@@nirvanaphoenix1858 No, the only time the flag moved was when an astronaut touched or came into contact with the flag pole. You do realise that when the pole was moved, the flag would also move as a result. This isn't rocket science my friend, but you are apparently too simple to understand it, lol.
The Soviet Union. The one country in the world at the time powerful enough to go toe to toe with America on pretty much everything. Was completely ideologically opposed to America. Had arguably the most expansive and sophisticated espionage organisations on the planet. Was able to successfully infiltrate America's nuclear weapon programs and steal several key data points for their own such research. The fact that they never got their hands on America's launch codes is a goddamn miracle In short, a country with both the capabilities and all the reason in the world to show that America faked it. ... They never once claimed America faked it.
@Bret 1959 money? To the soviets, useless american dollars, or even in roubles, that would just inflate their economy, not more money Besides they even compared it to rocks they brought with the unmanned luna missions and found it to be the same They had all the reason to do it
@Bret 1959 neil armstrong was a deist if i remember correctly, and buzz aldrin is a devout christian so dont know whats up with that. What i do know is they brought like ~380kg (840ish pounds) of moon rock checked by the soviets. Which would have been pretty hard using unmanned probes, as the luna missions bring back ~20 micrograms i believe So whatever they did launch, it was hella impressive either way
@Bret 1959 they were not cooperating during the apollo era. If you could say your opponent was faking the winning why the hell wouldnt you? Also, intimidate? The ussr? Yeah good luck with that
@@jellyfishsquawk Stars are not there because it is too bright on the moon to see stars. It's an eye thing. Go under a bright street light as see how many stars you see in the sky.
Another important aspect - if they were faked, would the Soviets not want to 'expose' the fake in a Cold War context? ie to get one over in the Space Race. Even Soviet documents took the landings as factual
The reason is, both countries benefitted from having their populations brainwashed by fear. That's why Russia got all the wins and the US the big one. It was all agreed. The US not only didn't dispute the Luna program, they reported it on TV. This event obviously didn't happen. We can barely land a probe on the moon in 2024 and send a decent photo back with today's tech, and we're supposed to believe the Russians did it in 1966. How did they land it? What did they do that we can't seem to do nowadays (with any degree of certainty) with infinitely better tech?
The Cold War narrative has to be taken at face value for this argument to run (mind you, this argument, that the Soviets would have exposed it, is the strongest for why the moon landing actually happened, given the physical evidence requires you to believe in miracles). But if you know your history, you'll be aware of who was pulling Soviet strings, acting as financiers and transferring much technology to a technologically static society. Then, you'll understand the Soviets did not it was phony, and they knew better than to say something.
Well everyone was aware of eachother lies, in other words you tell the moon lading was fake I tell that Gagarin wasn't the first but the first to come back alive.
I absolutely love how tv show about mysteries regarding moon landing is like 6 episodes long but you can get the same answers from this in like 4 minutes. Show is "Truth behind moon landing"
@@Kaos1382 Uhm, yes it does? It's basic information. Not only that, but it's common science, like really, you have to have several accounts of brain damage not to see how stupid the conspiracies are.
@@victoriannecastle even worse that its a artifical satellite made by extraterrestrial life and guess what the guy who made the theory said it was part of science fiction😂😂
You can get the 'answers' by watching their performance at the infamous 'return' press conference. Never have I witnessed such sadness and brokenness from three souls on what should have been a momentous celebration of achievement. 🎉
@@shawnsimmons697 the moon rock given to Holland was fake, 60% of Russians 40+% of England belive we faked it to prove superiority over Russia. Lost the technology to go back when neil Armstrong was asked about the computing power at the time he said it was less than a laptop. SpaceX isn't more technically advanced as nasa in the 60s?
not very much. people seem to forget about "light pollution". meaning more lights, less stars and sky. the sun itself, in all of its glory, was causing enough light pollution for there to be virtually no stars in the sky. they also saw alot of black. no atmosphere for the suns light to reflect off of and absorb means the sky was very black while looking one way and very bright while looking the other
Basically it’s a more universal establishment and no one can legally own it. It’s the same way with the South Pole and the moon. That’s why fe have researchers from all over the world studying the landings.
“Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”
BrickRedDonut um no cuz flat earthers already new it was and always will that's y they teach different in school to throw you off into believing there is no creator c'mon you can't really believe everything they teach you in school but ever notice not one time does any teacher mentioned the Bible hum....
