whatever you want, it makes no sense what you just said, you can see the boat again because he just came over the edge of the cube, not because you zoomed in. But yeah, you continue to believe what others did instead of testing yourself and you will continue to believe the earth is flat, lol.
Ok, so I assume you´ve been to the moon to test your theory? I guess not, so it´s just that, a theory. On the other hand yes, I´ve tested mine and I´ve been on the other faces of the cube. To prove it all you have to do is say some science mambo jambo I´ve learned on youtube, because I know how to press play, it´s called "pressing play", also according to the cubenometer spektrum, earth can´t be flat, because the sun rays would reach the whole surface of the whole planet at the same time, which they don´t, that´s why there are parts of the world that are night and others that are day, because the part that is night is on another face of the cube, while the day face is being lit by the sun. And if you knew perspective so much as you claim, you would know that your theory is wrong according to the theory of Calamela, ever heard of it? Exactly, you don´t. So don´t try to lecture me with your bogus science when you don´t even know the most basic science and the theory of Calamela, that proves perspective can be distorted by the different pressures in the air atmosphere, which makes you think that a boat gets smaller because of distance and perspective, when you are just being dupped by your eyes and the atmosphere.
In a TV show with Bob Hope, Neil Armstrong said "THE LAST 25 YEARS WERE AMAZING BUT THE NEXT 25 YEARS WILL BE EVEN EXCITING...!" - Yes, we specialized in.... going into orbit !! I remember my dad saying something like 'after going to the Moon, all we do now is go around the Earth ?? '
Really? Don't you think the Russians and other countries who tracked the mission would have something to say about that? How about at least 3000 people that were involved in the program? Or the astronauts themselves. Lets see, from Apollo 1 to Apollo 18 there were counting backup astronauts over 100. So everyone including the Russians and other countries were part of the conspiracy?
haha it is like saying we could never fly from NY to Paris in 3h something, because today we don't have the capability to fly NY-Paris in less than 5h...
Stanley Kubrick's daughter has published an open letter stating that her father openly disliked the US government and that he would never help them by participating in a massive deception like faking the moon landings. Plus, Kubrick wasn't even in the US around the time of the Apollo missions. That Kubrick helped NASA fake the moon landings is just another hoaxer fairy tale.
Wasn´t the first man on the moon Mr. Cavor from Kent, United Kingdom, at the beginning of the 20th century? I heard H.G. Wells telling the story of Mr. Bedford, his companion who successfully returned to earth. ;-)
how this is a 2018 movie back in the 1900s there wasn't anything even CLOSE to the technology we have now also adam ruins everything already made a video about this topic
Props to them for not using CGI
Good joke
Just like they did in the 60’s
yeah just like how they did it back then
Nice bun
what's wrong with cgi?
How about we start a new conspiracy theory that they actually sent Ryan Gosling to the moon to film the moon scenes. And that that this footage was used to cover it up.
LMAO
Do you know what a conspiracy is? It is when 2 or more plan a criminal offense. Try again. Moon landing was filmed inside the LEM simulator. No video showing the astroNOTS inside the LEM during ascent and descent. No video of a Geiger counter showing radiation.
Omar Sheriff: Just witnesses during the crucifixion. Please make as many mindless comments as you can. You are definitely going to be in my next video. Thanks!
Omar Sheriff29 minutes agoHighlighted reply
@Sue Kennedy No videos of God either !
Lol 😂
Flat earthers jumping and crying in happiness in the background
What???
@Emelie J BEGONE *BOOOOOOT*
Roger Clemons Why is that?
Because it celebrates NASA's great past?
Or because it would be more evidence for the hoaxers to support their claim that it was faked?
For the first, nothing better could happen to NASA, and for the second, they don't give a shit about what some little educated idiots say.
@TRUTH / REALITY / FREEDOM the flat earth theory is comedy to me
Dude, flat earth is a lie, earth is shaped like a cube, stop trying to make us idiots #earthisacube #researchthetruth #itsonyoutubesoitstrue
I choked when Cardi singing came out of *NOWHERE* lmao 3:36
Omg
Lol, she was singing "We Went to the Moon in 1969" from Disney Channel's Even Stevens Influenza the Musical.
