''moon proof? it's not even rain proof" - yes, that was something of an oversight by NASA when they allowed this craft, Apollo 11 to land in the Sea of Tranquility. It should have been waterproof at least. Fortunately disaster was averted because when it arrived the tide was out. Sometimes you just got to ride your luck.
This almost angered me.. I had to read it twice to catch the biblical level of sarcasm imbedded in your comment.. This might be because of two beermug-sized brandy and coke drinks I have consumed, but let's not mention this..
Paraphrasing Eric-"The lunar lander doesn't look like a Star Wars ship, so it must be fake." So it looks fake because it doesn't look like something known to be fake. Makes perfect sense.
@@criskity Right? It's almost as if shooting something into space becomes both more difficult and more expensive as weight increases. So, obviously they should have added all kinds of extra...stuff...that wasn't strictly necessary for the mission. So fuckwits like Dumbay would think it looked "real."
It's fantastic how Star Destroyers and X-Wings are far more believable than a ropey metal box with foil and bent coat hangers that managed to help land a thruster, calculator and a bunch a guys on to the surface of a body in space that isn't Earth. It's a testament to the ingenuity of the people and materials that built it.
The funny things is that he is able to point out the supposed rough and haphazard construction of the lander that he thinks makes it look fake, but don't you think that if NASA wanted to fake the lander and convince everyone that it was a high tech space craft, then they would make it look more high tech and well built. So, only because it is real, they were not concerned with what it looked like, just that it was fit for purpose.
What Eric "Creepy Voice" Dubay fails to realize is that we would be unable to build a brand new Iowa-class battleship today. That doesn't mean the Battle of Leyte Gulf didn't happen in WW2.
@@UlmDoesAnything Exactly. You know the wrought iron fences all around the country? If you investigate a little bit you'll find out that there's no longer the means to produce wrought iron on an industrial scale. If anything were to be made out of wrought iron today it has to made out of recycled material.
@@FIREBRAND38 plus its also funny that he says it in a way that NASA hid all blueprints and other things about the LEM Yet for the people supposedly using simple google searches to prove their points, it also takes a simple google search to find schematics, blue prints, interior and exterior diagrams, etc for the LEM and other Apollo Hardware I know cuz i use em alot while making replicas in a game called Simplerockets 2- I literally have a diagram of the Apollo control panel saved for reference
@@UlmDoesAnything I use the NASA website a lot too. EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO KNOW IS THERE. There is nothing you can't find. Whenever some idiot says "Why did this happen? It must be fake" and it is something I hadn't thought of before, I simply google his question, and many sites referencing and linking to NASA dot gov, explains exactly "why did this happen." First time I ever saw this BS, _'the Lunar Module looks flimsy'_ I thought, "it DOES look flimsy", so I looked it up. With fuel it weighed 33,000 pounds. ---- It also tells me stuff I never knew (and I was a child during Apollo) The other really dumb one was, someone said, when Armstrong got out and said "one Small Step . . ." why wasn't there dust in the air from the landing? ---- Of course I thought "cuz there is no 'air'. But it made me wonder how long was it between the landing and the time he got out? I never had known that before, and I was shocked that after they landed, he didn't get out for like six hours and 39 minutes. That really surprised me. ---- That same day, looking around, I discovered the thing about him landing it manually, and almost running out of fuel, and there was even a video of what he could see, and the transcript of what he was saying while he was maneuvering AND what Houston was saying. It was fascinating. And I like learning things I didn't know before. --- I am the kind of person who would have a diagram of the Apollo control panel saved for reference.
I love how he will quote them as a credible source when they are being critical, but dismisses them when they speak about being on the moon. He is a fascinating human! Thanks for your work Dan
The same argument used by anti-vaxers - "the vaccine isn't a 100% effective and it's protection isn't life-long, as I imagine it should be based on my negative sum of knowledge? It's worthless then."
"I've got no engineering experience, so obviously I can point out the engineering shortcomings of a craft so specialized I don't actually believe in its accomplishments"
So, it's unbelievable that the technology is lost and would be incredibly expensive (compared to the price tag of the thing itself) to be rebuilt? Yeah, I'd like to see Eric build a floppy disk from scratch. Not something that works like a floppy disk, but an actual exact, working replica of a floppy disk. Let's see how that goes, huh? Should be a piece of cake, since it's old tech and he's so sophisticated, ain't he?
The annoying thing is their deliberately dishonest phrasing. The "technology" isn't lost, the _hardware_ is. It was destroyed as part of the process, as Dan pointed out. The knowledge about how to build it is obviously still there, and we certainly _can_ do it better... if the budget is there. Which it isn't, as shown in the video. Maybe we should start another cold war to get the space race going again :P Another element that makes it 'harder' today is the safety factor. Modern oversight committees are _way_ more risk-averse than they were back then... a significant chunk would need to be added to the budget just for that lone.
@@wraitholme "The knowledge about how to build it is obviously still there" ... the computers in the command module and the lander still used these little ferrite rings on tiny wires as memory (both RAM and ROM). That alone would be something hard to rebuild today, as the tooling, and the staff trained on using those tools, are not easily available anymore. Ok, this specific part is easy to replace with contemporary (or actually not THAT contemporary, for radiation hardening reasons) semiconductors, and emulators of the Apollo Guidance Computer are readily available. But rebuilding the original guidance computers 1:1, using 1960s technology, and get that running reliably? Good luck with that ...
They give everything a cool story like star wars and these blinded people believe it, i mean this is predicted in the word of our creator, makes me sad to see that someday when we are all infront of the judge the lies will be uncovered they will feel very bad....
@@nutfar4413 I think they're implying that NASA would be going to hell for their supposed lying. Curious what he thinks the 'cool story' is behind any apollo mission other than 11 or 13, or any space shuttle that hasn't had a serious problem during a mission
@@ClayunderSeal So faked lunar landings were "predicted" in a book written by a bunch of Bronze Age nomadic shepherds, primitive people who weren't even bright enough to figure out where the sun went at night?🤣 Sure, buddy, whatever you say. (Yet another gullible religitard heard from...sigh.)🤣
Exactly. The part that they don’t understand is EXACTLY the part that they don’t understand. It’s not BUILT to stand in the rain, stupid. There’s no RAIN on the Moon. It’s just like That Guy saying that the north/south magnetic lines at the equator of a globe would point “up and down” into space, and we’re like YES, THAT’S IT!!! And he’s like, “No, that makes no sense…” UGH!!! So close…
You're a liar!!! Everybody knows the moon is made of cheese. And that's why the moon landings are fake, the engines would have melted the surface and left a tasty crust. But moon stones don't taste of crusty cheese. I know this for a fact. I licked one last time I visited the space museum. That was when they gave me that nice jacket with those funny arms and put me into that nice room with pillows all over the walls.
I have built satellites before. So when he starts complaining about the way it is paneled, I couldn't stop laughing. He thinks he is so smart and yet doesn't understand thermal expansion/contraction, and outgassing. Unless it is a pressure vessel like the actual part the astronauts are in, it will outgas. Any water, air, oil which can vaporizer will and it's better to get that out between intentional gaps than have it shortout circuits or break something. It's those "bubbles" he is always claiming to see flying off the ISS. Wait tell he learns (if he can) that the reason stuff is gold plated is to minimize whiskers, then he'll be claiming they had cats on the moon.
“It looks so flimsy, like it couldn’t survive going through anything!” Oh? Man…then it should probably travel through something that is 99.999999% void, I guess. What could that be?
@@mjelves Most of Kubrick's films were filmed in the UK as he was based here and that is also the reason that about half of Spielberg's movies were filmed here too including the Raiders movies, Shaving Ryan's Privates, Amistad, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's list off the top of my head, Kubrick was Spielberg's mentor. Kubrick's most noted US movie was Spartacus.
There's an unused H model lunar module sitting at the Saturn V center. It was originally intended for Apollo 15 but was bumped off the flight when Apollo 15 was moved up to a J class mission (the first to carry a rover) when the program was cut short. Unrelated, but Gus Grissom did not hang a lemon on the lunar module. He hung a lemon on the simulator for the command module, which was not keeping up with changes that were being made to the real capsule that ultimately caught fire on the pad and claimed his life.
05:32 "What other 1960s technology is so advanced and expensive that it cannot be recreated easily and far better now than way back then?" *Concorde has entered the chat*
Well, we COULD do Concorde far better now, just like we could do Apollo far better now. Mostly because they did all the really hard stuff back in the 60's. The thing is, there's no point. A new SST wouldn't be any more economically viable than Concorde was, and there's no real value in landing humans on the Lunar surface again unless the ultimate goal of the project is to establish a permanent (and expanding) colony.
@@evensgrey That is what the artemis program is working towards. Next man and first woman are supposed to walk ON the moon in 2024. I cannot wait to hear the FE crew trying to cry fake during that broadcast. By 2028 NASA is hoping to have a 4 person long term base camp at the south pole of the moon.
If nasa was to fake the moon landing, why make the lander LOOK like it's made of cardboard and tinfoil and shit. Why not make it look sleek and futuristic?
My thoughts exactly. With NASA's massive budget, they could have produced a top notch looking model spacecraft and proper background scenery that would be very difficult to debunk. Incidentally, I have seen some of the original concept designs and the did look a lot cleaner, but were impractical.
A BIG lie: Gus Grisson never had the chance to see the lunar lander; he died in january 1967; the final version of the lunar lander wasn't even ready on paper at that time... He did the lemon joke about the command module he was training to fly, Apollo 1! Liar, liar, pants on fire, Eric!
You are wrong. A liar knows he is lying. Eric Dubay think its true because he is suffering from many psychological issues. For one, he is obviously suffering from paranoia combined with the Dunning-Kruger syndrome like most flat-earthers.
@@engelbrecht777 he also has a huge inferiority complex that translates in a real hate for anything related to nasa or the astronauts; something you can read easily in his tone of voice. Over the years I caught him in so many lies that I lost the count, like the "masonic ring" he says Buzz wears in one of the mission's photos. It's his Annapolis's ring, the stone is not a masonic emblem but the stone of the year he graduated. As all the moonhoaxers he used the most crappy jpg for his "evidence", when a photographic copy is easily available just asking for it to nasa. Now you have HD copies in the net, but of course, that's too hard for them to look after! "Do your own resarch" means "look in our sites, don't bother to go to the real sources"... He's a snake oil seller, and all snake oil sellers knew their product was a fake thing, but money (or followers) are the only thing that matters!
@@engelbrecht777 No, I think Eric knows he is lying. Some of the things he claims are stuff he has completely invented; lies from whole cloth, as it were.
"What other 1960's technology cannot be recreated today?" Like... old computers? Game consoles? Old cars? Old military hardware? Hell, most of us can't even get video games made in 2003 working on modern hardware, let alone in the 60's. Of course you COULD make these work, but it'd be difficult and costly... a painful process, even.
and even if you buy the ported versions of those old original games, they look way worse today, because the graphics were designed for CRT-Screens. You can play them on a modern 4k Plasma Monitor, and they look WAY worse.
His premise is the LEM doesn't look enough like science fiction to be real. When SpaceX lands a Starship on the Moon, he'll complain that it looks too slickly like a science fiction spaceship, and must be fake.
Dude thinks all rocket firings look like the one he showed. He can't comprehend that different engines in different atmospheric pressures produce radically different looking out even imperceptible exhaust. Hell I doubt he even understands what engine exhaust is and how it works.
Eric , of course, means "lack of visible exhaust." Moon deniers use this argument repeatedly although the idea that visible exhaust is a characteristic of all rockets has been thoroughly debunked.
@@oldtvnut Yes, I've seen them claim that there's no visible plume in videos showing plumes that don't look like plumes in atmosphere. The plume is almost entirely caused by the interaction of the hot exhaust gases with the air they are exhausted into. In space, the plumes of most types of rockets that are used in space are all but invisible unless there's something to cool it, like a spend booster being accelerated away from and so being in the plume and cooling it. (Close up, most of them are pretty close to invisible. Many years ago I went outside just after dusk to watch a shuttle go over. It must have fired an RCS burst while it was going over, because there was a plume of brightly illuminated material that spanned half the sky.)
