People think Apollo 11 never left Low Earth orbit??
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июл 2024
- Grab Atlas VPN for just $1.83/mo + 3 months extra before the BIG DEAL deal expires: get.atlasvpn.com/Dave
Apollo 10 broadcast: • Apollo 10 TV transmiss...
Apollo 11 30hr broadcast: • 1969 Apollo 11 Unsched...
Apollo 11 34hr broadcast: • 1969 Apollo 11 TV Tran...
PATREON: / davemckeegan
Please consider supporting the channel by making purchases through my Amazon affiliates: geni.us/Affiliate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Music by Bensound.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#globe #science #flatearth #ISS #NASA #fakeISS 
Наука
Grab Atlas VPN for just $1.83/mo + 3 months extra before the BIG DEAL deal expires: get.atlasvpn.com/Dave
Hey fools, when you re done watching my propaganda vids, buy this crap!
@@garnet4846there is nothing nobel about not having adverts. The reason conspiracy theorists don't have them is because no company would want to be associated with that level of stupidity.
@@garnet4846 , How was this a propaganda video?
You couldn't see the flaws and misrepresentations in the Bart Sibrel's claims?
@@mcchop1169 right, but yet companies fall all over themselves to associate with the mentality ill who think they can swap their sex. You don't understand how this world works.
@@JohnM3665570 who is claiming Bart is legit? Not me, he is part of the show. Pro wrestling.
If America had not gone to the Moon the Soviets would have had every reason to expose it.
See what you did there? That's called reasoning. That's a sin in most flerfer religions.
@@chakramesteb
I wouldn't be so sure about that. In exposing the fraud the soviets would have cast doubts on their own space program. It would have been of no benefit to them. It's not unusual for nations in conflict to cooperate with their enemies if it's mutually beneficial. An example of that would be the Antarctic treaty, which the Soviets signed up for along with the US.
Have said this myself. Funny how this gets forgotten
But they couldn't without great controversy, therefore, because they had not concrete way to prove the Hoax, they left the conspiracy intact.
And according the the Holy Scriptures, the Creator expects us to closely examine and reason most things out, including the question of whether or not God exists. @@chakrameste
Even a Low Earth Orbit is absolutely impossible on FE.
Thanks for keeping your tone patient and respectful Dave.
Fe=iron
Irony
I don’t think the documentary Dave is debunking here is claiming the Earth is flat. And since it is from 2001, it tells us that the tinfoilers have only gotten dumber in the last 20 years😂
@@LSA30None of them think about the implications of what they are referencing. The flatties only care the film says it’s fake. They can’t bother to think about the actual content of film in context to their own position.
You don't actually know that, LEO might be possible. When gravity is actually buoyancy, there is a dome, and the moon is a projected light from the north pole, who knows what is possible.
@@itchitrigger8185
What exactly constitutes an orbit on flat Earth? And wouldn't you need to get through the dome? And apparently, space is fake.
I love the "they used a circular window" argument, on a craft that had no circular windows.
Trust me. It's not rocket science. If travel to the Moon was actually possible, there would be multiple cameras broadcasting every part of the entire journey. They don't. These are actors. Trust me.
The window in the hatch was circular (as seen at 3:33). Not that I support that argument.
duh, the window was circular
@@rogerjoseph2532 not the window being filmed out of. The round one was on the hatch that had an outer square window.
@vinny142 [ on a craft that had no circular windows. ] 🤣🤣🤣🙃 You. Are. Thick. .... but that's ok. You serve as the archetype of the whole baller community. Over confident , low on research , mentally lazy --- NEXT!
Every time someone is like "but the Van Allen Belts", I want to scream back "radiation is not magical insta-death cooties"!
SMH
I'd love to see the person who made this film (who says that they are in orbit) argue with flat Earth people who don't even believe that we ever got into space!
Oh yes, put them together and enjoy the show🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Check out Jarrah White, he was one of the big proponents of the Apollo Hoax back in the early days of RUclips, long before the Flat Earth nonsense became a fad around 2015. He's made many videos on the subject because (of course) flatearthers have made a nasty habit of referencing his moon hoax videos as evidence that the Earth is flat. He's got a whole playlist on his channel: ruclips.net/p/PLOFH9q50V_sfmiTU5ykNAoBRwIqPzw4em
Flat earthers can't even get their story straight arguing with millions of scientists who ALL say its a ball, must be a huge conspiracy 😂
Are they "people" though?
Awesome idea. And have the debate hosted by a hollow earther or a simulation believer.
flat earthers: TRUST US, IT ALL MAKES SENCE AS LONG AS YOU DONT THINK ABOUT IT
We are globers in that doc.
It all makes total "sense."
Classic psychological projection. Flat earther's are constantly saying not to believe what they say and encourage others to do their own observations and experiments. Can you provide a single link to a flat earther saying "trust us"? These misrepresentations and bald face lying has got to stop. Put up or shut up.
Its always "do your own research!" Quickly followed by "No! Not THAT research! Copy MY research!"
Incorrect. They're always saying
"it makes since when you think about it",
while simultaneously NOT thinking about it as they spin circular logic and make connections between untelated things and introducing mathematics that have tenuous (at best) connections.
Bart Sibrel cornered Buzz Aldrin at a hotel where Buzz was booked for a public speaking engagement. Sibrel proceeded to slate the Apollo program saying it was faked and then called him a liar and a coward. Buzz tried his best to avoid the guy, but when he was called a liar and a coward Buzz punched him and is still waiting to be sued for it.
Sibrel tried to press assualt charges but the DA basically said "you deserved it" and refused to charge Buzz.
I don't condone violence but in that case I'm willing to grant a very satisfying exception.😊
Bart was such a big fan of the Apollo program that he'd kissed Buzz' hand. 😆
Trust me. It's not rocket science. If travel to the Moon was actually possible, there would be multiple cameras broadcasting every part of the entire journey. They don't. These are actors. Trust me.
He was also grabbing for Buzz’s daughter in order to block Buzz’s path.