@@raf3611 Bible more accurate then your info so far revelation is accurate damn with all the crap going on and your going to doubt it lol your daydreaming wake up not talking crap just trying to help you understand just look into it add it up it's not coencedens
People not believing in the moon landing is so disappointing It’s very very frustrating not knowing the complete science and trying to explain sick obvious things
@@Stubrit Because the moon has one sixth the gravity of earth, also they should literally be coming off the ground by at least three feet, and it looks like them moving on the moon was shot in slow motion. When you speed it up by twice the speed, you can tell they aren't on the moon.
@@2ndtonone1000 nope, stuff falls quite fast on the moon, why? No atmosphere, most people don’t realize just how much earth’s atmosphere slows everything down, you know what earth’s gravity is? 9.8 meters per second per second, but objects on earth fall much slower than that due to drag, the moon has no drag, and all objects fall at the same rate (which can be observed in the videos), so dust does not float in the air like it does on earth
@Winged_Hunter256 No it wouldn’t melt since light from the Sun falls from a single direction, while the suit reflects the light in all directions around the space suit. Beside, light from the Sun is not that strong to melt object around astronauts, so reflected light couldn’t do that either.
Same, some people think just because their Facebook group says it’s was fake and because they weren’t there with the astronauts means it was set up by the evil communists or something like that.
Lar M I used to get up in the middle of the night to watch each blast off. It was very exciting. We went to Florida and watched one blast off. It was incredible!
Do you know Mr. Edward Snowden ? A former US intelligence agency employee who fled to Russia. He said the "Apollo Manned Lunar Landing" was fake. Now the Chinese aircrafts on the moon are showing various details of truth silently, and use fact to debunk the scam of "Apollo program " in 51 years ago. When the Chinese aircraft landed on the surface of the moon, the shock wave of the reverse thruster blew all the dust (on the surface where the aircraft landed) very clean. But In the landing place of the "Apollo manned spacecraft landing " had so much soft dust that it can leave clear footprints, and under the "Apollo aircraft" was also no shock wave pit that will inevitably appear if used the parachute slows down during the landing process.
Satellites have been image-mapping the moon for years now. I'm trying to find a complete and detailed database of the entire thing, but haven't found anything. Can anyone supply such a link? Why is there more hi-detail imagery of Mars on Google Earth than there is of the Moon? If there is in fact no complete hi-detail of the whole Moon's surface, then can anyone tell me why? Please and thank you.
I’m 90% sure the proper map of the moon you need some sort of good reason to access it and use it as mars has been mapped but not in detail as it’s very far away so many people cant just look at it like the moon I reckon if you ask the right people they will just hand you the map let’s say you study astronomy you have a great reason to use it and you will have no worries access it
(a) we don't have a high-detail map of the earth. It's not simple to do, since good resolution (i.e. 1 pixel per meter) requires quite high technology and VERY expensive optics. (b) a typical mapping probe can only map a path a mile or so wide, at maximum resolution. It has to be fairly low (i.e. close) to get the good resolution. How many 1-mile stripes do you think it takes to map the whole moon? (c) all orbiting things have a fixed path. In order to change that path, you need to have some external force. While the moon's gravity can alter the orbit path slightly, in order to map you really would have to use rocket fuel. That's a LOT of rocket fuel to make the adjustments. (b) there's no real incentive to image-map the moon. We don't need it, and there's not really anything specifically interesting to learn. Heck, we haven't mapped the earth, and we live here. TL;DR: you'd have to build a very expensive camera, put it in a satellite with a massive amount of fuel, and then you'd still probably need several of them. It's too costly, since we don't have a reason to do it, and there's lots of other more interesting stuff to do with the money. E.g. We can build SEVERAL Hubble replacements, or map the moon. We don't care about the moon.
@Winged_Hunter256 because Google Maps depends on low flying aircraft for the high quality pictures. Also note that less than 0.1% of the Earth has the high res that you see on Google. Dont make the mistake of presuming that what you see in Google while looking at 1st world cities is what is available for even 99% of the rest of the planet.
NASA sent up a probe called the LROC that photographed the entire surface of the Moon. Somewhere on the internet is a repository of all the images, but beware, they are all around 500Mb each
All 3 astronauts were asked at the press conference if they had seen any stars from the lunar surface..they replied they don't recall seeing any stars.
You should have paid attention to the reporter's question, when he asked: "could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?" Could you see stars while looking in the solar corona?
@@randyschissler5791 Michael Collins orbited the moon alone in the command module while Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon.Whilst orbiting around the dark side of moon he was in total darkness .He says he can't remember seeing any stars at all. Micheal Collins never set foot on the moon.