@@evensgrey Just some amplification: You can only see the exhaust of the rocket if light hitting it is directed towards you somehow. If you were to place a flashlight in a vacuum chamber, such that the flashlight and the target were not in your field of view, but the beam passed in front of you, you wouldn't see anything. The atmosphere has dust, and the dust can deflect some of the light towards you, and at high enough intensities, the air can too. Rockets will have obvious plumes when the exhaust gas contains particulates - some rocket fuels actually emit solid particles, such as the soot from black powder or most solid motors. And hence it will deflect light (especially the rocket flame) sideways. But more normally, it's usually a gaseous component that condenses it into droplets, and *that* reflects the light. In space, the plume is much wider due to thrust bell over-expansion (the gorgeous pictures of launches boosting through upper atmosphere that look like the trail suddenly expanded), but since the density of the condensate is lower the reflected light is ONLY visible at night. Also, in space, contrary to what you may think, the cooling of something is considerably slower than on earth - because it's not in contact with cooler things or immersed in cooler air, so heat los is purely by IR radiation is pretty slow. So condensation would be slower. RCS engines are really tiny, and their total burn time is measured in minutes. The shuttle used hypergolic fuels (like MMH and a version of hydrazine) which don't produce particulates, and relatively little condensation, and the flames are hardly visible. Other RCS engines don't involve burning anything at all - "cold boosters" simply rely on a tank of compressed gas, no flame, no fire, can't see it at all. The Shuttle's RCS units didn't have enough fuel to burn for a quarter of a rotation (about 20 minutes "half the sky"[orbit]), and even so, externally they're fairly dim. What caused what you saw? I don't think it was a shuttle RCS. Maybe an independent rocket launch you weren't aware of coincidentally nearby the shuttle. A very high aircraft contrail that was still lit shortly after sunset? A super-high cloud streamer? A reentry burn? It would be cool if there was a picture.
@@ghost307 I almost expect Eric to say, “l’m not an engineer, scientist, pilot, or educated in any way, but…..I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night and watch conspiracy videos on the free wifi.
I have very contradictionary feelings watching these videos. Firstly, they are entertaining and often informative. Secondly, it feels nice to see proof that you are not, by far, as stupid as some. Thirdly, realising that soo many are more, and that far more, stupid than you, is scary and discouraging. Fourthly(?), the thought that E.B. is intentionally lying and deceiving, is outrageous and infuriating. Summarised, it balance out to a; "Eh! (shrug), with a tentative smile". But I enjoy the videos while they last.
@@bodan1196 I now Mute the Idiot featured & just listen to Dan's Inserts, makes the video so much more enjoyable, Firstly: because I don't have to endure the mind numbing Drivel that I know is Lies, Secondly: I feel good that I learn something Positive from Dan's Inserts, Thirdly: I don't have to listen to the FE Voices that set off my 'Stranger Danger' Sense, Fourthly: The comments containing Terrific Puns & Fourthly make me Laugh 🤣 Ps Yes it is a comfort to know I am Smart enough to know I am Stoopid & not so Stoopid to think I am a Genius
Notice how Dubay never bothers to look up the technical specs of the lunar module. It's public information and NASA actually provides pretty damn detailed diagrams explaining what every single part of it is for. Does Dubay ever read those? Of course not. He just looks at a photo and says that the module looks silly as if that proves anything. He does this because he knows his audience doesn't actually want any evidence, they just want him to say things that confirm their biased world view. Dubay never made an attempt to debunk Apollo 11 from a technical side, he always only makes fun of its appearence, which is not an argument.
Grissom‘s lemon comment was on the Apollo 1 spacecraft. He and two other astronauts died in that spacecraft. The Apollo command module was redesigned after the accident.
I don't remember if it was Dubay or one of the other flerfs who "covered" that actually. They think NASA killed Grissom in the Apollo 1 fire because he was such a vocal dissenter about its safety, not rationally conclude that, clearly Grissom was correct that the craft was unsafe and that's why NASA spent billions extra re-examining the craft from the ground up and delaying all launches until they were sure it wouldn't happen again. Maybe burning alive 3 famous figures touted as American heroes in the very craft they needed to pretend could go to space would be bad PR to move that agenda forward more than an "oh no, he died in his sleep, how sad," story would have but watchya gonna do?
@@Sherwoody It did. NASA even now is a very tight community. And back then I think it was something like, something less than 1,000 people working the whole program? It was literally cutting edge technology so engineers talked directly to the astronauts to get something that would work. Astronauts were part of the public relations teams, they were flight directors and teamed with the mathematicians, the geologists, the mechanics, the machinists so they would know every inch of that ship and could accomplish their missions. The astronauts worked with everyone there. Then to know they burned alive in something you built, you don't just move on from that. Not when you know OTHER men who are just as much your friends are relying on you to keep them alive. Even with all the pressure they were under, they checked everything because lives depended on it. We fell behind Russia for a while because we cared whether they came back. I think it's one of the worst things about the flerfs, just how disrespectful it is to deny the sacrifice of these men for some narcissistic gain. It irks me.
So...NASA had the budget to hire Stanley Kubrick, build a huge lunar set, models for a blue screen, a lunar rover, AND pay all the crew enough to keep their mouths shut, but they skimped on the lunar lander and covered it in construction paper, aluminum foil, and warped sheet rock?
I used to make measurements on that 'tin foil' & gold foil' for a living. It is actually aluminized mylar called 'Kapton'. Mylar is a polyimide material, with a naturally yellow - orange colour. Some of it was 'first surface aluminized', which means that it appears silver, because you are looking at the aluminium surface itself. More typically it was 'second surface aluminized', meaning that you actually look through the mylar to the reflective layer, giving it a characteristic gold colour. Structurally, it is very similar to the aluminium lining in a crisp packet, which also has vapour deposited aluminium [VDA]. Some of it even came with a matt black surface for greater IR emittance. It comes in different thicknesses, & they each have different properties of solar absorbtance [ alpha ] ( heat absorbed by the material from incident light ) and infra red emittance [ epsilon ] ( infra red radiation emitted from the surface into space ). The ratio of these two properties determine the overall thermal characteristics of the blanket, & the way that they are used to firstly shield the craft from overheating due to incident solar radiation, and to radiate away excess heat from the craft. In space, radiation of IR is the ONLY method of getting rid of heat, both from solar radiation absorbance, and on board electrical equipment. The thermal blankets are not a single layer of Kapton, but consists of several layers of different thicknesses, and mesh layers. They are basically sewn together like a loose quilt, or 'puffa jacket'. And yes, there is special sticky tape made of Kapton which is used for joining. And why SHOULDN'T fabric layers be joined together, or affixed to the sub structure with 'pop-studs' ? Except they're far more expensive than the ones on your jeans.
Most unbiased viewers would recognize the LM has a loose external insulation covering similar to many satellites. They might even do a little more research and find pictures of the structure underneath. Unbiased researchers would realize that Petit was talking about not having a heavy lifting rocket like the Saturn V, the facilities to build one, or the facilities to launch one. Further research might lead them to know that NASA didn't build the LM but rather Grumman did as NASA has contractors build all their stuff. They'd also find that when we return we won't want exactly what Apollo had because it only gets 2 astronauts to the Moon for a max of 3 days and wed want to go with more people and for more time. Of course, if they were an unbiased researchers they wouldn't be a flattie.
When you look at photos taken by Grumman of the LMs under construction, you can see the actual pressure hull that was hidden under all that hardware and insulation. It looks like nothing so much as a supersonic fighter jet airframe turned inside out, which is to say, like a beautiful piece of engineering. In fact, the same team that designed the LM went on to design the F-14 Tomcat, which has performance that's still impressive 50 years later. The only thing idiots (or, at least, people pretending to be idiots in order to monetize the beliefs of actual idiots) are demonstrating is that they think a REAL spacecraft should look like something from a science fiction adventure movie.
Eric Dumbay is good at one and only one thing : Pulling stuff out of his arse. The landing module is still up there on the Moon. The ascent module was jettisoned after the crew and samples where safely transferred to the command module as it was no longer useful and not reusable. The space technology of the time was entirely single use. It was made to operate in lunar gravity. That's 1/6 of Earth's gravity. When the LEM was conceived and built, weight was at a premium. Those panels are very thin. They are subject to thermal expansion. Their sole purpose was to protect the components behind from the direct light and heat from the Sun. NOT to look nice. In the crash shown, the crash is due to a catastrophic rupture in one of the attitude control thrusters.
Kerbal Space Program has taught me that while getting to the Moon is hard, the actual landing is much easier than the same stunt on Earth, because the gravity is way less forgiving.
@@starventure Compared to not sending a rocket at all, yes. But compared to what government space agencies have done since the 1960s? No. Let Common Sense Skeptic (CSS) + Thunderf00t destroy any delusions you have about liar scammer Elon Schmuck.
@@theultimatereductionist7592 I recall that the old website Encyclopedia Astronautica had an article stating that NASA had the ability to recover a first stage as early as the 1980s but was not allowed to pursue the opportunity because of political stubbornness and the obsession with the STS.
That isn’t a replica LEM at NASM Dan, that’s LM-2, the 2nd genuine LEM built, slated for a 2nd unmanned earth orbital test (that wasn’t needed as LM-1 was a success.)
And for those that are super lazy...here is the text: Moonscape is one of the most compelling new exhibits at the Apollo/Saturn V Center. Moonscape shows a scene from Apollo 11 when Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong planted the American flag on the lunar surface. The most eye-catching artifact is Lunar Module 9 (LM-9), an authentic lunar module created for the Apollo Program. Originally intended to fly on Apollo 15, LM-9 was replaced with an Extended Lunar Module when the lunar rover was added to the mission. Get an up-close look at the vehicle that sheltered humans on the Moon and lifted them off the surface when the exploration was complete. While there, be sure to put your skills to the test in three interactive challenges. Learn about each part of the lunar module and Apollo spacesuit, and see how far a golf ball will fly with the Moon’s lower gravitational pull. You can also practice landing and launching the lunar module and docking with the command service module.
Could have sworn that i saw something from a reputable source that says - that the apollo 11 LEM may still be in a very eccentric orbit around the moon... and that may not have crashed after all.
Do an image search for something like "lunar module without skin," and you'll see that there was a rigid fuselage under all of those flimsy-looking coverings.
@@StevePlegge It was difficult, because back in those days we still had the bulky ex military B4 backpacks and front mounted reserves, not the lightweight miniature equipment of today. However, the seats (except obviously the pilot's) were removed and we sat on the floor. The rear passenger door was also removed. The plane could get 3 of us to 5000 ft and 2 to 7000 ft in a reasonable time (about 30 mins if I remember correctly). As I mentioned, we had to be very careful moving about, especially the one sitting backwards on the floor next to the pilot's seat.
Underneath the thin cladding of the lunar module, there was a pretty solid superstructure which was pressure tested. See the period footage of the module's construction.
As a child I queued all day at the Royal Lancashire Show to see the Apollo 10 command module, got to stick my head in the hatch and look round for about ten seconds. It was wonderful as a ten year old. I still feel so lucky fifty years later. Thanks Dan and keep up the good luck.
Gus Grissom didn't call the lunar module a lemon. He called the first Apollo capsule/CSM a lemon. The Apollo 1 fire happened in January 1967, approximately two years before the first LM was ready to fly. The first mission to fly the LM was Apollo 9.
He's arguing against himself the more he talks. The fact that they were able to make the lunar module out of such thin materials in the 60s is a marvelous achievement. Some estimates put the Apollo program as much as 40 years ahead of it's time. They were stretching the technology and material sciences of the day for all they were worth, a true testament to human ingenuity. If you watched a clip of his video out of context not knowing he's a flat earther, you'd think he was just bragging on how awesome the lunar module is because that's how it sounds in most parts.
Right. The only thing any of the shit he brought up does just goes to show how absolutely incredible this accomplishment really was. Like we went to the moon. And we did it with a god damn foil kite ! 😂
@@TPG_Plagues containing 2 incredibly brave astronauts! To clarify, I put three originally because I included Michael Collins. He didn't enter the lander, but still brave to go in the first place.