I DIED AUHAHAHA
I'm definitely watching this movie, greetings from El Salvador where we don't think that the Earth is flat or that the moon landing was fake
*thumbs up*
Edgar Ruiz I’m sure some peeps do there with all of the drugs and such
Just remember it was an American accomplishment above a mankind one. Unlike how the movie will portray.
Edgar Ruiz Greetings from the US where we don’t have a corrupted country.
Well greetings from the USA/ fake moon landing land, well I think the earth is round like you and that the moon landing is real like you
I saw this in IMAX and it was absolutely amazing! Ryan did an amazing job! My favorite scene was the Gemini launch and them landing at tranquility base, it was breath taking in IMAX
Came here to see the flat earth comments -
was disappointed at the amount of comments warning about all the flat earthers instead of being flat earth comments.
Saw it in imax. The moon shots were breathtaking, definitely up there with 2001. It really made you appreciate just how alien of an environment it is.
I’m here for the fake moon landing comments and I’m not disappointed, who else?
Yup, the camera panned up and followed the lunar module as it took off... wonder how they did that?
And how did they manage not to disturb the dust when they landed? and where is all the telemetry data of mankind's greatest achievement? lost you say?
And why did Van Allen change his tune a full 180 when the tin-foil brigade queried the facts
The caps lock on your keyboard seems jammed.
Go to www.clavius.org where all this is addressed in great detail.
To answer your question, that was in Apollo 17 and was filmed by a Lunar Rover astronauts used during their mission. The Rover's camera was remotely controlled by the ground control and programmed beforehand to capture the ascent. They first tried it in Apollo 16, but failed. ruclips.net/video/q00LnO-QwG4/видео.html On this video, you can see that the camera is mounted on the rover, being controlled remotely as both astronouts were away.
@nils4545 ..You had a part time job at 7/11? Did you get an employee discount on Slurpees?
Conspiracy theorist incoming 😒
I literally see none
ThE MoOn LAnDinG WuzZund ReEl!!!
BeCauSE LiCke, TheRe izZ sTuFfz DaT sEz dAd Idd WooNDend wErK!!!
REeEeEeEeEtttTtTttT!
de way, check in the comment replies of my comment
There's a big difference between a conspiracy theory and absolute nonsense.
You need to seriously wake up.
😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭 TRUTH IS TRUTH THO
One Atlanta actor that is a good friend of mine was in the film. Robert Hatch portrays the space suit technician who prepares Neil Armstrong for the launch.
A few years ago I lived about five minutes' drive from Johnson Space Center, having moved from Australia so my wife could be closer to her family, one of whom works for NASA at JSC.
I spent one of the most exciting days ever being given a personal tour of the center, with access to some of the places tourists don't see. Phenomenal.
When I first moved, I used to pass by JSC every day. On my way to work every morning, I'd hang a right off NASA Road 1 on to Saturn Lane, which splits the complex in two.
In terms of getting to work it was a longer journey, but it was worth it to drive past Rocket Park and the restored Saturn V rocket on one side and the replica shuttle sat atop NASA 905 on the other.
I used to think that I'd eventually become so used to going by every day that it would end up being one more mundanity. But it never did. I loved it.
Stanley Kubrick shot the moon landing on the moon, because he was a perfectionist and would not compromise.
Kubrick was way off with his depiction of the moon in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Perfect visuals? No.
LOL
Plus while shooting on the moon he saw the earth was flat, that´s why they staged it on the moon, because if it was staged in earth they would expose the truth about earth flatness.
Totally true, it´s on youtube, so it´s true.
Seen the movie twice now. The second time was because I enjoyed it so much the first time. A couple of things I noticed. There EVA suits were not inflated when on the surface of the moon. They were not expanded / puffy. The second thing was the space craft they were in were grubby and dirty. Each of these capsules were brand new and sterile from an engineering point of view. In the film there was what looked like years of dirt and grime build up on all the switches and toggles. The thrird was during the launch of the Apollo 11 mission. Neal Armstrong was looking out the window during the launch. This was not possible as the capsule had only one see through window directly above and behind Aldrin's head. The other windows were covered by the LES boost protective cover. These were the only three things I noticed wrong. Its a great movie.