It's always fascinating to me that they claim to be the only person that uncovered this secret, when the transcripts have been in the public domain for over 50 years. And those transcripts directly contradict the claim. 🤷♀
Absolutely
That's at the heart of their beliefs - they want to feel special and different, but have no other way of achieving that than lying.
They are idiots who want to feel special.
TBF it be easier tofake the trranscripts but it still doesn't help we have audio from the time period.
@@MyDude199 Ok, but they can't FAKE the color negatives that created the photos and video taken with FILM cameras. That100% debunks flat Earth, we HAVE photos of the Earth taken with FILM, so they can't scream CGI.
It's almost suffocating. I can only imagine how simultaneously exciting and terrifying it must be to be hurtling through a black void, seeing both the Earth and Moon on either side of your hermetically sealed bucket. To be the farthest from home anyone has ever been, in a completely alien environment to anything we've come to know. No breeze. No storm. No landmarks. No oasis. Just unending silence and stillness that should drive any mammal mad. Viewing these men as anything other than heroically insane should be a crime.
I agree. It gives some insight in their training.
It might actually be the complete opposite….boring. No change, nothing to look out for. Just waiting as they carried on their journey.
@@johnbiggscrUnfortunately, isolation is more than boredom. It's one of the most harmful psychological threats that humans have. Luckily, they had some stimulation, but it would take some incredible psychological stability to know that you're over a hundred thousand miles from home. Humans are very social creatures. Just three days of full isolation in a white room can cause physical brain damage.
I think I've noticed some definitive evidence that the whole Apollo mission was faked. Everyone involved keeps talking to someone called 'Roger', yet there is no Apollo astronaut called Roger.
Now all I can think of is the scene from 'Airplane' 🤣
@@DaveMcKeegan Roger, Roger! 😆
@@simond.455 'Huh' 😂
Roger Houston, the mastermind behind the hoax.
@@DaveMcKeegan What's your vector, Victor?
I'm not a mathematician but it look to me as if the first images of earth are something like 8 degrees different to the images shown 35 minutes later. it's almost as if the earth has rotated at a rate of 15 degrees an hour. Who'd have thought?
"Thanks, Bob!"
RIP, Bob!
The ISS has a “drift” of roughly 240 degrees per hour.
One quick question, how long did it take you to put this video together? Because I think you put in more research (and logic) than the original video being debunked. Congrats 👍
certainly more logic, but it probably took them a lot of research time to cherry pick sound clips to use dishonestly to attempt to discredit what is possibly humanity's greatest achievement
I learned the other day that this is called Brandolini's law (from a comment on another video, I can't remember by whom.)
@@michaeldamolsen what's brandolini's law?
@@karateman1988 "The amount of energy needed to refute bulls#!t is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it." :)
edit: made it a bit more family friendly.
@@michaeldamolsen I'm a big boy I can handle nono words
Also thank you.
Best flat earth debunker out there. keep it up
Personally I think the best flat earth debunkers are flat earthers.
Indeed
This isn’t about earth it’s about the hoax landing
Hasn't debunked sh!t !!!
Just regurgitating what the liars say.
When you realize the globe theory is scientifically impossible.
@@thetruthaboutfacts224 True, they have conducted many experiments where they undeniably proved the globe.
A friend of mine, Greg Roberts, now in his 80's, was an astronomer at the Republic Observatory in Johannesburg, South Africa during the Apollo age. Using the 20-inch telescope, he followed two of the missions to the moon. I'll ask him again which missions and how far he managed to follow the spacecraft, but he thought he may have hit a record at the time for the distance of following a man-made craft.
@SterremanWillie
I call bullshit on that. If such observations were made they would have been filmed and made available to the public. No such footage exists, so all you have is a claim with no evidence
That would be really interesting, especially if he took any photos.
Dear old Bart, Buzz's favourite punch bag, He's one of old school hoax;ers but never has Bart been taken apart so well - excellent
The only disappointment being that Buzz wasn't 30 years younger.
I remember that later in the mission, nearer the landing, independent listening stations in Britain and Australia monitored communications from the command and lunar modules using highly directional parabolic dishes. They would have to have been pointed exactly towards the moon.
Yeah, and anyone living close would have spotted that the dishes were definitely not tracking a LEO anything. Also, good luck in trying to spoof all those skilled and experienced radio astronomers that the signal was coming from anywhere else other than a point-source on the Sea of Tranquillity:)
Don't forget about the Soviets, who had everything to gain by debunking the moon mission if it was fake.
@@emeraldspark101And the Chinese.
@@emeraldspark101the earth is flat, the moon is fake, the stars are fake, the sun is fake and you think that decades of war between Usa and Russia are real? Cmon man 😂 they are all in it 😂
@@ManwerKr Please, don't tell me you believe that tired lie. No government could work together that long. It's the _Earth_ that's faked--the American government made it to trick to trick the Soviets so they wouldn't find out about the moon landing. The stars, those are real
um do these people understand where we were technologically in 1969? I was a working engineer during those years and computers were massive room filled machines that required punch tape, punch cards or terminals that had a single line of 16 bit characters. Camera's and certainly any ability to edit photography was in the same place.
This is stupid, especially to us who lived it and watched it live. YES LIVE whoot, which was unheard of in those times. Nothing was private, we listened on our ham station to the whole launch.
No, they do not. Most of them literally take their ideas of technology from fiction, e.g. Scooby Doo style holograms. They do the same with reality, with considerable bias about which fictions they believe.
Wow, you lucky dog! So jealous of how old you are, because you got to experience really cool things.
I like that I've gotten to see the world pre-personal computer, pre-internet, pre-cell phone, because what an interesting ride it's been watching theose things drop on our society. But I'm not old enough to have watched the moon landing live. So, cool for you!
God bless you and keep you.
@@Beadledom2024We're not so lucky, because now we have to listen to these liars and idiots.
@@marksprague1280 Great description of Moon landing deniers. And their fellow travelers, flat Earthers.