I know there is a lunar module built for Apollo 18, 19 or 20 hanging at the Apollo / Saturn V Center at Kennedy Space Center. I know because I've seen it and I have pictures of it. It hangs because it was built to land on the Moon at 1/6 g, and the legs would simply collapse if you tried to stand it up on Earth.
This type of argumentation reminds me very much of the arguments put forward in many American court cases where a jury is to be "convinced": No real point, just a lot of "oddities" meant to appeal to the emotions of the jurors, but nothing that actually would prove anything.
Oh yeah, in essence this is no more convincing than Level Earth Observer quoting facts and laughing. "They're facts. Doesn't matter whether you think they are absurd or not."
I always thought that flat-earthers should believe in the moon missions because the moon is not in space but just a few kilometers under the dome. Easy to get access to. Evidently, they manage to contradict themselves every step of the way.
Two of the landers are in museums. The descent stages on the moon have been photographed. The impact sites of the Apollo 12 and 14 ascent stages have also been identified.
There is a possibility that the Apollo 11 ascent stage may still be in orbit around the moon. It’s crash site hasn’t been located. The upper half of the LM for Apollo 10 is still in space in a heliocentric orbit.
The descent engine was throttled. Armstrong touched down so softly that the landing pads didn’t compress. On other landings the engine was shut down around three metres from the surface.
@@scott_meyer And in turn, the first thing Armstrong did on the lunar surface was not the "one giant step for mankind" thing, but rather the "damn can I get back up again?" check 😉
If you were faking a lunar lander because the earth is flat etc., you'd make it shiny with bells and whistles like something from Flash Gordon. Gleaming panels, perfect aeronautical curves, and so on. The fact that it looks like it's made of chewing gum and baling wire counts FOR its being real, not against it.
Local news - a rare sight was seen today, a cow was seen jumping over the moon for some reason. A dish and a spoon were seen leaving the area rather fast, please call crime stoppers with any information..
"For some reason they took this module that's supposed to be landing in a low-gravity non-atmospheric environment and they didn't test it in a regular-gravity atmospheric environment that has changing weather patterns!"
This Dubay guy can't even think of the simplest and most obvious reasons. He always sees a conspiracy whenever his brain is unable to understand something ... The poor guy probably lives in a world full of conspiracies where he's the only enlightened person ... does that count as insanity?
"It doesn't look like my expectations so therefore it isn't real." Sir, NASA really doesn't care if you want all the spaceships to look like the millennium falcon. They have rovers to make.
Just shows how little they know about space flight and engineering. Yet they still have the gall to dispute it cuz they have large egos and want to feel special
One correction, the Lunar Module in the Smithsonian is not a replica, it is LM-2. Never flown because they gathered enough data from LM-1 to skip it’s flight and move on to the next test flight.
"look at the panelling" he says....he actually thinks the covering of the LEM is the pressure vessel! My god there are many Apollo schematics out there that show literally every screw and spring. If he would bother to look he "might" actually understand....but i really doubt it.
That's when you get hit with their "How you you know, you've never been to the moon." Cause to know anything about something you had to physically be there :^)
it's a good thing he is a yoga instructor because any point he tries to make is quite the stretch and if he didn't practice yoga he would pull something... maybe our legs?
And also being throttled down for landing, because the LM had burnt a consequent mass of fuel to brake and descend from lunar orbit. So, no need to have the engine at full throttle to land, just enough to go down with a sufficiently slow vertical velocity. You don't have more than half of the engine's trust used for the final landing phase...
Plus, it was throttled way down right before landing. Besides, any dust that was kicked up, would fall much faster to the ground because it's not floating around in an atmosphere.
This is true; and further, this so-called landing module could not take off, because all expanding gases would simply expand horizontally into the void, creating absolutely no upward thrust. Man has been to the Moon? In your dreams.
@@anthonyfoden9382 So ALL thrust "(expanding gases would simply expand horizontally)" and none going down, got ya, NO WAIT! Noting in the middle of the thrust, NO WAIT, that not possible some will still have to go down, expand in ALL directions, that includes DOWN, there can't be a vacuum in the middle of the thrust. They still landed on the moon.
The progress by humanity with regards to aviation and spacecraft is amazing. When you take a moment to look at the timeline from the first planes constructed from wood to modern jets and rockets, it just makes your jaw drop.
This was one of my classes in college (one of the first we took) which went over, in depth the history of aviation. When you think about how we came from a powered glider that flew for 8 seconds, and actually physically warped the wings so it changed the lift characteristics, to supersonic fighter planes, idiots like Dubay start to sound like idiots scratching their heads, and throwing things when they can't understand.
@Atlantis Rising that's, pretty much entirely dead wrong. I don't want to be rude or harsh, but aircraft have come so far since the Wright Brothers. They were pioneers, and in their own way, changed the entire face of human history forever. That doesn't mean that planes today are only different because they've got a TV and a shitter on them lol. I realize you probably meant it as a joke, and here I am try harding like a goon, but sometimes someone says something that just hurts your heart to the very core lol.
They always complain about NASA spending "so much" money, despite the fact that they currently get less then half a penny for every tax dollar paid (as Dan also pointed out in the video). However they expect them to keep and maintain decade old flight hardware that nobody needs anymore?
Be sure to search for lunar lander without the gold insulation. Aircraft are pressurized to about 9 psi differential pressure, max. The lunar lander was pressurized to about 1/3 atmosphere, or 5 psi. A can of soda sitting at room temp is about 3x atmospheric pressure. Dubay has nothing but ‘nuh uh’.
I mean, i'm not saying the landing was faked. But there was huge incentive and gain for it, so faking it wouldn't have been meaningless. The race to land on the Moon was for USA to show that capitalism was better than communism, so they had to prove they could achieve this great feat before communist countries to show how much better capitalism was and what it leads to. That was the whole goal of the lunar landing missions. So a valid reason to fake it. The Earth's shape though has no incentive, flat earthers are just dumb.
reminds me of a comment by one of Dubay's followers: "earth can't possibly be moving at 600,000 because AIRPLANES would have to FLY FASTER THAN THAT TO GO ANYWHERE AT ALL." NOT kidding.
English is my second language so it most likely have a lot of mistakes everywhere. Did you know that the best way to debunk the flat earth model is simply trying to explain it. All flat earth models are viewed from the perspective of the Flying Spaghetti Monster but, if you try to explain the sun or the moon trajectory from the perspective of someone in the ground, everything falls apart. In a 12 hours day you should theoretically be able to see the sun make a half circle in the sky. But that’s only possible in areas close to the north and south poles. If you try to replicate that from areas close to the equator it would be impossible. The sun apparently moves on a straight line in the sky. I have never seen the sun making half circles in the sky.
The sun makes an arc across the dome of sight unique to the individual observer, the sun doesn't appear to be a normal physical object and this would be explained by being in a simulation.
I've tried that debunk on them before. I asked them to think about it logically. Take all the ideas of flat earth or globe reality and just simply describe how the sun would appear standing on earth. When I did it I came up with if it were flat wouldn't it arc in the sky? basically start in the same spot and set in the same spot. They told me I was being disingenuous and basically was a brain washed globe sheep blah blah blah deflect to "gravity doesn't exist" bullshit argument. But seriously the sun going in a big circle above our heads is not consistent with what we actually observe nor is it consistent with how light actually works. They won't see it until the decide to see it.
Nathan Vega -- This is how I debunk them instantly. --- I tell them, if you can't show me an accurate working model of how your flat Earth works, just ONE model that shows how everything that people see, *all over the world,* EVERY DAY, works, then shut the hell up. NO MODEL. NO NOTHING. ---- I *HAVE* a globe model that works perfectly in EVERY SINGLE CONCEIVABLE SITUATION. --- Full stop.
@@kathleenr4047 that is true, I have tried that and usually I get a lot of but but but well what about this that or the other thing. I suppose if you confidently don't give them an option usually they just disappear into oblivion.
He is ensuring he keeps feeding the flerfs to continue to make a buck from them. Mr Oakley is desperately trying to cling onto his flerf income also, so he doesn't need to return to being a delivery driver.
@@briannewton3535 There’s a shortage of HGV drivers in the UK at the moment. And while I’d much rather Nathan Oakley wasn’t pushing his nonsense, the concept of somebody so moronic being in control of 36,000 litres of explosive petrochemicals is equally scary lol.
I don't think Eric actually believes all this, I think he's just found a market to tap into, for the 'followers' that actually buy into this, it's a money maker for sure
It's a combination of a total lack of comprehension, plus being a complete liar. Dubay lacks the capacity to think rationally, so he lies to fill the gaps in his understanding.
@@flargarbason1740 we can make far larger ships than titanic these days you see that's what happens with technology it improves over time. Apart from space technology they just decided to stop with that.
we were able to create submarines because they can tested in oceans. How can you create a space craft or test it when you have no idea what environment you are entering. Answer me this question how did they know what the environment of space was like before any man had ever gone into space.
As a matter of interest, there has been recent speculation that the Apollo 11 LEM is actually still in orgit around the moon and has not crashed into it.
There is a very obvious crater under the descendant engine in many of the relevant photographs. The Lunar surface isn't solid rock, but does compact down to solid rock very quickly. Within a few inches at most, the regolith compacts down to the consistency of concrete. Because of this, and the low pressure the descent engine generated on the surface (being switched off more than six feet away from it and lander falling the rest of the way for a not too hard touchdown, the crater is very shallow (no more than a couple of inches) and mostly characterized by an absence of dust and sand-sized particles on the surface. It's much easier to see in the pictures taken when the Sun was lower in the Lunar sky, like any small surface feature. Hard vacuum is pretty good at cementing things together. It's essentially just surface friction between particles, with no gas left on the surfaces to stop them from compacting tightly together and developing extremely large amounts of friction compared to otherwise similar materials on Earth. However, there is something with a grain size comparable to the Lunar dust found on the surface: Cement powder is of comparable grain size to Lunar dust. Cement powder is fine enough grained that it retains bootprints in much the same way as the Lunar surface dust. (If you want to try it, be careful. Dry cement powder is extremely dangerous if inhaled, and can become surprisingly corrosive if wetted, which is part of why it's so dangerous to inhale. That, and it turns to solid rock when mixed with water, such as the water in the membranes of the nose, mouth, throat, and lungs. If you were to inhale enough to form a continuous film anywhere, you'd be in serious trouble. The odd grain is only slightly more dangerous than most other fine silicate dusts, but a lot will kill you nasty.)
How do Flat Eathers feel about the fact that the moon is upside down in the southern hemisphere? (Or vice-versa, depending on which hemisphere you're used to.)
3:50, it doesn't even matter if it's about the LEM or not. The issue isn't that 60/70s era space-tech is "so advanced" that we can't recreate it. It's just that there's no production up and running for the used parts. You couldn't build an old computer based on vacuum tubes largescale today either, and it has nothing to do with vacuum tubes being "so advanced."
The lunar module was successfully tested during the Apollo 10 mission when astronauts Thomas Stafford and Gene Cernan flew it to a descent orbit within 8.4 nautical miles (15.6 km) of the lunar surface, the point where powered descent for landing would begin. This was as close as NASA could get without taking the final step of actually landing it. The next big test was during the Apollo 11 mission, when it was actually landed on the moon and the two astronauts (I forget their names) decided to get out, have a look around, take some photos and plant a flag. How on earth was this possible for such an odd looking spacecraft? The clue is in the question.
I love when flerfers mention how fast something goes. Reminds me that one time when I stand up in an airplane and flew straight onto rear of that plane. Damn that hurt.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 That's funny, 🤔 also when you were walking back to your seat you were walking at Hundreds miles Per Hour, which means Usain Bolt's 🏃♂️ Olympic Records are just pathetic 🤷♂️, Ask any FlatEarther it's not like Relevance or Scale should ever have anything to do with speed comparisons🤦♂️.
Want to put FE to bed? Measure the circumference of the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. In reality, they are close to the same length. On a flat Earth, they wouldn't be close to the same length.