According to flatearthers and conspiracy believers, Nasa never went to the moon but simultaneously discovered an alien moon base at the far side of the moon all while the flat earth is actually hollow.
What
Came to the comments to see how many were about this first moon landing being faked was not disappointed
Really, Seniku? Where's the footage of other men bouncing on the moon?
Luke M To answer your question, you maybe should learn how to use these great tools called "Google" and "RUclips Search".
Uh huh. And how do we know that footage won't be fake? Like the controlled demolition that is 9/11?
Because of intelligence, technical and scientific knowledge, critical thinking, good education.
@@caffeinefiend1217 What left nut?
The amount of perfection put into this is amazing!
ARGHHHH! CGI is different from Visual Effects. CGI is completely animated, whereas VFX is edited in REAL footage in post
The Lunar sequence in Imax was one of the spectacular things I have ever seen
Anyone who thinks we didn’t go to the moon go watch the myth busters episode about it. It’ll make you stfu.
The film was beautiful and intense, thank you for your hard work !
Just once I'd like to see a flat earther argue with a Moon landing hoaxer. Why don't flat Earthers and Moon landing hoaxers ever argue with each other?
Because _neither_ of them have anything objective to argue with.
The same way nobody can argue that you are a Lunatic
Great movie ! The landing scene is amazing ! You know they'll make it, and yet you're on the edge of you seat.
I heard they used the actual moon landing set and props?
That was a joke for those obtuse people amongst us
It's obvious Stanley Kubrick did fake the moon landing, but he's such a perfectionist, he filmed it on the actual moon.
Re-creating the lunar landscape: still at the mercy of the Inverse Square Law.
Atlanta, GA is the new Hollywood! Good for them!
glances over comment section
COMES BACK WITH POPCORN
They made it the same way they made the first film in a studio
Imagine living out your whole life thinking mankinds biggest succes was staged..missing out the glory and the feeling that we actually did something great within our short life time in this universe. I feel for those small minded People, I really do.
Wow! old-school SFX...respect!
Nah this is just behind the scene fotage of the original apollo moon landing.
Was that sarcasm?
@@alecxander1593 An obvious joke.
with all the technology we have in 2018, including digitally removing the camera from the helmet visor to only show the moonscape, people still think we could do this in 1969. Visual effects in movies can't even hold up 10 years later, imagine almost 50
Daniel Rieger that’s what the government wants you to think
NASA were mean not lending them the original toys. :-)
They don't want some actor breaking them thinking they were just props.(has happened before with things.)
I don't remember specifics but I recall a famous actor smashing what he thought was a prop of a famous guitar(as a joke) once they had finished a shot but it was in fact the actual guitar.
The 35 foot LED screen wasn't used just to make the actors feel more comfortable. DoP Linus Sandgren wanted to avoid green screen at all costs, meaning all VFX shots were done in camera.
I already new there would be *those* ppl in the comment section lmao
(Edit: *sips facts not tea*)
Oh god, I think I lost some of my brain cells reading this comment.
I enjoyed the movie very much and by looking the behind the scenes it makes it even better. A very good production and team this all was. Talented people. Congrats.
Wait, the first one or the movie?
3:39 cracks me up every time
To those saying this proves the original Moon landing was faked... I seriously don't think that they had this type of technology back then. 😂🤦♀️
SalemGrimm yea because the government shows you all their technology
@@basketballenlightenment2863
😂😂
Enlightenment .W, but the equipment and technology needed would’ve costed much more than the actual budget for the landing itself
No and it showed as it looked like crap compared to this movie even though they had more money to fake it back then.
lol they didnt even have Video !!!
Happy Practical Effects were used, thats why I am in! Movie CGI is starting to look like the Gaviscon commercials these days.... less is definitely more! "The easiest way to make a beautiful movie is to put something beautiful in front of the lens" Sir Ridley Scott
*By not adding the american flag into the actual movie until a long long time of course*
Its great to see models used again instead of so much CGI ... looks more real to me.
Gary Poland that literally makes no sense.