Where were we technically? In 1969, we all had a phone with a rotary dial hanging on a wall in our homes. 1969 was the 1st year the smoke detector was licensed to be introduced. The use of barcodes was still to be 5 years in the future. The student in trigonometry class was still using a slide rule and the internet was science fiction. IBM would offer a magnetic "hard drive", the 2305 Drive, with an enormous capacity of 5.4 MB the next year in 1970. The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPAnet) delivered its first message from one computer to another, albeit incompletely, in 1969. The message was supposed to read "LOGIN" but only the first two letters were successfully transmitted before the system crashed. People got their news from newspapers, delivered to their homes either in the early morning or late afternoons, or both. There was no such thing as computerized automobiles or engines, everything was mechanical and analogue. Digital watches were still 6 years in the future. 1n 1969, Sesame Street debuts on National Education Television, the precursor to the Public Broadcasting Service. Also in that same year on February 9, the first Boeing 747 jumbo jet takes off from a Boeing field in Everett, Washington and flies to New York City. Most of the 191 people on board were reporters and photographers. On March 2 in Toulouse, France, the Concorde takes its first test flight. The Beatles record Abbey Road, their final album together all on magnetic analog tape. Ted Kennedy drives his Oldmobile into a pond at Chappaquiddick, but there was no tech available to determine what substances there might have been in his blood or video cameras around to catch what really happened (lucky for him).
It so disappoints me that unaccomplished people will sit in their basement pretending to debunk the accomplishments of those who have risked their lives for the betterment of mankind.
Accomplished and intelligent individuals don’t believe it either, weird. Like JFK said. “the greater our knowledge increases the greater our ignorance unfolds”
The space programme was never about the betterment of mankind and more about political gains on the Soviet Union, and how is it claimed that this bettered mankind? the only thing I have ever used related to the space mission is kapton tape
@@AndrewAHayes the internet came from the space race, the first use of micro chips was in guidance systems for missiles/rockets hell even teflon coating was initially nasa tech
@@ynk-4372 Yep, it isn't really about the moon landing for them. It is about having found something they can after a research of not more than five minutes feel smarter about than the people who actually spend time studying it. You can find that attitude in the anti-vaxxer crowd as well and among the pronoun deniers...
I call it the "wannabe" effect. I've designed rocket engines, tested them, and even flew aboard an aircraft powered by an engine I designed (the XCOR X-Racer if you want to look it up). These unaccomplished people desperately WANT that level of experience, but it is forever beyond them- and it _hurts_. By making outlandish claims these losers think they can be significant, but sadly only underscore how pathetic they truly are. At a science fiction con I got buttonholed by an antigravity fruitloop and I cut him off at the knees. "What evidence do you have? Can you suspend a device in a vacuum chamber, in a Faraday cage and Helmholz coil, and make it hang off plumb? If you can't can't show direct, measurable results you're just handwaving and running your mouth."
The poor sorry schmuck had never been directly challenged- and after he slunk away several people thanked me for shutting him down- "That's all he ever talks about! It's annoying!"
These people have never been, and never will be, in the arena:
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
Dave, I always find it surprising how measured, calm and patient you are when de-bunking the mis-leading, mis-informed or fraudulent videos that you review. Thank you for offering a sane response as if it was me doing the same I’d just be shouting, “You moron! You moron! You moron!” at the camera and slapping my forehead harder and harder and harder. 😂
If that's your idea for your own RUclips channel, you're too late - SciManDan has it covered! 🙂
Why do you have such a powerful emotional reaction to people not believing in something they aren't able to experience themselves? I have a hypothesis but I'd like to hear your explanation.
Full disclosure: I'm not a flerfer, space seems real to me and the globe earth seems undisputable.
@@justinkennedy3004 Why shouldn't he/her? I'd probably react the same. People are just different. I just cannot fathom how anybody could believe that Earth is flat, Moon landings are fake, there is no space, and that Earth was created some odd 4.000 years ago (when the Jews are already believing in a much older world), whilst they are following the directions given to them by their GPS satellite powered system in their car.
It's just incredible.
@@justinkennedy3004 Space 'seems' real to you? Space IS real.
@@electricdawn2258 I asked for a subjective response to why he has a reaction. You then redefined my question into something you felt comfortable replying to. The irony there is that's exactly what flerfers do.
Incidentally that's basically my hypothesis on why so many in these comments react to flerfers as mortal enemies, because y'all are both religious about your own world view. The only difference is that science says things globers like to hear, if science started to claim race is real and immutable or homosexuality was a genetic defect then the globers would become indistinguishable from modern day flerfers.
Ever notice how inconsistent their arguments become when they will concede a point in order to make a larger point?
If it helps them today.
Tomorrow, they will say we have never been in low earth orbit again.
Tomorrow they'll say the earth is fake
They’ll claim anything to make them feel special.
You guys watch basic green screen footage and think its real than claim someone who went as against the grain and possibly is the dumbass 😂
@@effigy42 What?
@@effigy42 Are they your out of focus videos of stars on your YT channel? If so, you need to turn off auto focus, and learn how to focus manually. And if they are someone else's, do you just have them there as examples of poor photography technique?
One small punch from Buzz & a huge slap in the face for conspiracy theorists.
the explanation of how they "faked" it, actually sounds a lot more difficult than actually doing it.
I forget the quote but its something like if they where going to fake it was going to be harder and cost more than to just do it for real.
Plus low orbit is like half the fuel and 99% of the engineering (not counting whats needed for a landing, but even that is small once you have the rest). Its like saying we did all the hard work, are half way and the rest is downhill. Lets fake it.
@@nickierv13 Yeah you'd still need a big-ass rocket to go into orbit unless you want everyone spectating to go "Ha!" You'd also need all the thousands of engineers genuinely working on developing and building systems for the Lunar Lander etc, you can't just buy everyone involved off to stay silent for the rest of their lives. From that point on it's cheaper to actually go to the Moon. Add to that the film crew who would definitely have to be in on it. And what every Moon-landing denier seems to forget, the Soviets were very closely monitoring and listening in to everything possible and they accepted their defeat in the race to the Moon, but if there would've been any hint that it was a hoax, they would've trumpeted it all over the world screaming bloody murder.