Been saying this for years.. Flerfs response: Did you measure that yourself? 😂 One way to piss them off is tell them to goto time and date and search South Pole Antarctica and ask them what it says for sunrise and sunset. This only happens from September 22nd to March 21st every year then it swaps to the North Pole.
Funny that they never mention the mirror Buzz and Neil left on the moon that proves we've been there. But let me guess, "I don't know what that is, but it's definitely not manmade."
The usual response is that you don't need a human to drop a reflector on the moon, so the reflectors aren't proof of a manned mission to the moon. Of course, the moon would still need to exist and would still need to be 384,000km away, and you'd still need to be able to build a spaceship to travel there and of course this means that space itself must exist. Some or all of those statements are denied by many moon hoaxers. But then again, conspiracy theories are never consistent. They're usually a mass of mutually contradictory objections based around an inability to understand facts and science.
On the descent module thruster not leaving a crater; from memory, the descent engine was fired in bursts, and the final burst was shut down when still at an altitude of 30', and still with a lateral 'drift'. Genuine thruster landings don't happen like they are shown on 'Supermarionation'.
ruclips.net/video/xc1SzgGhMKc/видео.html My bad memory; but they were not running on full thruster at all times. It's tricky to decipher some of the jargon & acronyms, and understand exactly what they are doing.
I love the fact that they tells us it's nothing more than a staged movie, and that we are stupid because believing it's true it's like believing starwars is true... yet they really think it's fake just because _it doesn't look like what we see in sci-phy movies._
9:50 Grissom did not hang a lemon on the lunar lander. His mission did not even have a LM. He hung a lemon on the Command Module Simulator. And even if this was meant as a criticism of the spacecraft itself, there is no disputing that the Apollo spacecraft at that time was flawed as it killed Grissom and his crew before it ever flew. But those problems were then fixed before the first flight.
and it wasn't even meant to critizise the hardware itself,he was highly dissatisfied with the rushed schedule and what he thought was a lack of security thinking on the part of NASA leadership... something demonstrated by his horrible accident and yet still a problem 20 years later around the time of the Challenger Disaster, so he very surely had a point.
@JTLYK IXOYE If you can't produce an accurate working model of a flat Earth, *and you CAN'T,* then shut the hell up. NO model, NO nothing. ---- *I HAVE a model* that shows how my globe works in EVERY SINGLE CONCEIVABLE SITUATION. Day, night, sunrises, sunsets, 6 month winter and summer at the poles, lunar and solar eclipses. --- You don't have a model that works in ANY situation.
@JTLYK IXOYE Everything you believe about this is a lie. A "model" is a demonstration of what is real. The Globe Earth Model totally comports to what we see with our own eyes - the Flat Earth model (not that there is one) does not. Freemasons have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth. It was known to be a spheroid 2000 years before Freemasons even existed. Even the very Church that concocted your silly Bible knew the Earth was a ball. Mariners have been navigating the world's oceans for centuries - using the Globe Earth model. It just doesn't work on a Flat Earth. 8 inches per mile squared is the formula for a PARABOLA, not a sphere. You don't even know something as simple and basic as that. What else don't you know? So let's ask you the same question: how many lies will YOU believe before you realise that your FE nonsense is idiotic?
@JTLYK IXOYE The Earth is not a closed system and you're an idiot for believing NASA (or any scientific agency, for that matter) would say such a nonsensical thing.
Hi Dan, Just a few small points. First, the Apollo 11 lunar module was left in lunar orbit, and was assumed to have crashed into the surface of the moon. However, recent analysis suggests it could possibly still be orbiting the moon. Scott Manley has an excellent video on it. Second, you mention replicas of the Apollo lander in museums. Well, of the 15 built, three were flown in test missions (Apollo 5, 9, and 10), six were landed on the moon (11, 12, 14-17), one was used as a lifeboat (Apollo 13), but 5 remained on Earth. One was scrapped, and three are on display in museums (including one at Kennedy Space Center). Curiously, that leaves one unaccounted for, and I'm not sure if anyone knows knows of its whereabouts. Finally you talk about why the lunar module wasn't tested on Earth. It certainly was subjected to many tests on Earth, but a free flying test wasn't possible. The craft was designed to land in 1/6G, and simply didn't have enough thrust to fly in 1G. To simulate landing on the moon, they used the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle, which used a jet engine to counter 5/6 of the vehicle's weight, so that the lander's engine and manoeuvring thrusters behaved as they would on the moon.
My family lived in Houston in th early80 and we took our kids to the Johnson space Center it was amazing then and they have moon lander and a Saturn v rocket if I remember correctly
Also, there was a pressure vessel underneath the outer layers that you couldn't see. Those outer layers were mostly just thermal protection and insulation material. Remember, on the moons surface you are exposed to unfiltered solar radiation
''moon proof? it's not even rain proof" - yes, that was something of an oversight by NASA when they allowed this craft, Apollo 11 to land in the Sea of Tranquility. It should have been waterproof at least. Fortunately disaster was averted because when it arrived the tide was out. Sometimes you just got to ride your luck.
Ha ha nice
Any good fishing there? 😁
Awesome comment BTW. Got me in a good mood. Take care.
they were lucky when it came to storms - solar wind storms!
This almost angered me.. I had to read it twice to catch the biblical level of sarcasm imbedded in your comment..
This might be because of two beermug-sized brandy and coke drinks I have consumed, but let's not mention this..
Tide was out? I heard that they were in drought there.
Paraphrasing Eric-"The lunar lander doesn't look like a Star Wars ship, so it must be fake." So it looks fake because it doesn't look like something known to be fake. Makes perfect sense.
The lunar lander wasn't built with all kinds of theatrical frills to make it look convincing, therefore it's fake.
Yup. I'm convinced.
Dumbay simply can't understand that those space vehicles were 100% utilitarian and weren't designed with aesthetics in mind.
@@criskity Right? It's almost as if shooting something into space becomes both more difficult and more expensive as weight increases. So, obviously they should have added all kinds of extra...stuff...that wasn't strictly necessary for the mission. So fuckwits like Dumbay would think it looked "real."
It's fantastic how Star Destroyers and X-Wings are far more believable than a ropey metal box with foil and bent coat hangers that managed to help land a thruster, calculator and a bunch a guys on to the surface of a body in space that isn't Earth. It's a testament to the ingenuity of the people and materials that built it.
Eric thinks that Star Wars is trying to pass itself off as a documentary.
The funny things is that he is able to point out the supposed rough and haphazard construction of the lander that he thinks makes it look fake, but don't you think that if NASA wanted to fake the lander and convince everyone that it was a high tech space craft, then they would make it look more high tech and well built. So, only because it is real, they were not concerned with what it looked like, just that it was fit for purpose.
What Eric "Creepy Voice" Dubay fails to realize is that we would be unable to build a brand new Iowa-class battleship today. That doesn't mean the Battle of Leyte Gulf didn't happen in WW2.
He seems to forget cost exists, and also that tech can become outdated
@@UlmDoesAnything Exactly. You know the wrought iron fences all around the country? If you investigate a little bit you'll find out that there's no longer the means to produce wrought iron on an industrial scale. If anything were to be made out of wrought iron today it has to made out of recycled material.
@@FIREBRAND38 plus its also funny that he says it in a way that NASA hid all blueprints and other things about the LEM
Yet for the people supposedly using simple google searches to prove their points, it also takes a simple google search to find schematics, blue prints, interior and exterior diagrams, etc for the LEM and other Apollo Hardware
I know cuz i use em alot while making replicas in a game called Simplerockets 2-
I literally have a diagram of the Apollo control panel saved for reference
@@UlmDoesAnything I use the NASA website a lot too. EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO KNOW IS THERE. There is nothing you can't find. Whenever some idiot says "Why did this happen? It must be fake" and it is something I hadn't thought of before, I simply google his question, and many sites referencing and linking to NASA dot gov, explains exactly "why did this happen." First time I ever saw this BS, _'the Lunar Module looks flimsy'_ I thought, "it DOES look flimsy", so I looked it up. With fuel it weighed 33,000 pounds. ---- It also tells me stuff I never knew (and I was a child during Apollo) The other really dumb one was, someone said, when Armstrong got out and said "one Small Step . . ." why wasn't there dust in the air from the landing? ---- Of course I thought "cuz there is no 'air'. But it made me wonder how long was it between the landing and the time he got out? I never had known that before, and I was shocked that after they landed, he didn't get out for like six hours and 39 minutes. That really surprised me. ---- That same day, looking around, I discovered the thing about him landing it manually, and almost running out of fuel, and there was even a video of what he could see, and the transcript of what he was saying while he was maneuvering AND what Houston was saying. It was fascinating. And I like learning things I didn't know before. --- I am the kind of person who would have a diagram of the Apollo control panel saved for reference.
@@kathleenr4047 This is stuff flerfers will ignore cuz it so easily breaks down their dumb theories, and they have confirmation bias
I love how he will quote them as a credible source when they are being critical, but dismisses them when they speak about being on the moon. He is a fascinating human! Thanks for your work Dan
Human? Barely!
Fascinating is not the "F" word I was thinking of.
If they went to the moon then how come there are no people there?
@@putnamehereholdmadoodle Because they all get back?
@@putnamehereholdmadoodle If they went to the moon, then why are there still people here on earth? :)
"It does not look what i want it to, therefore it must be fake."
The same argument used by anti-vaxers - "the vaccine isn't a 100% effective and it's protection isn't life-long, as I imagine it should be based on my negative sum of knowledge? It's worthless then."
@@vebdaklu Yep, & 'The Doctor isn't telling me what I want to hear so I will listen to the Stoopid People with no medical Knowledge'
Seems legit
@@shaneeslick like Right Said Fred, according to Tuesday's video!
"I've got no engineering experience, so obviously I can point out the engineering shortcomings of a craft so specialized I don't actually believe in its accomplishments"
So, it's unbelievable that the technology is lost and would be incredibly expensive (compared to the price tag of the thing itself) to be rebuilt?
Yeah, I'd like to see Eric build a floppy disk from scratch. Not something that works like a floppy disk, but an actual exact, working replica of a floppy disk. Let's see how that goes, huh?
Should be a piece of cake, since it's old tech and he's so sophisticated, ain't he?
The only thing Eric is capable of is a rub n' tug.
To be fair Eric Dubious could not make fire from scratch with kindling and a box of matches!
The annoying thing is their deliberately dishonest phrasing. The "technology" isn't lost, the _hardware_ is. It was destroyed as part of the process, as Dan pointed out. The knowledge about how to build it is obviously still there, and we certainly _can_ do it better... if the budget is there. Which it isn't, as shown in the video. Maybe we should start another cold war to get the space race going again :P
Another element that makes it 'harder' today is the safety factor. Modern oversight committees are _way_ more risk-averse than they were back then... a significant chunk would need to be added to the budget just for that lone.
@@wraitholme .
It has been estimated that the Apollo missions had a 1:9 chance of disaster. As you say, wouldn't be acceptable today.
@@wraitholme "The knowledge about how to build it is obviously still there" ... the computers in the command module and the lander still used these little ferrite rings on tiny wires as memory (both RAM and ROM). That alone would be something hard to rebuild today, as the tooling, and the staff trained on using those tools, are not easily available anymore. Ok, this specific part is easy to replace with contemporary (or actually not THAT contemporary, for radiation hardening reasons) semiconductors, and emulators of the Apollo Guidance Computer are readily available.
But rebuilding the original guidance computers 1:1, using 1960s technology, and get that running reliably? Good luck with that ...
"Space proof? It doesn't even look rain proof." How much rain does he expect there to be in space?
They give everything a cool story like star wars and these blinded people believe it, i mean this is predicted in the word of our creator, makes me sad to see that someday when we are all infront of the judge the lies will be uncovered they will feel very bad....
I can't believe they didn't use at least a bit of their weight budget on rain-proofing.
@@ClayunderSeal fuck are you talking about?