So they did land on the back yard moon ? Who knew ?
I really enjoyed the effects in this movie, and the movie itself of course. The Dunkirk dog fight scenes are my favorite plane scenes in a movid period, this man and his team are incredibly good at what they do.
Just here for the comments
2:10 Ah the morning at a cheap hotel after the bar and drunken late night mexican food truck meal,takes me back.
I hope this movie looks more real than the original
The original looked pretty real though. I mean, they even filmed it on the moon!!
@@machinimux There is a BBC documentary proving otherwise. Check it out. Also, check out Buzzfeed when they recreate the moon landing in 1 day using only equipment available in 1969. Also, do your own research, and don't be an NPC.
Yeah because you are not a NPC believing what others say, lol.
@@The_Curious_Cat With your logic, why believe anything ever? But if there are 2 sides making opposing claims, then it helps to develop a mind of your own to see what is true.
Not if what you believe to be true can´t be proven by science and logic.
For Apollo 13 they actually strapped a set, the crew and actors into a zero G plane and did parabolic flights for days on end
Good ol’ vomit comit
what n'tarnation
Guys.... this is 2018. They recreated it in 2018. You really think they faked it the same way or faked it at all back in the 70's? Lol oh and btw the earth isnt flat. #triggered
@@justauseruknow Evidence for the moon landing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
A.G why tf would the us government get their space race rivals to lie for them and russia wouldn’t accept that
A.G when they landed they placed retroreflectors on the moon if it was faked how did they get there?
A.G that would cost WAYYYYYYY mote than the actual moon landing
I really hope First Man wins the Oscar for Visual Effects.
A lot of people want Infinity War to win, but I don´t forget that the best vfx are those you don't notice or are hard to spot on.
Could have been a good movie. But there’s too much camera shaking
Yeah I totally agree with you. I understand what they were going for but at a certain point I don't want to feel like my head is being dragged on the pavement by a car.
What? Have you seen Jason Bourne? Mile 22? Now that is what I call Shaky Cam.
dude it was handheld for the majority of the movie, that is not a shaky cam... shaky cam came in the cockpits, at launch of the spaceship, when it spins... to give you the feeling of beeing shot into the sky with the feeling of being torn apart at any moment... I loved it. You do you... you do you.
@@_Kolcki all that budget and they couldn't afford a tripod
They actually used models for the SFX. This has my respect.
Same as they created first
The real landing was filmed in a studio.
On mars!
Did they use the same studio?
Fabz Kalz They wanted to make it as real as possible, so it was shot on location 😉
Any evidence of this? So far nothing. Strange since 400,000 people were involved, and it’s been 50 years. How amazing that everyone kept their mouth shut lol
felix mendez actually yes there is, unfortunately where you’re looking is not the place to find real facts. This is why scientists and engineers invent so many things, and conspiracy theorists invent baseless conspiracies 😉
felix mendez Anyone who believes in these hilarious conspiracies should have their head checked. Scientists are moving humankind forward while conspiracy theorists are dragging their knuckles back in the stone ages
felix mendez my apologies mister
They just used the old set..... And I never believed the moon landing was fake until the original footage with background noise! P.S. sound don't travel in space!!!!
TheBludgutz why would multiple governments even russia lie for the US?
So this is how they did it first time too??? 🤔🤔
😂😂#jk
Don't @ me🙏🏻🤣
@SIDDHARTHA BOSE no.
Moon landing was filmed inside the LEM simulator. No video showing the astroNOTS inside the LEM during ascent and descent. No video of a Geiger counter showing radiation.
Another plus is that NASA have requested every discarded footage to be used for "educational purposes". Soon in a live streaming in your own computer screen.
just like the first time? in a studio? lol
Stop being an idiot.
the same to you, sir. the same to you
@@JimCim78 so they had CGI back then?
yeah from the aliens of course. man you ever look up shit?
Go see the movie, it’s insanely well done. The production designer is the same guy who worked on Interstellar, I could not tell what was cgi and what was real, amazing. Must see in IMAX
I am the 15. Yaay
Beyblade Burst one year closer to coming out the closet I hope
Apollo 13 was cool too
I think it would have been easier and cheaper to use the old set for the actual moon landing.