@@TTFerdinand Solid points. Both sides where listening in on probe chatter, its not like you could encrypt it or anything.
You know someone lauded something, its not hard to figure out where it is going. Point your radios at the destination and wait. Assuming everyone remembered to check the staging and no one messed up on any unit conversions, you expect to get some sort of data at some point.
Heck, even going back to Sputnik: how to mix the simplest possible science project with the equivalent 'pics or it didn't happen'. Make it beep, tell give everyone the tracking data and you get the geopolitical equivalent of 'look at what we did'
Yeah the more you delve into the science of it the more you realise how ridiculous it is to fake the whole thing. I mean there are so many different fields of science that it'd be impossible to craft a hoax where there are no mistakes. Actual scientists from around the world would have picked up on them decades ago. Instead we just have basement dwelling weirdos pulling things out of their asses.
frrr like all the technology involved sounds harder to invent and then you also have to convince everyone else with so much as a telescope that you've somehow reached the moon otherwise they'll expose you. sounds pretty much impossible to lie about being on the moon while you're in low earth orbit and somehow convincing everyone else in the world that you've gone to the moon. even an amateur astronaut can look up with a telescope and see a ship in low earth orbit. and then you have to do all this editing for the photos taken on the mission
Anyone taking Sibrel seriously needs a head check
Dave is the best debunker because Discworlders on Great A'tuin, know that photography proves the space age, (which started in 1957 long before CGI), is real. And thus Dave is perfect to destroy their silly myths
Disc? Strawman logical fallacy. Can you provide a link with a single reputable flat earther claiming a disc? Seriously you're either ignorant or lying
@@taylorjeremy71 Trick question, no flerfers are reputable.
@@YetiUprising Waiting on that link....
@@taylorjeremy71 You guys don't even know what you believe. Flat = disc. Don't need you to say it.
@@taylorjeremy71 Silly flerfer, thinking figures of speech are literal. (BTW, if your "flat Earth" isn't a disk, then what is it?)
The first to debunk the moon landing would’ve been the Soviet’s who monitored all transmissions including those from the moon.
Even they didn't try to debunk it. lol
Didn't you know they faked that too? lmao
Probably the best vpn ad transition I ever heard, good job
Few things in the world piss me off as much as moonlanding deniers.
I had an unexpected encounter with a Danish ml-denier in FB comments a while ago. Completely braindead.
My patience would not suffice to set these people straight, so I am grateful that people like you put in the effort. Thank you!
The expeditions to the Moon are still standing as the furthest humans have travelled relative to Earth, and must be counted among Mankinds greatest achievements. Plus it is always good when devices designed for war can be applied for peaceful purposes, resulting in scientific and technological advances, improving our knowledge and our understanding of the world we live on, and enable us to improve our lives and ways of living.
The pictures from Apollo make people see how tiny our blue planet is. We need to be aware of that now more than ever.
Why does this get you so mad? I'm no flerfer, space seems real and earth seems a globe (I've done no personal experiments so I say "seems"), but why does it matter to you if people who have no power don't believe the official narrative?
I actually really like flerfers for several reasons:
Education: I get to hear specifics about the world that normally are considered too boring to popularize.
Scientific method: observations and hypotheses are integral parts of the SM and flerfers do a ton of both.
(And the biggest one) *Safety*: the longer a right goes without being exercised the more likely it is you don't actually have said right in practice. Flerfers questioning something considered sacrosanct but that has no impact on day to day life is a perfect test case to determine if standard model heretics actually do have the right to exist in Western societies. Canary's in a coal mine of totalitarianism.
@@justinkennedy3004 But flerfers do have power. They get to vote, and they vote for crazy conspiracy theorists like themselves.
"The pictures from Apollo make people see how tiny our blue planet is" That was one of the things that people really noticed when the Apollo 8 photos were first published. It kick started the environmental movement. Poster-sized prints of "Earthrise" were a popular wall decoration in many a student's lodgings.
One of the lesser conspiracy theories that seemed to viral during the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 returned to earth is to show the capsule upside down after splashdown, then claim NASA intentionally stopped filming because it sank, then replacing it with one upright resumed filming. And of course placed the astronauts inside the capsule. Reality is they were not about to waste precious film waiting for the uprighting system to turn the capsule correct side up.
I don't believe man landed on the moon, so I must be brain dead! Is anyone who has a different opinion to you, brain dead? Maybe I know something you don't.
“Gotta lie to flerf” -McToon
Alright, I give it to you, what an amazing segue to the sponsor segment 😂
You missed a part of the video out. Where they claimed they had ‘mistakenly’ gotten some secret video that wasn’t mean to be released to them, that was not only not secret but actually available in the NASA gift shop on their moon missions videos.
True. Just another one of Sibrel's lies.
I mean yeah, you expect moon landing deniers to do ANY work?
Buzz took care of Bart in the best way possible. Lol
On a low earth orbit you orbit the earth 16 times/day. And as you are so low, you see only a rather small part of the surface (a circle of 2,600 km radius),
That means in one 90-minute-orbit you have to switch at least 8 times between ground stations. Probably way more.
When you travel in a more straight line to the moon, in 100,000 km distance you can see almost the whole earth surface. So you have to switch maybe 4 times a day, and not 130+ times.
I think you needed to insert some footage from playschool to explain to the flerfers what a round window is :-)
The van allen belts are only dangerous with prolonged exposure. They're not somewhere you'd want to (or could) deployed a space habitat. The real risk was that outside the van allen belts, you're exposed to the raw solar wind, which IS a significant issue. It's one of the problems to solve for a manned mars mission, for example.
Yes. I believe they were through the most dangerous parts of the belt in under 30 minutes, so their exposure was well below dangerous levels.
lol Dave _lied_ when he said that Apollo 11 avoided the belts and thereby proved that he did not do his own research. Fact is, the orbit of Apollo 11 kept it within 30° North and South of the equator. Why lie about something like that?