@@nutfar4413 I think they're implying that NASA would be going to hell for their supposed lying. Curious what he thinks the 'cool story' is behind any apollo mission other than 11 or 13, or any space shuttle that hasn't had a serious problem during a mission
@@ClayunderSeal So faked lunar landings were "predicted" in a book written by a bunch of Bronze Age nomadic shepherds, primitive people who weren't even bright enough to figure out where the sun went at night?🤣
Sure, buddy, whatever you say. (Yet another gullible religitard heard from...sigh.)🤣
"moon proof? it's not even rain proof" - yeah, because there's lots of rain on the moon isn't there? Lmfao these people
Exactly. The part that they don’t understand is EXACTLY the part that they don’t understand. It’s not BUILT to stand in the rain, stupid. There’s no RAIN on the Moon. It’s just like That Guy saying that the north/south magnetic lines at the equator of a globe would point “up and down” into space, and we’re like YES, THAT’S IT!!! And he’s like, “No, that makes no sense…” UGH!!! So close…
@Dante2014 And if LEM looks bad, it's Hollywood props, and if it looks good, it's ... Hollywood props.
I was told there's moon hurricanes. 🌝 🌀
Didn't they land in the Sea of Tranquility? Can't have a sea without water ;)
….and there is the Mare Imbrium, The Sea of Rains.
You gotta remember though... you can't have landings without land, and everyone knows the moon is covered in seas. Checkmate... somebody! >_>
Dohh!
Tell this to a seaplane pilot.... 😃
You're a liar!!! Everybody knows the moon is made of cheese. And that's why the moon landings are fake, the engines would have melted the surface and left a tasty crust. But moon stones don't taste of crusty cheese. I know this for a fact. I licked one last time I visited the space museum. That was when they gave me that nice jacket with those funny arms and put me into that nice room with pillows all over the walls.
@@berniem.6965 you’re wrong. There’s proof of a landing on the cheese in this documentary:
ruclips.net/video/ymT8SER9mxE/видео.html
@@christianege4989 Seaplanes are obviously part of a NASA conspiracy to convince people you can land on impossible things.
The only thing the flat earthers fear is sphere itself
😂
I'd buy you a pint for that one.
@@vinnyganzano1930 make it a round!
Excellent 🤣
Gee, I've never heard that before. Can you be original?
I have built satellites before. So when he starts complaining about the way it is paneled, I couldn't stop laughing. He thinks he is so smart and yet doesn't understand thermal expansion/contraction, and outgassing. Unless it is a pressure vessel like the actual part the astronauts are in, it will outgas. Any water, air, oil which can vaporizer will and it's better to get that out between intentional gaps than have it shortout circuits or break something. It's those "bubbles" he is always claiming to see flying off the ISS. Wait tell he learns (if he can) that the reason stuff is gold plated is to minimize whiskers, then he'll be claiming they had cats on the moon.
“It looks so flimsy, like it couldn’t survive going through anything!”
Oh? Man…then it should probably travel through something that is 99.999999% void, I guess. What could that be?
_"is 99.999999% void, I guess. What could that be?"_ His head?
@@edgarmatzinger9742 Nah. It's too thick.
But space is faaaaaaaaaaakeeeeee. Vacuum suck. Like dumbay arguments
@@XtreeM_FaiL Only the outer shell. Then it near vacuum.
@@ivanpetrov5255 I'm pretty sure he has a black hole instead of a brain. Since you can put things into a vacuum, but nothing stays inside his
The problem with hiring Kubrik to fake the Moon landings was that he was such a perfectionist he filmed on location.
This joke will never get old
@@UncommonSense-wm5fd
Full metal jacket was filmed in England.
Eyes Wide Shut was filmed in England
LOL
@@mjelves
Most of Kubrick's films were filmed in the UK as he was based here and that is also the reason that about half of Spielberg's movies were filmed here too including the Raiders movies, Shaving Ryan's Privates, Amistad, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's list off the top of my head, Kubrick was Spielberg's mentor. Kubrick's most noted US movie was Spartacus.
There's an unused H model lunar module sitting at the Saturn V center. It was originally intended for Apollo 15 but was bumped off the flight when Apollo 15 was moved up to a J class mission (the first to carry a rover) when the program was cut short.
Unrelated, but Gus Grissom did not hang a lemon on the lunar module. He hung a lemon on the simulator for the command module, which was not keeping up with changes that were being made to the real capsule that ultimately caught fire on the pad and claimed his life.
05:32 "What other 1960s technology is so advanced and expensive that it cannot be recreated easily and far better now than way back then?" *Concorde has entered the chat*
Well, we COULD do Concorde far better now, just like we could do Apollo far better now. Mostly because they did all the really hard stuff back in the 60's. The thing is, there's no point. A new SST wouldn't be any more economically viable than Concorde was, and there's no real value in landing humans on the Lunar surface again unless the ultimate goal of the project is to establish a permanent (and expanding) colony.
@@evensgrey That is what the artemis program is working towards. Next man and first woman are supposed to walk ON the moon in 2024. I cannot wait to hear the FE crew trying to cry fake during that broadcast. By 2028 NASA is hoping to have a 4 person long term base camp at the south pole of the moon.
If nasa was to fake the moon landing, why make the lander LOOK like it's made of cardboard and tinfoil and shit. Why not make it look sleek and futuristic?
Well I would say it at least does look fairly futuristic. Lol
George Lucas was still at uni.
My thoughts exactly. With NASA's massive budget, they could have produced a top notch looking model spacecraft and proper background scenery that would be very difficult to debunk. Incidentally, I have seen some of the original concept designs and the did look a lot cleaner, but were impractical.
Function over form. An engineering marvel.
@@steverodgers8425 I know that. It's the flat earthers that don't
A BIG lie: Gus Grisson never had the chance to see the lunar lander; he died in january 1967; the final version of the lunar lander wasn't even ready on paper at that time... He did the lemon joke about the command module he was training to fly, Apollo 1! Liar, liar, pants on fire, Eric!
I maybe would have picked a non fire related insult… ya know, because Apollo 1.
You are wrong. A liar knows he is lying. Eric Dubay think its true because he is suffering from many psychological issues. For one, he is obviously suffering from paranoia combined with the Dunning-Kruger syndrome like most flat-earthers.
@@bend1483 I know, but after all the respect I have for Ed, Gus and Roger I know they would not care...
@@engelbrecht777 he also has a huge inferiority complex that translates in a real hate for anything related to nasa or the astronauts; something you can read easily in his tone of voice.
Over the years I caught him in so many lies that I lost the count, like the "masonic ring" he says Buzz wears in one of the mission's photos. It's his Annapolis's ring, the stone is not a masonic emblem but the stone of the year he graduated.
As all the moonhoaxers he used the most crappy jpg for his "evidence", when a photographic copy is easily available just asking for it to nasa. Now you have HD copies in the net, but of course, that's too hard for them to look after!
"Do your own resarch" means "look in our sites, don't bother to go to the real sources"... He's a snake oil seller, and all snake oil sellers knew their product was a fake thing, but money (or followers) are the only thing that matters!
@@engelbrecht777 No, I think Eric knows he is lying. Some of the things he claims are stuff he has completely invented; lies from whole cloth, as it were.
"What other 1960's technology cannot be recreated today?"
Like... old computers? Game consoles? Old cars? Old military hardware? Hell, most of us can't even get video games made in 2003 working on modern hardware, let alone in the 60's.
Of course you COULD make these work, but it'd be difficult and costly... a painful process, even.
I have VHS tapes of my sons wedding. I don’t have a machine to play them in anymore.
I love the old computer games. Dosbox works for some of them on the modern machines. I still have an old XP and 386 computers that run Dos and Win3.1.
and even if you buy the ported versions of those old original games, they look way worse today, because the graphics were designed for CRT-Screens. You can play them on a modern 4k Plasma Monitor, and they look WAY worse.
@@Sherwoody Ditto with the VHS tapes. I also have about 5000 photos on slide that I need to digitize somehow.
@@dyamonde9555 I had an old CRT monitor until fairly recently. It lasted 24 years. I doubt whether the new typse off monitors will do as well.
His premise is the LEM doesn't look enough like science fiction to be real.
When SpaceX lands a Starship on the Moon, he'll complain that it looks too slickly like a science fiction spaceship, and must be fake.
reminds me of that silly spaceship in the old Tintin comics...
_"... lack of thrusters being used ...."_ while showing footage where thrusters are being used ...
Nice one, Eric.
Dude thinks all rocket firings look like the one he showed. He can't comprehend that different engines in different atmospheric pressures produce radically different looking out even imperceptible exhaust. Hell I doubt he even understands what engine exhaust is and how it works.
Eric , of course, means "lack of visible exhaust." Moon deniers use this argument repeatedly although the idea that visible exhaust is a characteristic of all rockets has been thoroughly debunked.
@@oldtvnut Yes, I've seen them claim that there's no visible plume in videos showing plumes that don't look like plumes in atmosphere. The plume is almost entirely caused by the interaction of the hot exhaust gases with the air they are exhausted into. In space, the plumes of most types of rockets that are used in space are all but invisible unless there's something to cool it, like a spend booster being accelerated away from and so being in the plume and cooling it. (Close up, most of them are pretty close to invisible. Many years ago I went outside just after dusk to watch a shuttle go over. It must have fired an RCS burst while it was going over, because there was a plume of brightly illuminated material that spanned half the sky.)
@@oldtvnut but in every disney cartoon they show rockets shoots out biiig orange flame!!! and dont tell me that disney cartoons are not realistic!!!
@@evensgrey Just some amplification: You can only see the exhaust of the rocket if light hitting it is directed towards you somehow. If you were to place a flashlight in a vacuum chamber, such that the flashlight and the target were not in your field of view, but the beam passed in front of you, you wouldn't see anything. The atmosphere has dust, and the dust can deflect some of the light towards you, and at high enough intensities, the air can too.
Rockets will have obvious plumes when the exhaust gas contains particulates - some rocket fuels actually emit solid particles, such as the soot from black powder or most solid motors. And hence it will deflect light (especially the rocket flame) sideways. But more normally, it's usually a gaseous component that condenses it into droplets, and *that* reflects the light.
In space, the plume is much wider due to thrust bell over-expansion (the gorgeous pictures of launches boosting through upper atmosphere that look like the trail suddenly expanded), but since the density of the condensate is lower the reflected light is ONLY visible at night.
Also, in space, contrary to what you may think, the cooling of something is considerably slower than on earth - because it's not in contact with cooler things or immersed in cooler air, so heat los is purely by IR radiation is pretty slow. So condensation would be slower.
RCS engines are really tiny, and their total burn time is measured in minutes. The shuttle used hypergolic fuels (like MMH and a version of hydrazine) which don't produce particulates, and relatively little condensation, and the flames are hardly visible. Other RCS engines don't involve burning anything at all - "cold boosters" simply rely on a tank of compressed gas, no flame, no fire, can't see it at all.
The Shuttle's RCS units didn't have enough fuel to burn for a quarter of a rotation (about 20 minutes "half the sky"[orbit]), and even so, externally they're fairly dim.
What caused what you saw? I don't think it was a shuttle RCS. Maybe an independent rocket launch you weren't aware of coincidentally nearby the shuttle. A very high aircraft contrail that was still lit shortly after sunset? A super-high cloud streamer? A reentry burn? It would be cool if there was a picture.
Just wanted to use this space to say I'm over the moon that Dan made this video, what a star! :D
I expect this comment to go supernova!
@@jasoncowley4718 if it does just know that I didn't planet
@@Kysen I appreciate a good pun 👍😎
@@Spiderific haha yeah me too I do dad jokes at the end of most of my recent videos 😀
The video was....wait for it........LUNAR-CY!
So his entire argument is "I don't understand science, engineering or the subtleties of speech."
That's always their argument: "I'm not smart enough to land on the moon...therefore NOBODY is".
@@ghost307 I almost expect Eric to say, “l’m not an engineer, scientist, pilot, or educated in any way, but…..I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night and watch conspiracy videos on the free wifi.
Dubay proven time and time again, that he's a walking talking Dunning-Kruger-Effect.
I'm genuinely amazed Eric managed to figure out how to turn his PC on to make this video
True dat. I'm surprised they can remember how to breathe.