That's blinky 400,000km away, you can't just go there.
@@_Andrew2002 nah, the old set is still in Hollywood somewhere
Due to the issue of that being impossible to prove, you may as well give up.
-Retro reflectors,
-Physical satellite imagery of the actual landing sites,
-The fact that people watched them launch in person,
-That in 1969 it'd be easier to go to the moon than actually fake going to the moon with technology of the time,
-Footage of the landing and recovery of the capsule back on Earth, a week after launching,
-The fact that virtually anybody who disagrees its authenticity is almost never a scientist let alone somebody with an educated opinion supported with *actual* factual statements/proofs.
-And the fact that there's yet to be any real solid proof that can be verified without some kind of digital editing that the moon landing didn't in fact happen.
There's no reason to doubt the moon landings, this is a behind-the-scenes of a movie so stop polluting this comment section with your baseless opinions.
Wasting your time Scotty, these people are brain dead and will never accept logic or facts, except the shit they follow.
It is VFX not CGI
when someone says that the moon landing is not fake in the comments
*VIEW 45 REPLIES*
Haha
More like when someone says the Moon landing *was* faked.
*Read More*
2:00 What is this supposed to mean: "they put the camera on the ground and film from below to give the appearance of being suspended in the air" ?
Waiting for a comment that says this is proof the moon landing was fake
the moon landing was fake
Basic Bish you actually believe that
minti phresh no I just said that because you where waiting
for the comment so I commented. LOL
Basic Bish lol
It IS fake! Look at it!
It was shot on a soundstage in 2018.
I absolutely loved this movie.
I can’t believe there are still people out there who think man landed on the moon in the 60s, we barely have the technology to do such a thing today. And they just stopped trying after 1972?? Ok then, guess we know everything about the moon lets move on to mars
Smellygoat235 sure thing buddy, keep sipping that cool aid, your government has lied to you on so many occasions its beyond a joke. If they can get people to believe in scientology then they can get people to believe in anything
Smellygoat235 theres a difference in being gullible and believing so called “scientific evidence” which raises more questions than it actually proves. Which would be easier to do, go to the moon or film a fake moon landing?
Smellygoat235 “the internet doesn’t exist” is your own comment you fuckwit, im not even going to acknowledge it. But they also filmed Lord of the Rings so going by your logic it really happened
Rossa4 I’m just going to say this out loud, the moon landing WAS possible in the 60s, and even if we couldn’t, how would we recreate low gravity? How would we recreate MASSIVE amounts of terrain, without it looking fake? And for goodness sake, HOW ON EARTH WOULD WE EXPLAIN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE APOLLO PROGRAM! So even if the moon landing WAS fake, you can’t film something that big in the 60s, and to answer you, we do not go back because, The Apollo Program costed more than 20 Billion dollars, We already know a lot, thanks to science that was made during the Apollo Missions, and it would be a waste of money going back to do experiments in a place we already have.
TeMmIE have you studied the footage? It is absolutely possible to recreate the scenario. And whats 20billion to a country that is 3 trillion in debt? You just accepted that as an excuse. Sometimes you have to question the information you’ve been given
So many warning comments about flat earthers that I can't even find one
You mean re recreate the moon landing
God bless you! I'm with you and the other truthers! :)
In future, such scenes would be REALLY taken on the Moon.
easy, just use the same studio they used last time
The problem is the studio they used the last time is 250,000 miles away.
that's not even possible earth is flat @@mattc7939
SHADUMAN -oh that right...I keep forgetting. 😀😀😂😂🤣🤣
2:27 Shot on Sony?
Do a video on India pls
So this is how they did it back in the 1960's !! Damn !they got better and better!
"The gathering of the flocks of 'sheeple'..."
The Mindless brainwashed sheeple...
Sheeple believe in anything as long as it's a lie and has only fairy tales as proof.
Serious question tho, is hans zimmer going to compose new music for this movie or not? Or is it out there already?