Also, the belts are where solar energy is _concentrated_ by the magnetic field and although you are correct to assert that the solar wind presents a real danger, the Van Allen Belts are _more_ of a danger. And I guarantee you that photographic film could not have withstood the exposure of _either!_
Also, I would argue that 'sending a craft to the moon' is not even the issue; whether humans were on board is what I dispute and the smoking gun is the fact that NASA erased the tapes on which the telemetry info and such like was recorded in order to reuse the tapes. LMAO... Seriously?
I worked for the BBC for a while and I can tell you that because the quality is reduced, they _never_ re-use tape. NASA could have put that tape up for auction and someone would have paid them enough to buy all the new tape they could ever want.
No man went to the moon on those Apollo missions but like Dave, you are too invested in your NASA-fellating mission to wreck flerfers to realize that you yourselves are exhibiting cult behaviour.
That dog must be bored of the Apollo fight missions!
@@undercoveragent9889Or maybe he just made a mistake...? It happens, you know. The fact is that the claim that nobody could survive a 30 minute trip through the strongest part of the Van Allen Belts has already been debunked on many occasions, as has all the other nonsense the Moon mission deniers continue to trot out.
Time to move on with your lives. Seriously.
@@undercoveragent9889 Apollo 11 went around the inner belt (the more dangerous one).
"I guarantee you that photographic film could not have withstood the exposure of either!" - and you know this how?
" erased the tapes on which the telemetry info and such like was recorded in order to reuse the tapes." - the only thing lost when they erased the tape was the original video feed, they still had the scan converted video and all of the data, as well as video and data from five more manned landings.
During my engineering studies we bounced LIDAR of the retro reflectors placed on the moon by the Apollo astronauts. At that day (October 2nd) we measured the distance to the moon to be 374,151 km. And just like that the whole moon landing conspiracy and the nonsense flat earth claim that the moon is local goes bye bye for good.
I’ve never doubted that the Apollo missions on the moon happened. There’s too much irrefutable proof. However, the retroreflectors left behind could have been done with a rover that has a retroreflector mounted on top. The Soviets landed two Lunokhod’s that they remotely operated and included retroreflectors.
@@mako88sb It still proves that we landed on the moon and didn't circle in low orbit. We have plenty of other evidence that the mission was manned.
@@mako88sb that would have required NASA to be sending remote landing probes to the moon at the exact time they said they landed men there, JUST to counter the flerfs and conspiracy theorists. And also faking all the other evidence of men on the moon. As others have commented many times before - faking the moon landing would be thousands of times more expensive and complex than actually going there.
@@James_Randis_Spirit I agree but the HB’s who know about the Lunokhod’s will bring it up. The fact they ignore everything else that couldn’t be done with a remotely controlled rover is just more proof how irrational they are.
@@mako88sb -" However, the retroreflectors left behind could have been done with a rover that has a retroreflector mounted on top." True. However, when somebody brings this up I point out that now they need to explain how NASA was able to design and launch a rover without the Soviets knowing about it, then keep everyone involved quiet. Putting a rover on the Moon isn't exactly something you can do with only 10 people being in on it.
I remember when Apollo 11, back in 69, I used to watch TV all afternoon, I was Five at the time, which was when they landed on the moon. I remember Apollo 16 much more than I do Apollo 11, I got to see the launch of Apollo 16 from the causeway.
Must have been an incredible feeling to watch it live. Sadly I wasn't even close to being alive back then😂
My jealousy meter just went off the scale ...
I GOT A LUCKY VACATION TRIP TO WATCH THE LIFT OFF.
THAT WAS BEYOND EXCEPTIONAL, IT WAS ABSOLUTELY BEYOND SPEECH!
AT 9YEARS OF AGE, I WAS COMPLETELY BLOW AWAY SEEING IT LIVE, BY MY OWN EYES!
THIS FLERF MAKING HIS CLAIMS, PROVES HE IS A CHARLATIN AND BOLD LIAR!
APOLLO XI DID NOT HAVE CIRCULAR WINDOWS!
I remember it live as well. I found Apollo 8 to be even more memorable in some ways, since it was the first human visit to another world. I'll never forget the reading of Genesis with the moon surface passing beneath the command module.
The most obvious issue with this entire claim, to me, comes right there at the beginning. If they'd put a camera fairly close to the window(ignoring the square part), and then "inset a crescent-shaped piece of material", then the terminator line would be sharp. The material is close to the camera, and so any "shadow" could not be diffused in the manner we see. Even focusing on the earth would not create that diffusion, that could only happen with light hitting the edge of the object, and reflecting in greater or lesser degree in the atmosphere.
So, it cannot be this "crescent-shaped" object.
This is an amazing video mate. You're an inspiration to me. I am learning so many new things about our world and amazing space exploration watching you.
"To be honest, the biggest expense would be the massive rocket." "So you're saying we should go to the moon, to shoot the footage we'll use to fake the moon landing?"
"I'm sure they will believe us, to the extent that we probably won't have to pay much attention to detail with regards to flag and shadows and so on"
"The rest is just catering really..."
As far as I know, they didn't even go around the Van-Allen-Belt, but instead really just went through it. Because even though the radiation there is indeed rather high, the actual exposure time the astronauts experienced was fairly short, so it wasn't considered that big of an issue.
They didn't just plough through the centre. Their orbit was inclined so they went 'above' the thickest part of the belts, skirting the edges so to speak. But you're right, the sort of 'radiation' you found in the belts was all particles that could be stopped by the hull of the Command Module. They were more worried about the radiation environment outside the belts and on the moon.
Galen Windsor eats uranium on camera who was the hear nuclear physicist of the Manhattan project which debunks that whole narrative perfectly. but even better google image the lunar lander module if you look at that meth heads junkyard fort and go yep it can survive a perfect vacuum than something went seriously wrong in your brain
Flerfs seem to think the Van-Allen Belt will instantly fry you to crisp on contact.
Reply to @dietersteg63824 That was my understanding as well.
@@stainlesssteelfox1 True! The Van-Allen-Belts, being a symptom of Earth's magnetic field, naturally contain particles that are influenced by magnetic fields (typically α- and β-radiation), which tend to be rather easily shielded against.