Who says he can turn on his own computer?
His carer does it for him, after feeding him and changing his soiled clothes
Oh Dan. Please never stop making content. This stuff really keeps me going
I have very contradictionary feelings watching these videos.
Firstly, they are entertaining and often informative.
Secondly, it feels nice to see proof that you are not, by far, as stupid as some.
Thirdly, realising that soo many are more, and that far more, stupid than you, is scary and discouraging.
Fourthly(?), the thought that E.B. is intentionally lying and deceiving, is outrageous and infuriating.
Summarised, it balance out to a; "Eh! (shrug), with a tentative smile". But I enjoy the videos while they last.
@@bodan1196 I now Mute the Idiot featured & just listen to Dan's Inserts, makes the video so much more enjoyable,
Firstly: because I don't have to endure the mind numbing Drivel that I know is Lies,
Secondly: I feel good that I learn something Positive from Dan's Inserts,
Thirdly: I don't have to listen to the FE Voices that set off my 'Stranger Danger' Sense,
Fourthly: The comments containing Terrific Puns & Fourthly make me Laugh 🤣
Ps Yes it is a comfort to know I am Smart enough to know I am Stoopid & not so Stoopid to think I am a Genius
We'll be watching Sci(old)Man Dan in 2050 at this rate. On the moon. Much to the flerfers dismay.
Notice how Dubay never bothers to look up the technical specs of the lunar module. It's public information and NASA actually provides pretty damn detailed diagrams explaining what every single part of it is for. Does Dubay ever read those? Of course not. He just looks at a photo and says that the module looks silly as if that proves anything. He does this because he knows his audience doesn't actually want any evidence, they just want him to say things that confirm their biased world view. Dubay never made an attempt to debunk Apollo 11 from a technical side, he always only makes fun of its appearence, which is not an argument.
Russia was watching america every single second, not once did russia ever discredit NASA/america for going to the moon
9:51 The lemon that Gus Grissom hung was outside the command module simulator, not the lunar module.
Eric Dubay's encephalogram is flatter than flat Earth.
Had to look up encephalogram...then liked your comment.
I like it
@@alantaylor2694 :)
Smooth brain
Beuller, Beuller, Beuller?
Grissom‘s lemon comment was on the Apollo 1 spacecraft. He and two other astronauts died in that spacecraft. The Apollo command module was redesigned after the accident.
I don't remember if it was Dubay or one of the other flerfs who "covered" that actually. They think NASA killed Grissom in the Apollo 1 fire because he was such a vocal dissenter about its safety, not rationally conclude that, clearly Grissom was correct that the craft was unsafe and that's why NASA spent billions extra re-examining the craft from the ground up and delaying all launches until they were sure it wouldn't happen again. Maybe burning alive 3 famous figures touted as American heroes in the very craft they needed to pretend could go to space would be bad PR to move that agenda forward more than an "oh no, he died in his sleep, how sad," story would have but watchya gonna do?
@@jnewcomb from what I’ve read, the astronauts and engineers were a very close team. The fire really shook NASA and almost ended the program.
@@Sherwoody It did. NASA even now is a very tight community. And back then I think it was something like, something less than 1,000 people working the whole program? It was literally cutting edge technology so engineers talked directly to the astronauts to get something that would work. Astronauts were part of the public relations teams, they were flight directors and teamed with the mathematicians, the geologists, the mechanics, the machinists so they would know every inch of that ship and could accomplish their missions. The astronauts worked with everyone there. Then to know they burned alive in something you built, you don't just move on from that. Not when you know OTHER men who are just as much your friends are relying on you to keep them alive. Even with all the pressure they were under, they checked everything because lives depended on it. We fell behind Russia for a while because we cared whether they came back. I think it's one of the worst things about the flerfs, just how disrespectful it is to deny the sacrifice of these men for some narcissistic gain. It irks me.
@@jnewcomb If you count contractors (which you really should), the Apollo workforce peaked at around 400,000.
Gus hung the lemon with tape on the CM simulator at the Cape, not the CM itself.
So...NASA had the budget to hire Stanley Kubrick, build a huge lunar set, models for a blue screen, a lunar rover, AND pay all the crew enough to keep their mouths shut, but they skimped on the lunar lander and covered it in construction paper, aluminum foil, and warped sheet rock?
Well, when you put it that way... 😁
I used to make measurements on that 'tin foil' & gold foil' for a living. It is actually aluminized mylar called 'Kapton'. Mylar is a polyimide material, with a naturally yellow - orange colour. Some of it was 'first surface aluminized', which means that it appears silver, because you are looking at the aluminium surface itself. More typically it was 'second surface aluminized', meaning that you actually look through the mylar to the reflective layer, giving it a characteristic gold colour. Structurally, it is very similar to the aluminium lining in a crisp packet, which also has vapour deposited aluminium [VDA]. Some of it even came with a matt black surface for greater IR emittance. It comes in different thicknesses, & they each have different properties of solar absorbtance [ alpha ] ( heat absorbed by the material from incident light ) and infra red emittance [ epsilon ] ( infra red radiation emitted from the surface into space ). The ratio of these two properties determine the overall thermal characteristics of the blanket, & the way that they are used to firstly shield the craft from overheating due to incident solar radiation, and to radiate away excess heat from the craft. In space, radiation of IR is the ONLY method of getting rid of heat, both from solar radiation absorbance, and on board electrical equipment.
The thermal blankets are not a single layer of Kapton, but consists of several layers of different thicknesses, and mesh layers. They are basically sewn together like a loose quilt, or 'puffa jacket'. And yes, there is special sticky tape made of Kapton which is used for joining. And why SHOULDN'T fabric layers be joined together, or affixed to the sub structure with 'pop-studs' ? Except they're far more expensive than the ones on your jeans.
The thermal blankets you see are NOT the structure itself, but an attached covering layer - like the clothing over your naked body.
Most unbiased viewers would recognize the LM has a loose external insulation covering similar to many satellites. They might even do a little more research and find pictures of the structure underneath.
Unbiased researchers would realize that Petit was talking about not having a heavy lifting rocket like the Saturn V, the facilities to build one, or the facilities to launch one.
Further research might lead them to know that NASA didn't build the LM but rather Grumman did as NASA has contractors build all their stuff. They'd also find that when we return we won't want exactly what Apollo had because it only gets 2 astronauts to the Moon for a max of 3 days and wed want to go with more people and for more time.
Of course, if they were an unbiased researchers they wouldn't be a flattie.
When you look at photos taken by Grumman of the LMs under construction, you can see the actual pressure hull that was hidden under all that hardware and insulation. It looks like nothing so much as a supersonic fighter jet airframe turned inside out, which is to say, like a beautiful piece of engineering. In fact, the same team that designed the LM went on to design the F-14 Tomcat, which has performance that's still impressive 50 years later.
The only thing idiots (or, at least, people pretending to be idiots in order to monetize the beliefs of actual idiots) are demonstrating is that they think a REAL spacecraft should look like something from a science fiction adventure movie.
Eric Dumbay is good at one and only one thing : Pulling stuff out of his arse.
The landing module is still up there on the Moon. The ascent module was jettisoned after the crew and samples where safely transferred to the command module as it was no longer useful and not reusable. The space technology of the time was entirely single use.
It was made to operate in lunar gravity. That's 1/6 of Earth's gravity.
When the LEM was conceived and built, weight was at a premium. Those panels are very thin. They are subject to thermal expansion. Their sole purpose was to protect the components behind from the direct light and heat from the Sun. NOT to look nice.
In the crash shown, the crash is due to a catastrophic rupture in one of the attitude control thrusters.
What do these guys expect a lunar lander to look like, a TIE fighter? Dear oh dear...
I swear my cat is smarter than some of these flat earthers, and he'll bite his own tail, meow in pain, and then proceed to bite his own tail again.
My pet rock is smarter than Eric Dubious!
Which is the odd one out? A wise man, the flat earth, and santa? A wise man. The other two don't exist.
Kerbal Space Program has taught me that while getting to the Moon is hard, the actual landing is much easier than the same stunt on Earth, because the gravity is way less forgiving.
Which is why Falcon 9 is a major accomplishment.
@@starventure Compared to not sending a rocket at all, yes. But compared to what government space agencies have done since the 1960s? No. Let Common Sense Skeptic (CSS) + Thunderf00t destroy any delusions you have about liar scammer Elon Schmuck.
@@theultimatereductionist7592 I recall that the old website Encyclopedia Astronautica had an article stating that NASA had the ability to recover a first stage as early as the 1980s but was not allowed to pursue the opportunity because of political stubbornness and the obsession with the STS.
That isn’t a replica LEM at NASM Dan, that’s LM-2, the 2nd genuine LEM built, slated for a 2nd unmanned earth orbital test (that wasn’t needed as LM-1 was a success.)
Holy crap, you joined RUclips 15 years ago? We have an OG here!
Actually, LM-9 is at Kennedy Space Center.
If you want to be technical, it's technically a replica of the first one - a working replica.
@@json_bourne3812 The one at the Kennedy Space Center (if you read the link) was destined to go on an Apollo 15 but was replaced by a different LEM.
And for those that are super lazy...here is the text:
Moonscape is one of the most compelling new exhibits at the Apollo/Saturn V Center. Moonscape shows a scene from Apollo 11 when Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong planted the American flag on the lunar surface. The most eye-catching artifact is Lunar Module 9 (LM-9), an authentic lunar module created for the Apollo Program. Originally intended to fly on Apollo 15, LM-9 was replaced with an Extended Lunar Module when the lunar rover was added to the mission. Get an up-close look at the vehicle that sheltered humans on the Moon and lifted them off the surface when the exploration was complete.
While there, be sure to put your skills to the test in three interactive challenges. Learn about each part of the lunar module and Apollo spacesuit, and see how far a golf ball will fly with the Moon’s lower gravitational pull. You can also practice landing and launching the lunar module and docking with the command service module.
Could have sworn that i saw something from a reputable source that says - that the apollo 11 LEM may still be in a very eccentric orbit around the moon... and that may not have crashed after all.
Do an image search for something like "lunar module without skin," and you'll see that there was a rigid fuselage under all of those flimsy-looking coverings.
A lot of older aircraft were fabric covered over a ridged frame. Not many people would argue that a Hawker Hurricane was not a strong aircraft.
I certainly won't, @@Sherwoody . If I recall correctly, the Spitfire's performance was superior, but the Hurricane could take more hits.
I started skydiving from an old fabric covered Piper Tripacer. We had to be extremely careful moving around not to put a foot through the panels.
@@clivedavis6859 OMG I grew up in a Tri-Pacer, back when they were new! Can't see how you'd get in/out of that thing wearing a chute.
@@StevePlegge It was difficult, because back in those days we still had the bulky ex military B4 backpacks and front mounted reserves, not the lightweight miniature equipment of today. However, the seats (except obviously the pilot's) were removed and we sat on the floor. The rear passenger door was also removed. The plane could get 3 of us to 5000 ft and 2 to 7000 ft in a reasonable time (about 30 mins if I remember correctly). As I mentioned, we had to be very careful moving about, especially the one sitting backwards on the floor next to the pilot's seat.
Underneath the thin cladding of the lunar module, there was a pretty solid superstructure which was pressure tested. See the period footage of the module's construction.
As a child I queued all day at the Royal Lancashire Show to see the Apollo 10 command module, got to stick my head in the hatch and look round for about ten seconds. It was wonderful as a ten year old. I still feel so lucky fifty years later. Thanks Dan and keep up the good luck.
Gus Grissom didn't call the lunar module a lemon. He called the first Apollo capsule/CSM a lemon. The Apollo 1 fire happened in January 1967, approximately two years before the first LM was ready to fly. The first mission to fly the LM was Apollo 9.
He's arguing against himself the more he talks. The fact that they were able to make the lunar module out of such thin materials in the 60s is a marvelous achievement. Some estimates put the Apollo program as much as 40 years ahead of it's time. They were stretching the technology and material sciences of the day for all they were worth, a true testament to human ingenuity. If you watched a clip of his video out of context not knowing he's a flat earther, you'd think he was just bragging on how awesome the lunar module is because that's how it sounds in most parts.