THE VERY SAME WAY THEY MADE IN 1969. But with Hollywood star actors.😂😂
And technology that was 50 years too advanced. 🤔
0:44 You will not believe how many times I listened to No time for caution today.. How is it possible that I saw this? I realized.. Because it’s necessary
I have some problems with whether the Moon landings really did happen but have no problems with some of the arguments put forward to support the idea that the landings were fake. First, the 'absence' of stars in the Moon sky. I never had a problem with this one. I knew that the sun light reflected from the ground is so bright that the camera aperture(?) had to compensate if he were to see any detail and the feeble start light would not register and that gives the impression that there were no stars. Secondly, the flag flapping. Well, precisely because there is no air on the Moon that would slow down and eventually stop thje 'flapping' of the flag, it will continue to flat unimpeded. So that one is not a problem for me either. WHAT DOES TROUBLE ME A LOT is (1) the identical scenery (back drops ?) in different missions and scenery that includes the lander and then the lander is no longer there. That is a massive red flag. Much more troubling tome is the demeanor of the three astronauts in their press conference after Apolo 11 when the three guys were clearly EMBARASSED, ASHAMNED of the situation they were in. At a certain point Armstrong tells Collins to shut up because Collins said something so stupid that supported the idea that the landing had been fake. So the astronauts themselves tell us that the landings were fake. Sad to have to admit it but, well.... !! There are others, like, what are the chances that the Apollo mission that nearly ended in disaster was precisely Apollo.... 13 ?!... and also the undisturbed ground immediately under the giant jet engine of the LM. So I am on the fence but leaning more towards them having been faked.
Amen to all you said, felix and you certai ly speak for me. That point that if they had looked away from the ground etc they would have seen the stars,. I never thought of that one. The other (and there are many) is what Collins said in that press conference " I COULDN'T SEE ANY STARS EITHER !"... when he was in orbit, away from all the glare of light reflected from the ground. Much more recently, several scientists stated that the radiation belts around the earth would kill astronauts trying to go through them . I read that one of those scientists has actually died. He was only in his late 20s/early 30s ! JFK had a dream and I think it has stayed a dream.
I think Collins is the simple-minded of the three. He said that to support the other two and screwed the lie, entirely, LOL .... Yeah, I agree with all you have said.
Good for you for keeping an open mind.
The thing with the lander 'dissapearing' in images, though the same background appears, is simple perspective and parralax, plus the fact that without air haze for distance clues the mountains look WAY nearer than they are.
I've never seen the same background in different mission photos so you'd have to show me evidence of that before I can comment.
Press conference- they were very taciturn people, and not very expressive of feelings. They may also have been nervous! Think that's a poor bit of evidence based on judgement / interpretation, not hard fact. I'm not familiar with the Collins & Armstrong thing you refer to, again, can you direct me to it?
Lots of the other arguments (eg no blast crater etc) are all answered here using hard fact- www.clavius.org/
OK found the Collins thing, he doesn't tell him to shutup. There's nothing there but an interpretation of body language.
ruclips.net/video/vwPYl7a9Yuk/видео.html
It’s good to ask questions, however your basing your whole world view on the assumption that your ignorance must be an intelligence of a subject you don’t understand, you would prefer to believe an untruth than understand the truth...have you given serious thought and consideration to the explanations given to your questions or just feel comforted with the idea that if you don’t understand it then it must be fake. We only went to the moon a few times, why did they stop? Why not go to mars...why don’t you challenge those that are so adamant it was faked even though they offer no evidence, yet thousands of examples/physical evidence exists to support the case that the moon landings happened but you choose to ignore this...educate yourself away from you tube. Good luck!
that saturn 5 was impressive ,whole film is great- brilliant music too
Finally! A better version of moon landing movie than the first one (read: fake moon landing)
See?? See?? This proves the moon landings are totally fake and that earth is flat!!
(flat earthers logic).
Like what? The fake moon or the fake sky? Please, everybody knows earth is a cube, you just think it´s flat because you never visited the other sides of the cube.
Dude, you can say whatever you want, it makes no sense what you just said, you can see the boat again because he just came over the edge of the cube, not because you zoomed in.
But yeah, you continue to believe what others did instead of testing yourself and you will continue to believe the earth is flat, lol.