Steady, concise, and detailed. Keep crushing it, Dave! 👍
Bart Sibrel is the guy that Buzz punched after being called a liar. 🤛
Of all the debunkers, you are the best Dave. It's because you don't shout and gesticulate frantically and swear and take the piss. Your videos are always calm, concise and competent. 😃
While it's true Sibrel baselessly called Buzz a liar, and that remains an astonishingly rude behaviour itself based on falsehoods, it is not why he got punched. He had also set up the meeting through deceit and attempted to physically prevent Buzz and his relative (daughter?) from leaving. So we have fraud, assault, and wrongful imprisonment on the list - not merely a defamatory insult. And this was typical behaviour of the guy, part of a life dedicated to harassment.
The downside to reducing the event to insult-punch is that it plays directly into the flerf's narrative; as Monty Python put it, "Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help help, I'm being repressed!"
@@0LoneTech Terrific analysis. I wish we could tattoo the Monty Python phrase on every conspiracy theory activist.
Getting really close to that 100K subscriber mark! Woohoo! I don’t think any other channel I watch has hit that milestone as quickly as you are going to. It’s well deserved. Your videos are so well made. (And it doesn’t hurt that you have Rusty as your eye candy.)
I thought that the flerf mantra is that a rocket can't even reach orbit because it would clank into the dome.
And wouldn't the Russians have shown the 'correct' telemetry if the Yanks had faked it?
Flat Earthers hardly ever agree on each other. This helps them be contrarians because if you debunk one of their claims, they'll just scream that they are being strawmanned, because this particular Flerfer only claims that there is an ice wall around the Earth, not that there is a solid crystal dome. Or vise versa. It is one of the reasons why I no longer bother debating them or even asking what do they believe in. They would usually dodge questions more than answer them because they know that they don't have answers.
Or can’t work in a vacuum because there is no air to push off. These idiots sure know their stuff and how to be consistent
If both NASA and the Russians were faking their space missions, wasn't it nice of the Russians to allow the Americans to make their 'fake' moon landing first?
Bart Sibrel isn't a flat earther though. He just claims the moon landings are fake, not that space doesn't exist, just that we can't get further than the radiation belts around the earth.
Bart Sibrel isn't a flerf and he doesn't believe this firmament dome stuff. Not all moon hoax believers are flerfers.
Well, Moon itself is in Earth orbit so it is kinda true they never left Earth orbit
3:43 I just can't believe they even made this argument. You didn't even have to show the example to a 10 year old for them to know this is what it would look like.
Everyone who could follow the mission did (I was in school) but later talked with a friend
who followed every detail and everything happened on schedule, until Armstrong took manual control to avoid boulders in the landing area.
In addition, the Soviet Union was also following the mission and would have been the first moon landing deniers, if they had found any flaw in the transmissions.
For me, the classic mld is the smug self-appointed expert who smirked at a camera and stated that "You cain't land a rocket on its tail!"
I just commented: 'No, You can't land a rocket on its tail'.
So explain to us how the Russians were able to determine the moon landing was real and how would they have told you it wasn't real in 1969. Seriously tell us how this would have happened that any American would know if the Russians said it was real or if they even knew we were supposed to be going tot he moon.
@@tommosher8271Tracking the signal and having spies in the US.
Why would Russia be lacking any means of communication?
Exactly, if the landing was fake you better believe the Soviet Union would have scientific proof to deny those claims.
I always look forward to your videos and you never disappoint. Good work.
I've been thinking about this. I'm 57, I remember watching the images from the moon in 1972, Apollo 17. I think the reason why more people think that it's all made up is because they have grown up with computers. But in the 70s, there were not computers in people's homes, hands, or cars. We barely had any electronics.
I can't help but remember my favorite description for the moon landings, from a page on awesome moments/accomplishments in science: "NASA put a man on the moon using technology less sophisticated than what is in your average cell phone. In 1969, before the advent of the Internet or modern computers." This comparison predates the Nokia 3310 (which was maybe on par with a low-end fitness tracker today).
@maileesaeya3614 A typical smartphone has more computing power than all of Apollo rockets and all of NASAs computers at the time combined.
I've seen comments on SpaceX launch and landing videos say it's obviously CGI lol. I guess everyone who actually saw it was hallucinating or paid actors haha
@@SimonAmazingClarkeso how does something we cant build again today be built no problem back then? 😂 its so dumb theyre giving you everything to realise the na sa
@effigy42 We can build it today, no problem. They were cash rich times. NASA doesn't receive anywhere near the funds for a similar set of mussions.
What I don't understand is the ridiculous notion that three very brave men on each deep space Apollo mission climbed aboard their spacecraft on the top of a giant rocket and blasted into space but supposedly the Van Allen belts were too dangerous? Well sure! Let's ride to space on a giant pile of tanks full of millions of pounds of high explosive but we gotta draw the line at some charged particles and a negligible dose of ionizing radiation 'cause that's just too extreme! 🤣
Sadly for you Mr 'knowledgeable', Modern History is what it is. NOT what you think or wish it to be. And the SIX Apollo Moon Landing Missions are a series of astonishing events in that history. Best you get used to the Reality of it all. 😎
@@apolloskyfacer5842 wtf? Did you actually read my comment?
No astronauts were worried about the VABs. Van Allen himself confirmed it was safe.
Your videos are simply amazing ✨and your seamless transitions to the sponsor are incredibly well done. I never see them coming 😅
You never see it comiiiiing~
You know what else you never see coming? Me, when I'm surfing to your site using Atlas VPN.
Another excellent video! Thank you for your diligent work and coherent comments
Another great discussion of how a good photographer can analyze pictures/ videos. And debunking the claims of flerfs in a respectful manner.
Except that photos aren't scientific evidence. Otherwise bigfoot, lochness monster, and UFOs would be facts. You should really learn scientific method.
Bart Sibrel isn't a flerf. He never claimed that the earth is flat.