True! It's a miracle! 😊
Right. The only thing any of the shit he brought up does just goes to show how absolutely incredible this accomplishment really was. Like we went to the moon. And we did it with a god damn foil kite ! 😂
@@TPG_Plagues containing 2 incredibly brave astronauts! To clarify, I put three originally because I included Michael Collins. He didn't enter the lander, but still brave to go in the first place.
@@casperthefriendlycookingapple two
not forgetting the huge advancement and miniaturisation of computer technology
I know there is a lunar module built for Apollo 18, 19 or 20 hanging at the Apollo / Saturn V Center at Kennedy Space Center. I know because I've seen it and I have pictures of it. It hangs because it was built to land on the Moon at 1/6 g, and the legs would simply collapse if you tried to stand it up on Earth.
This type of argumentation reminds me very much of the arguments put forward in many American court cases where a jury is to be "convinced":
No real point, just a lot of "oddities" meant to appeal to the emotions of the jurors, but nothing that actually would prove anything.
I just rewatched Paradise Lost about the West Memphis Three case and yes I can see what you're saying exactly.
Oh yeah, in essence this is no more convincing than Level Earth Observer quoting facts and laughing. "They're facts. Doesn't matter whether you think they are absurd or not."
OJ: see the glove doesn't fit if i ball up my fist and try to force it over on the wrong hand.
also this has shown the earth is flat lol
They don't have to convince a jury just introduce "reasonable doubt". And I think that is also what Eric is trying to achieve.
Gus Grissom didn't hang the lemon on the LEM, he hung it on the Phase 1 Command module.
I always thought that flat-earthers should believe in the moon missions because the moon is not in space but just a few kilometers under the dome. Easy to get access to. Evidently, they manage to contradict themselves every step of the way.
In the FE model, with a uniform atmospheric pressure held in by the dome, we should be able to take a helicopter up to the moon.
Manuel Passarella, you make an absolutely good point there.
@@brucetucker4847, you too make a good point as well.
11:16 "optimal conditions", look at the wind blowing the pilot and the smoke. :)
Two of the landers are in museums. The descent stages on the moon have been photographed. The impact sites of the Apollo 12 and 14 ascent stages have also been identified.
There is a possibility that the Apollo 11 ascent stage may still be in orbit around the moon. It’s crash site hasn’t been located. The upper half of the LM for Apollo 10 is still in space in a heliocentric orbit.
@@Sherwoody Really? Cool!
And the Apollo 10 LEM is waiting out there ready to be recovered.
@@kornaros96 some billionaire eventually will bring it back to earth to stoke his ego. The flerfs will still call it fake.
@@thegrumpyoldmechanic6245 rumours say that there are used shitbags left in the LM.
I literally spit out my morning coffee when I read on their website that the flat earth society has "members all AROUND THE GLOBE".
I loved the simple maths on the thrust of the lander’s engine vs the pressure exerted by one of your footsteps. I’ve learnt something else.
The descent engine was throttled. Armstrong touched down so softly that the landing pads didn’t compress. On other landings the engine was shut down around three metres from the surface.
I bet the lander would still make the stairs creak when sneaking back in after coming back from the pub though.
@@Sherwoody
Because of that, the step from the bottom ladder rung was a lot further than expected.
@@scott_meyer And in turn, the first thing Armstrong did on the lunar surface was not the "one giant step for mankind" thing, but rather the "damn can I get back up again?" check 😉
@@casperthefriendlycookingapple in Space no one can hear your wife yell, “WHERE YOU BEEN!”
If you were faking a lunar lander because the earth is flat etc., you'd make it shiny with bells and whistles like something from Flash Gordon. Gleaming panels, perfect aeronautical curves, and so on. The fact that it looks like it's made of chewing gum and baling wire counts FOR its being real, not against it.
The continuing question, believe every relevant scientist on the globe or random RUclips troll?
Please conman he takes money off people that are dumber than him.
Bigger troll than the one that beat up Frodo.
@@robbarton7972 Yep. That's what they do. And RUclips/Facebook help them, do it.
Local news - a rare sight was seen today, a cow was seen jumping over the moon for some reason. A dish and a spoon were seen leaving the area rather fast, please call crime stoppers with any information..
"For some reason they took this module that's supposed to be landing in a low-gravity non-atmospheric environment and they didn't test it in a regular-gravity atmospheric environment that has changing weather patterns!"
"For example, look at this footage of a test they didn't perform."
This Dubay guy can't even think of the simplest and most obvious reasons. He always sees a conspiracy whenever his brain is unable to understand something ... The poor guy probably lives in a world full of conspiracies where he's the only enlightened person ... does that count as insanity?
@@tychobra1 I think it's a form of paranoia, at least.
Nevermind that Apollos 5, 6, 9, & 10 were all used to test the LM in various ways...
Just shows how little research they do, or how much they hide to brainwash other people into believing the flat earth lie(ironic)
"It doesn't look like my expectations so therefore it isn't real."
Sir, NASA really doesn't care if you want all the spaceships to look like the millennium falcon. They have rovers to make.
Just shows how little they know about space flight and engineering. Yet they still have the gall to dispute it cuz they have large egos and want to feel special
One correction, the Lunar Module in the Smithsonian is not a replica, it is LM-2. Never flown because they gathered enough data from LM-1 to skip it’s flight and move on to the next test flight.
A simple can of soda at room temperature can contain about 12x the pressure the lunar module had
"look at the panelling" he says....he actually thinks the covering of the LEM is the pressure vessel! My god there are many Apollo schematics out there that show literally every screw and spring. If he would bother to look he "might" actually understand....but i really doubt it.
Yes, schematics that shows literally every screw and spring. And these idiots are speculating on what *_they think_* it *_LOOKS LIKE_* it's made of.
"It doesn't even look rain proof".
Rain proof? Why would it need to be rain proof? How often does it rain on the Moon?
That's when you get hit with their "How you you know, you've never been to the moon." Cause to know anything about something you had to physically be there :^)
@@DigitalinDaniel I can see the moon and there's never any clouds on it.
But the rain fills up those seas on the moon!
@@DigitalinDaniel Sooo..... I don't know who the president of USA is, because I have never been there.
Right. Seems legit... :-P
It's good that we have yoga instructors like Eric Dubay to tell us why spacecraft can't work.
it's a good thing he is a yoga instructor because any point he tries to make is quite the stretch and if he didn't practice yoga he would pull something... maybe our legs?
7:10 so basically this guy is just crying over it's looks... is, is this a flat earth karen?
worse than that
The majority of space denial is "it doesn't look like star trek, so it's fake"
"Why would NASA destroy the lunar lander"... yeah, and why would BBC destroy 97 episodes of Doctor Who? They did, it sucks, but it is what it is.
Can't sleep, been listening to old records and texting old friends and crying all night. Needed this thank you Dan.
Keep yourself safe buddy, people love you. 👍🏼
It's okay too reminiscence sometimes. Gives you a chance too let things go.
I hope you’re doing OK, crying can be good for releasing emotion I think
Call them and talk, or talk with anyone else.
You're not alone and you'll see that people are sympathetic to your situation.
We're here for you buddy 😊
DM me on Discord if you want to vent, I'm a good punching bag 🙃
So where's the genius plans of Eric Dubey's rocket, lander and descent modules?
The descent engine was also operating in a vacuum, the thrust from the engine would spread out and not be directed straight down.
And also being throttled down for landing, because the LM had burnt a consequent mass of fuel to brake and descend from lunar orbit. So, no need to have the engine at full throttle to land, just enough to go down with a sufficiently slow vertical velocity. You don't have more than half of the engine's trust used for the final landing phase...
@@OlivierGabin Yes, Absolutely, and in some landings the decent engine was shut off before touch down.
Plus, it was throttled way down right before landing. Besides, any dust that was kicked up, would fall much faster to the ground because it's not floating around in an atmosphere.
This is true; and further, this so-called landing module could not take off, because all expanding gases would simply expand horizontally into the void, creating absolutely no upward thrust. Man has been to the Moon? In your dreams.
@@anthonyfoden9382 So ALL thrust "(expanding gases would simply expand horizontally)" and none going down, got ya, NO WAIT!
Noting in the middle of the thrust, NO WAIT, that not possible some will still have to go down, expand in ALL directions, that includes DOWN, there can't be a vacuum in the middle of the thrust.
They still landed on the moon.
The progress by humanity with regards to aviation and spacecraft is amazing. When you take a moment to look at the timeline from the first planes constructed from wood to modern jets and rockets, it just makes your jaw drop.
This was one of my classes in college (one of the first we took) which went over, in depth the history of aviation. When you think about how we came from a powered glider that flew for 8 seconds, and actually physically warped the wings so it changed the lift characteristics, to supersonic fighter planes, idiots like Dubay start to sound like idiots scratching their heads, and throwing things when they can't understand.
Apparently Orville Wright and Neil Armstrong could have shaken hands. The time elapsed is so small
@Atlantis Rising that's, pretty much entirely dead wrong. I don't want to be rude or harsh, but aircraft have come so far since the Wright Brothers. They were pioneers, and in their own way, changed the entire face of human history forever. That doesn't mean that planes today are only different because they've got a TV and a shitter on them lol. I realize you probably meant it as a joke, and here I am try harding like a goon, but sometimes someone says something that just hurts your heart to the very core lol.
@@Thoron_of_Neto Atlantis Rising is just trolling.
@@Anonymous-md2qp yeah I know, like I said, I figured I was a joke, but some things are just... too wrong lol
they really think the new moon missions should/could be done on 50 years old equipment?
Well, lets be positive. Maybe they're just really enthusiastic about recycling?
They always complain about NASA spending "so much" money, despite the fact that they currently get less then half a penny for every tax dollar paid (as Dan also pointed out in the video). However they expect them to keep and maintain decade old flight hardware that nobody needs anymore?
It would be perfect launching the flerfers into space!
@@John_Smith_60 they don't deserve that, they wouldn't believe it anyway.
Be sure to search for lunar lander without the gold insulation.
Aircraft are pressurized to about 9 psi differential pressure, max. The lunar lander was pressurized to about 1/3 atmosphere, or 5 psi. A can of soda sitting at room temp is about 3x atmospheric pressure.
Dubay has nothing but ‘nuh uh’.
Seriously, what would be the gain from lying about the shape of the earth and landing on the moon? What would anyone gain from this? I don't get it.
I mean, i'm not saying the landing was faked. But there was huge incentive and gain for it, so faking it wouldn't have been meaningless.
The race to land on the Moon was for USA to show that capitalism was better than communism, so they had to prove they could achieve this great feat before communist countries to show how much better capitalism was and what it leads to.
That was the whole goal of the lunar landing missions. So a valid reason to fake it. The Earth's shape though has no incentive, flat earthers are just dumb.
The way flat earthers don't understand relative speed is upsetting.
reminds me of a comment by one of Dubay's followers:
"earth can't possibly be moving at 600,000 because AIRPLANES would have to FLY FASTER THAN THAT TO GO ANYWHERE AT ALL."
NOT kidding.
English is my second language so it most likely have a lot of mistakes everywhere.
Did you know that the best way to debunk the flat earth model is simply trying to explain it.
All flat earth models are viewed from the perspective of the Flying Spaghetti Monster but, if you try to explain the sun or the moon trajectory from the perspective of someone in the ground, everything falls apart.
In a 12 hours day you should theoretically be able to see the sun make a half circle in the sky.
But that’s only possible in areas close to the north and south poles.
If you try to replicate that from areas close to the equator it would be impossible.
The sun apparently moves on a straight line in the sky.
I have never seen the sun making half circles in the sky.
Yes Vega, we know that flat earth has broken physics, but that is not our problem...
The sun makes an arc across the dome of sight unique to the individual observer, the sun doesn't appear to be a normal physical object and this would be explained by being in a simulation.