Ok, so I assume you´ve been to the moon to test your theory? I guess not, so it´s just that, a theory. On the other hand yes, I´ve tested mine and I´ve been on the other faces of the cube.
To prove it all you have to do is say some science mambo jambo I´ve learned on youtube, because I know how to press play, it´s called "pressing play", also according to the cubenometer spektrum, earth can´t be flat, because the sun rays would reach the whole surface of the whole planet at the same time, which they don´t, that´s why there are parts of the world that are night and others that are day, because the part that is night is on another face of the cube, while the day face is being lit by the sun.
And if you knew perspective so much as you claim, you would know that your theory is wrong according to the theory of Calamela, ever heard of it? Exactly, you don´t. So don´t try to lecture me with your bogus science when you don´t even know the most basic science and the theory of Calamela, that proves perspective can be distorted by the different pressures in the air atmosphere, which makes you think that a boat gets smaller because of distance and perspective, when you are just being dupped by your eyes and the atmosphere.
@BWGgy
www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
In a TV show with Bob Hope, Neil Armstrong said "THE LAST 25 YEARS WERE AMAZING BUT THE NEXT 25 YEARS WILL BE EVEN EXCITING...!" - Yes, we specialized in.... going into orbit !! I remember my dad saying something like 'after going to the Moon, all we do now is go around the Earth ?? '
Plot twist. They went to the moon this time...
felix mendez jesus christ...
Just like the first one, in a studio.
Daltira you have too much faith in the government.
Why not just use the soundstage and sets that they used when they faked the "real" flight?
Because the left the soundstage and sets for the real flight on the moon. It would be too expensive to go there again just for a movie.
You dont need to put quotes around real. It happend.
Keulaid
If I hadn’t put quotes around it, the joke wouldn’t have mad sense.
(Doesn’t anyone get a joke anymore?)
Only a moron believes the moon landings were faked.
US never landed on moon....
even today we don't ha've gut tech to land on moon and return to earth.....
Really? Don't you think the Russians and other countries who tracked the mission would have something to say about that? How about at least 3000 people that were involved in the program? Or the astronauts themselves. Lets see, from Apollo 1 to Apollo 18 there were counting backup astronauts over 100. So everyone including the Russians and other countries were part of the conspiracy?
3000? More like 300,000 lol
haha it is like saying we could never fly from NY to Paris in 3h something, because today we don't have the capability to fly NY-Paris in less than 5h...
so in reality... it's a re-creation of a re-creation
*Warning* Idiots incoming
😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
Just look at thousands/millions of people that don't believe in Christ and yet they celebrate Christmas to get "stuff" IMAO
Globetards
1969, 50 years ago next year...LETS GO AGAIN! 🤩
This is exactly how they created it in 1969.
No it isn't
My favorite movie of 2018
NOOOO....no no no this is how they faked the moon landing alongside Stanley Kubrick
where are the backstage pictures?
Stanley Kubrick's daughter has published an open letter stating that her father openly disliked the US government and that he would never help them by participating in a massive deception like faking the moon landings. Plus, Kubrick wasn't even in the US around the time of the Apollo missions. That Kubrick helped NASA fake the moon landings is just another hoaxer fairy tale.
Impressive levels of practical mixed with cgi
The same way the 'real' one was
Use your brain to think about what u just said
@@lomelome3102 have you heard of the fake moon landing theory
Please explain in detail how it could be fake?
in 1969 with cgi and digital cameras, yeah
Wasn´t the first man on the moon Mr. Cavor from Kent, United Kingdom, at the beginning of the 20th century? I heard H.G. Wells telling the story of Mr. Bedford, his companion who successfully returned to earth. ;-)
Proves we never landed on the moon
dragonair bender, Proves you’re an idiot
I would explain but it’s already explained on an episode of Adam Ruins Everything and by a forensic scientist
No it doesn’t.
how
this is a 2018 movie
back in the 1900s there wasn't anything even CLOSE to the technology we have now
also adam ruins everything already made a video about this topic
@K.D.P. Ross oml i said 1900s not the year 1900 -_-
1900s means anywhere between 1900 and 1999
idiot