@@hijtohema You're speaking to a group who operates solely on assumptions and appeal to authority logical fallacy. Of course they're going to misrepresent Bart
@@taylorjeremy71 It's very tempting to identify flerfers and moon hoax believers as one and the same. But it isn't true. By the very nature of their delusion all flerfers are moon hoax believers. But not all moon hoaxers are flerfers. Bart Sibrel detests the idea of being identified as a flerfer. Because he knows flat earth is nonsense but also because he feels this flat earth nonsense damages his own nonsense i.e. "exposing the moon landing hoax".
@@taylorjeremy71Hmmm? He never mentioned Bart in his comment
Best subject-by-subject debunks since Professor Dave!
Isn't Prof Dave the fake professor who was just recently crushed in a live debate by Dr James Tour on OOL? Yup that's him. You have the mind of a child.
@taylorjeremy71 he was crushed by no one, James tour just invited dumb people that agree with him while he only wrote "clueless" witch is what you are by the way
@@taylorjeremy71 "You have the mind of a child."
Says the impotent halfwit who fell for the flat earth con & runs like a frightened child from any inconvenient questions. Care to embarrass yourself & then run yet again?
Superb segue, I have to say. Good job, i very rarely watch through the whole add but I did this time. (the fact you kept it rather short helps too)
Nice work as always. Love how respectful you are in your analysis
So again, less-witted people failed to grasp the sheer size of the Earth. They tend to think that just because the spacecraft is in "space," the Earth would look really small from there. It simply isn't. Compared to the Earth's radius of 6,400 km, the low Earth orbit, such as the ISS orbit of 420 km, is relatively short distance - which explains why only a tiny fraction of Earth is visible in photos and videos taken from ISS.
I like the term “less-witted”. I think I’ll steal that for future use!
Nice work. They don't seem to have an explaination for the terminator being less sharp than the other edge of the planet.
You are just so clear and good, thank you for all you do, Dave.
Great analysis!
I'm learning so much from your Channel!
I love watching Buzz punch that guy
I once said to a friend who thought it was all faked. "If you can come up with a single narrative that we didn't go to the moon... I'll believe you." He was completely stumped.
Probably trying to make sense of your dumb statement.
Ad ignorantiam logical fallacy. You should get out of your mum's basement every once in a while and meet someone who can answer that question for you they are literally everywhere.
@@taylorjeremy71 You are not one of them, apparently
@@taylorjeremy71 they can never come up with one answer. It's always the rockets, the computers, the van allen belts, etc. Make your bloody mind up mate! Not having a single narrative is why this bullshit will never win. Also the burden of proof always falls with the conspiracy theorists, not the other way round.
I once thought we should gather all the people with wildly different, blatantly contradicting theories about moon landing hoaxes and other conspiracies in a room, and let them argue about it. Then I found out from one of Professor Dave's videos that there already are """science""" conventions where that happens, where creationists, flat-earthers, electric universe proponents, and basically every other conceivable pseudoscience crank gather together to talk at each other without actually debating.
The conspiracy is ALWAYS the only point.
Thankyou Dave for explaining this fascinating topic, which I for one have always been sceptical about, but you have made me rethink the whole thing.
Glad you mentioned the ham radio guys Dave because I can remember the science master and his after school astronomy club picking up many space transmissions with some fantastically sophisticated antenna - a couple of length of chain link fence across the playing field.
Ham radios are excellent ways to destroy flat earth and moon landing hoax lies.
You can use them to show that radio line of sight only goes so far. You can use them to demonstrate bouncing signals off the ionosphere. You can tune in to communications with the space station. And you can even measure the distance to the moon by bouncing a signal off it.
I really enjoy your videos. You are a fantastic teacher.
You wanted to know my thoughts, so here they are: Bart deserved that punch.
It was the punch to the mouth seen all around the world. The famous Buzz Aldrin knuckle sandwich. Put that stalking bibble pusher right down on his donkey.
Wrong. He deserved about 20 punches that were five times harder. Put him out of our misery.
That punch was maybe the best thing Sibrel ever gifted to humanity.
If only Buzz had been wearing knuckledusters that day...
Hi Dave, great video as always. Wondering if you've seen the recent PetaPixel video of a contract photographer who flew in a U2 spyplane in order to capture photos of another U2 in flight? Not only is it fascinating, but it provides plenty of footage showing the curvature of the Earth while straight edges are in frame.
According to Neil Degrasse Tyson NASA's top representative U2 spy planes don't go high enough to see the curve. Your beef is with NASA. You should do a little research before saying commenting.
Do you have a link pls?
@@linaos6334 open Google, on the search bar type: U2 plane video.
Allow time for the search engine to load the page and you will find a selection of videos, pick the one you like most or, better still, watch them all by clicking on them one at the time.
The above suggestion has been provided by my 9 years old granddaughter. If even she can do it I cannot see reasons you couldn't without being instructed.
Yes, I saw that and saved it to my FE bollo*** playlist.
@@linaos6334 Just search for PetaPixel U2 and it should be the first result. I haven't watched it yet.
You've got the best segues.. also the best debunkings. Well done
Love your Videos :)
What's annoying about conspiracy theorists is how stubbornly convinced they are right about everything they believe. It's okay to question things, to be skeptical, and to challenge ideas, but these people will always talk to you as if they have all the answers and know everything.
Not that you asked, but I see three kinds:
1. The grifters. They know they're lying.
2. The egotists who, due to personality disorders, maybe combined with misunderstood religious teachings, can never bring themselves to look at the truth. They're kind of aware that they're dishonest, but justify it to themselves as being necessary.
3. Those who follow others and haven't really thought hard about it, and find the social approval of their circle more important than some abstract concept like whether the earth is round.
@@larrywest42 My three are:
Type 1 do not know much about science or the subject but when presented with scientific fact and evidence, can be reasoned with.
Type 2 just aren’t very bright; they can’t work out who held a camera and why an astronaut looks bored at a press conference, and are easily taken in.
Type 3 like to think that they have some sort of special insight that experts don’t have, and whatever evidence you present to them they will just dismiss it as impossible or lies, and the more you argue with them the more entrenched their views become, because for them it is a matter of belief. I also suspect that a lot of this type know that the moon landings were real but get a perverse pleasure out of being bloody minded.