I've tried that debunk on them before. I asked them to think about it logically. Take all the ideas of flat earth or globe reality and just simply describe how the sun would appear standing on earth. When I did it I came up with if it were flat wouldn't it arc in the sky? basically start in the same spot and set in the same spot. They told me I was being disingenuous and basically was a brain washed globe sheep blah blah blah deflect to "gravity doesn't exist" bullshit argument.
But seriously the sun going in a big circle above our heads is not consistent with what we actually observe nor is it consistent with how light actually works. They won't see it until the decide to see it.
Nathan Vega -- This is how I debunk them instantly. --- I tell them, if you can't show me an accurate working model of how your flat Earth works, just ONE model that shows how everything that people see, *all over the world,* EVERY DAY, works, then shut the hell up. NO MODEL. NO NOTHING. ---- I *HAVE* a globe model that works perfectly in EVERY SINGLE CONCEIVABLE SITUATION. --- Full stop.
@@kathleenr4047 that is true, I have tried that and usually I get a lot of but but but well what about this that or the other thing. I suppose if you confidently don't give them an option usually they just disappear into oblivion.
"NASA lies!!!" Shouts the dolt while simultaneously trying to use misrepresented quotes from NASA employees.
I still believe that Eric went into this trying to separate fools from their money; he started believing his own bullshit.
He’s scamming himself. Why am I not surprised?
He is ensuring he keeps feeding the flerfs to continue to make a buck from them. Mr Oakley is desperately trying to cling onto his flerf income also, so he doesn't need to return to being a delivery driver.
@@briannewton3535 There's a current shortage of delivery drivers, perhaps Oakley could do something useful for a change.
@@briannewton3535 There’s a shortage of HGV drivers in the UK at the moment. And while I’d much rather Nathan Oakley wasn’t pushing his nonsense, the concept of somebody so moronic being in control of 36,000 litres of explosive petrochemicals is equally scary lol.
@@briannewton3535 At least a delivery driver would be an honest job.
I don't think Eric actually believes all this, I think he's just found a market to tap into, for the 'followers' that actually buy into this, it's a money maker for sure
@Atlantis Rising The only reason Dumbay isn't selling underpants is that no sane sponser would even consider using him.
Nah he is just an imbecile.
@Atlantis Rising "He just seeks the truth" 🤣
It's a combination of a total lack of comprehension, plus being a complete liar. Dubay lacks the capacity to think rationally, so he lies to fill the gaps in his understanding.
@Atlantis Rising Eric lies because he isn't capable of understanding facts.
"Why was this submarine never tested on land?! Oceans are fake!!!"
These guys are just really desperate to make money nowadays.
Ikr. Where is the titanic now?! Why haven’t we made another one?!
@@flargarbason1740 we can make far larger ships than titanic these days you see that's what happens with technology it improves over time. Apart from space technology they just decided to stop with that.
we were able to create submarines because they can tested in oceans. How can you create a space craft or test it when you have no idea what environment you are entering. Answer me this question how did they know what the environment of space was like before any man had ever gone into space.
As a matter of interest, there has been recent speculation that the Apollo 11 LEM is actually still in orgit around the moon and has not crashed into it.
When I hear flat earthers talk, I just remember, you can't argue with stupid.
Dan, can you please never use Eric's voice in your video. His voice makes me physically sick.
I'm tempted to feel sorry for these flerfers. But I cannot because it is self inflicted. Good video Dan.
I feel sorry for some, but not Dubay.
There is a very obvious crater under the descendant engine in many of the relevant photographs. The Lunar surface isn't solid rock, but does compact down to solid rock very quickly. Within a few inches at most, the regolith compacts down to the consistency of concrete. Because of this, and the low pressure the descent engine generated on the surface (being switched off more than six feet away from it and lander falling the rest of the way for a not too hard touchdown, the crater is very shallow (no more than a couple of inches) and mostly characterized by an absence of dust and sand-sized particles on the surface. It's much easier to see in the pictures taken when the Sun was lower in the Lunar sky, like any small surface feature.
Hard vacuum is pretty good at cementing things together. It's essentially just surface friction between particles, with no gas left on the surfaces to stop them from compacting tightly together and developing extremely large amounts of friction compared to otherwise similar materials on Earth. However, there is something with a grain size comparable to the Lunar dust found on the surface: Cement powder is of comparable grain size to Lunar dust. Cement powder is fine enough grained that it retains bootprints in much the same way as the Lunar surface dust. (If you want to try it, be careful. Dry cement powder is extremely dangerous if inhaled, and can become surprisingly corrosive if wetted, which is part of why it's so dangerous to inhale. That, and it turns to solid rock when mixed with water, such as the water in the membranes of the nose, mouth, throat, and lungs. If you were to inhale enough to form a continuous film anywhere, you'd be in serious trouble. The odd grain is only slightly more dangerous than most other fine silicate dusts, but a lot will kill you nasty.)
Grissom, White, Chaffee. Thank you for your service to our country. Rest In Peace.
How do Flat Eathers feel about the fact that the moon is upside down in the southern hemisphere? (Or vice-versa, depending on which hemisphere you're used to.)
Sadly, they either ignore it or come up with some nonsense about it being reflected somehow.
Southern Hemispheres don’t exist. 🙃
Yea just like they all know how to work a video camera until you ask them to point it south and do a star trail video then they forget how to use it.
I'm pretty sure all the flerfs think anyone in the southern hemisphere "fell off" years ago!😳😕
3:50, it doesn't even matter if it's about the LEM or not.
The issue isn't that 60/70s era space-tech is "so advanced" that we can't recreate it.
It's just that there's no production up and running for the used parts.
You couldn't build an old computer based on vacuum tubes largescale today either, and it has nothing to do with vacuum tubes being "so advanced."
The lunar module was successfully tested during the Apollo 10 mission when astronauts Thomas Stafford and Gene Cernan flew it to a descent orbit within 8.4 nautical miles (15.6 km) of the lunar surface, the point where powered descent for landing would begin. This was as close as NASA could get without taking the final step of actually landing it.
The next big test was during the Apollo 11 mission, when it was actually landed on the moon and the two astronauts (I forget their names) decided to get out, have a look around, take some photos and plant a flag.
How on earth was this possible for such an odd looking spacecraft? The clue is in the question.
I love when flerfers mention how fast something goes.
Reminds me that one time when I stand up in an airplane and flew straight onto rear of that plane.
Damn that hurt.
I know right. I jumped while at the front of a bus and ended up sitting at the back.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 That's funny,
🤔 also when you were walking back to your seat you were walking at Hundreds miles Per Hour, which means Usain Bolt's 🏃♂️ Olympic Records are just pathetic 🤷♂️,
Ask any FlatEarther it's not like Relevance or Scale should ever have anything to do with speed comparisons🤦♂️.
@@shaneeslick Yeah, but that was downhill because the pilot dip the nose.
Stop running on downhill was really hard.
I trip and hit my head.
Want to put FE to bed?
Measure the circumference of the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. In reality, they are close to the same length. On a flat Earth, they wouldn't be close to the same length.
Been saying this for years..
Flerfs response: Did you measure that yourself?
😂
One way to piss them off is tell them to goto time and date and search South Pole Antarctica and ask them what it says for sunrise and sunset.
This only happens from September 22nd to March 21st every year then it swaps to the North Pole.
Funny that they never mention the mirror Buzz and Neil left on the moon that proves we've been there. But let me guess, "I don't know what that is, but it's definitely not manmade."
And we know exactly where it is, what it does and how to use it.
Apollo 14 left retro reflectors even better than mirrors, they also proved the moon is moving away from the earth.
The usual response is that you don't need a human to drop a reflector on the moon, so the reflectors aren't proof of a manned mission to the moon.
Of course, the moon would still need to exist and would still need to be 384,000km away, and you'd still need to be able to build a spaceship to travel there and of course this means that space itself must exist. Some or all of those statements are denied by many moon hoaxers.
But then again, conspiracy theories are never consistent. They're usually a mass of mutually contradictory objections based around an inability to understand facts and science.
On the descent module thruster not leaving a crater; from memory, the descent engine was fired in bursts, and the final burst was shut down when still at an altitude of 30', and still with a lateral 'drift'.
Genuine thruster landings don't happen like they are shown on 'Supermarionation'.
ruclips.net/video/xc1SzgGhMKc/видео.html
My bad memory; but they were not running on full thruster at all times. It's tricky to decipher some of the jargon & acronyms, and understand exactly what they are doing.
I love the fact that they tells us it's nothing more than a staged movie, and that we are stupid because believing it's true it's like believing starwars is true... yet they really think it's fake just because _it doesn't look like what we see in sci-phy movies._
9:50 Grissom did not hang a lemon on the lunar lander. His mission did not even have a LM. He hung a lemon on the Command Module Simulator. And even if this was meant as a criticism of the spacecraft itself, there is no disputing that the Apollo spacecraft at that time was flawed as it killed Grissom and his crew before it ever flew. But those problems were then fixed before the first flight.
and it wasn't even meant to critizise the hardware itself,he was highly dissatisfied with the rushed schedule and what he thought was a lack of security thinking on the part of NASA leadership... something demonstrated by his horrible accident and yet still a problem 20 years later around the time of the Challenger Disaster, so he very surely had a point.
@JTLYK IXOYE If you can't produce an accurate working model of a flat Earth, *and you CAN'T,* then shut the hell up. NO model, NO nothing. ---- *I HAVE a model* that shows how my globe works in EVERY SINGLE CONCEIVABLE SITUATION. Day, night, sunrises, sunsets, 6 month winter and summer at the poles, lunar and solar eclipses. --- You don't have a model that works in ANY situation.
@JTLYK IXOYE Everything you believe about this is a lie.
A "model" is a demonstration of what is real. The Globe Earth Model totally comports to what we see with our own eyes - the Flat Earth model (not that there is one) does not.
Freemasons have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth. It was known to be a spheroid 2000 years before Freemasons even existed. Even the very Church that concocted your silly Bible knew the Earth was a ball. Mariners have been navigating the world's oceans for centuries - using the Globe Earth model. It just doesn't work on a Flat Earth.
8 inches per mile squared is the formula for a PARABOLA, not a sphere. You don't even know something as simple and basic as that. What else don't you know?
So let's ask you the same question: how many lies will YOU believe before you realise that your FE nonsense is idiotic?
@JTLYK IXOYE Dork troll can't even spell E-a-r-t-h correctly.
@JTLYK IXOYE The Earth is not a closed system and you're an idiot for believing NASA (or any scientific agency, for that matter) would say such a nonsensical thing.
Once again Eric Dubay proves flawlessly he has no grasp on what he says! Well done Eric. Well done.
Hi Dan,
Just a few small points.
First, the Apollo 11 lunar module was left in lunar orbit, and was assumed to have crashed into the surface of the moon. However, recent analysis suggests it could possibly still be orbiting the moon. Scott Manley has an excellent video on it.
Second, you mention replicas of the Apollo lander in museums. Well, of the 15 built, three were flown in test missions (Apollo 5, 9, and 10), six were landed on the moon (11, 12, 14-17), one was used as a lifeboat (Apollo 13), but 5 remained on Earth. One was scrapped, and three are on display in museums (including one at Kennedy Space Center). Curiously, that leaves one unaccounted for, and I'm not sure if anyone knows knows of its whereabouts.
Finally you talk about why the lunar module wasn't tested on Earth. It certainly was subjected to many tests on Earth, but a free flying test wasn't possible. The craft was designed to land in 1/6G, and simply didn't have enough thrust to fly in 1G. To simulate landing on the moon, they used the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle, which used a jet engine to counter 5/6 of the vehicle's weight, so that the lander's engine and manoeuvring thrusters behaved as they would on the moon.
Here. Here. Nice post.
My family lived in Houston in th early80 and we took our kids to the Johnson space Center it was amazing then and they have moon lander and a Saturn v rocket if I remember correctly
The moon missions failed to find our Decepticon outpost on the dark side.
SHHH! We promised not to take about it at our last meeting!
The "gold foil" isn't the regular gold foil you use on earth. It's MLI.
Also, there was a pressure vessel underneath the outer layers that you couldn't see. Those outer layers were mostly just thermal protection and insulation material. Remember, on the moons surface you are exposed to unfiltered solar radiation