Thank you for this break down of that show… your details are fantastic.
this hurts my head so much
the absurd speculations and mental hoops flat earthers have to go through just to form a single sentence
I always wonder why so many of these 'debunkers' focus on Apollo 11 and not say, 10, 12, or 14.
They do know they went to the moon _multiple times,_ right?
Or how about 13?
It's when things go off script that you are more likely to find issues.
@@stephenolan5539 Yep. Apollo 13 was definitely faked. Using Tom Hanks was a bit of a giveaway.
You should make an episode explaining what the van Allen belts are and how spacecraft get around them
There are many on You Tube - these scientifically illiterate conspiracy believing goons simply handwave them away.
Really glad you covered that video.
All these Astronauts are heroes!! The courage they had the right stuff.
$10,000 FlatAfrica flight chart reward. Print out the 32 flat and accurate flight charts that cover Africa. Line them up and tape them together. Simple, but apparently too complicated for the average flatearther.
Should I increase the reward?
Who could possibly have predicted that some lunatic conspiracy theorist wouldn't have even done the most basic level of research before making a full documentary on a subject that they have absoloutely no idea about.
I appreciate your use of the word "lunatic" to describe a moon landing conspiracy theorist.
I gotta say, that's got to be one of the best transitions into an ad I've seen so far
I admire Dave's patient explanation. Committed contrarians must have mental health issues.
I love how moon landing content leads to a confluence of flat earthers and moon landing deniers for a glorious cacophony of a comment section.
Excellent explanations 👏👏👏thanks! (Trivia note: Bart’s film title was a steal from “A funny thing happened on the way to the Forum” which was a comedy...I’m tempted to say, ALSO a comedy.)
Actually, that title was a takeoff on a standard comedy routine from Vaudeville: "A funny thing happened on my way to the show tonight . . ."
And there was a book published in the 1970s of amusing things in aerospace that was titled"A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon". I've always wanted the writer to sue the idiot.
We all know what happened when Bart meet Buz's fist when he called him a coward.
I wanted to somehow get in touch with you and ask when a new video is finally coming. There it is! Best globe man ever. Well explained and logically thought out. More ... MORE OF THAT! And thank you!
finally coming? He literally put out a video a week previous to this one.
Again another brilliant debunk, Gempanda did a awesome job of the full thing as well
I detect a note of surrender from the people who think even getting into orbit is impossible
Another excellent video. Keep 'em coming...!
So something I love about people that claim the moon landing and whole leaving low earth orbit is fake is how they try to come up with claims that many of these videos from the missions are doctored using simple practical camera tricks... but they forget about proportion and distance. If you shrank the earth to the size of a tennis ball the moon (which would be smaller than small rubber ball) would still be roughly 8 feet apart. There is no way to get trick shots using practical effects like paper stops and what not in a space the size of the Apollo 11 module to get the images we see, and if they were faked they would have to have been in post production editing, or in a very large studio/filming area.
brilliant video as always - love the flat earth and moon landing debunks and hope they continue - though i think youd do as well if you branched out into general videos explaining cool science and tech facts and phenomona
He will do great, he is a propped up clown up yoot choob, making propaganda vids for fools.
@@garnet4846 You and basic grammar have never been close friends.
@@leftpastsaturn67 wow! You found an error in a yoot choob comment section. Send me your address, I've got a cookie I d like to send you.
@@leftpastsaturn67 no comment on the errors in the original comment?
11:55 Notice also the surface below racing through the open hatch's window.
Absolutely luv this channel...uve taught me plenty
Bart Sibrel is just an insanely psychotic taxi driver with a ridiculous obsession.
Flat earthers, please explain sun dials. Thanks in advance.
This could be interesting.
They REALLY don't like that question.
As someone who has designed and built sundials, I wouldn't put my expectations too high.
I tried that one and they said sundials work the same on both models. LOL
@@tjjones621 Not to forget "Sundials are flat DUH" Failing to notice there are spherical sundials...
Although the best has to when they confidently state the Sun moves in a circle round the gnomon.
I blame the film Capricorn 1 from 1977 “I think” for the mass theory of the landings being fake as until this film it wasn’t even a thought, then a film about nasa faking a mars mission comes out and then people claim so were the moon missions.🤔
Most of them are flat Earth believers. The rest are simply clueless about how involved a hoax of this magnitude would be to supposedly pull off and keep under wraps for 50+ years. The more that’s explained to them, the more ridiculous and unlikely additional conspiracies they will dream up instead of admitting they are wrong about anything.
"Capricorn One" was actually inspired by the deniers, not the other way around. There was a book published that was the spark, and they rushed to make the film.
Excellent analysis. Much appreciated. It saddens me how many of my countrymen don’t believe that this actually happened and this video could do wonders to correct their views.
Another great video^^
Graphics and Visual Effects were better back then, than they are now 😂😂😂
2:26 the confidence in this woman's voice ( yes she might just be a narrator) is ridiculous when they haven't got a single shred of proof, its like they all just sat round a table thinking of ways the shot could have been done!!
It sounds like AI based on Angela Rippon, a very famous BBC news anchor and presenter since the 1970s. The very clear enunciation and slightly patronising tone of a BBC presenter from 50 years ago sound artificial to a British listener in 2023.
@@ianchisholm5756 It's credited to Anne Tonelson.
And it's pretty obvious that Sibrel picked an English narrator to add that air of sophistication as a way to help sell the swill he was peddling.
@@critthought2866 Thanks for letting me know. The marrator does do an excellent BBC voice.
@@ianchisholm5756 You're welcome. And yes, from what I've heard on BBC, she definitely would fit in very well with their people.
My favorite part is when Buzz sucker-punched Bart Sibrel in the face for calling him a coward.
It was the punch seen all around the world . The famous Buzz Aldrin Knuckle Sandwich.
Yes and then when Sibrel tried to have Buzz charged with assailt, it got tossed with a comment that strongly hinted he got what he deserved.