@@shazyboy227 "He says he can't remember seeing any stars at all. " He was responding to the reporter's question: "could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?"
i was so confused when people said there was a "waving flag". I literally could see the rod going through the top of the flag in any pictures and automatically decided the other bit was drooping because the astronauts would've moved the flag causing it to be disturbed, giving it the rippling effect. I was like you guys are silly to believe that it's waving, but i guess you all know that now so good on you!
@@neilarmstrongsson795 I suppose you believed your dad when he said the reason they didn't drown in the Sea of Tranquility is because they landed whilst the tide was out?
We see the flag suddenly start waving during lunar liftoff because the moon has a very very thin atmosphere. Conspiracy theorists use this flag waving to prove it was filmed in a studio on Earth ( with an atmosphere ).
The flag is waving (on lift off) because there is a rocket engine spewing gas. Some of the slight waving when the astronauts are on the surface may be due to waste gas released from the space suits. The moon's atmosphere is not an atmosphere. It has gas particles that seep out of its rock and escape into space, or come from the sun as part of the solar wind and happen to hit the moon. This gas is 10^13 times thinner than earth, that is 1/10,000,000,000,000 and it is not bound to the moon by gravity. It just floats away into space.
One thing I absolutely loathe about moon landing conspiracy theories, and that prevents me from taking them in the slightest consideration, is their one-sided arguments and double standards in favor of the Soviets. Conspiracy theorists absolutely do not want to accept that the Americans actually sent humans to the moon, but at the same time, they never have the slightest problem blindly accepting that all Soviet successes in the early years of the Space Race are one hundred percent real and authentic. I would ask the following questions: Why should only the Apollo missions seem "suspicious" and be accused repeatedly of being fake? What is it about the Soviet space milestones that is most realistic and credible that makes them immune to any doubt? What would be the certain, absolute, irrefutable, unfalsifiable proof of everything the Soviets did, and why can't the same reasoning be used to confirm once and for all that man really did walk on the moon? I have yet to find anyone who gives me an answer.
the shadows arent wrong you can the stars on the dark side or the shadows and the people say its fake they are freakin stupid and very very not educated
but actually NASA did not know how to fake the moon landing like if you say why are there no stars on the moon it's because can you see stars in the day on earth that's how it works you can't see the stars in the day light in the dark side you can see stars in the dark side😑
sandrarthornton you "believers" worry that you are so insignificant,you so desperately want to be a part of something larger,to rebel and think you made a change or difference without actually trying,you just can't seem to take in the fact that you have a normal life,you cannot change that,you never can
Because it would cost enormous amounts of money to do so, and there would little if any practical benefit. And no, space tourism is not a money making venture.
Because it is insanely expensive to go back. After Apollo 17 (6th time landing on the moon) government funding was cut and parts to the SaturnV rocket were no longer being manufactured and sold therefore they became obsolete. So NASA turned their attention to other missions. All those Apollo missions was a total of about 28 billion USD. Due to inflation today that would be 283 billions USD. NASA’s budget is only 22 billion USD. Don’t worry though, NASA will be landing humans on the moon again in 2024! Possibly 2025. The Artemis Program
It is like saying if you climbed Mt Everest once, then it should be easy and you should be going regularly. It is a silly suggestion because climbing Mt Everest is risky, expensive, and once you have gone once, there is kind of no reason to keep going. Same as the moon missions.
Because to get people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in *history,* which NASA achieved in the 60s with the Saturn V rocket thanks to Congress increasing their budget to a peak of *9 times normal* to make it happen. Once Congress felt it was "mission accomplished" they withdrew all the extra funding for NASA and so no more Saturn V rockets could be built, resulting in the end of the Apollo program (the planned missions Apollo 18 to 20 had to be cancelled!). But now look up the *SLS rocket* being built by NASA/Boeing and due to launch this year (after many delays), where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth. The SLS is slightly more powerful than the 60s Saturn V rocket, and hence that's the massive rocket that will return people back to the moon in 2024. I hope that information helps :-)
I think the conspiracy comes from how much 2001 a space odyssey looked to the actual moon landing. Like considering man hadn't been on the moon by the release of 2001 a space odyssey that makes what the movie accomplishes even more of a feat of human achievement.
Though a great movie, it was lousy when it came to the moon sequences. Kubrick hardly even tried to replicate 1/6 gravity in a vacuum. He was smart enough to know it couldn't be done convincingly, so didn't bother.
@@randyschissler5791 in a previous comment I said that my superstition of the conspiracy ended at the movement of the astronauts in the moon sequence. Like the scenery of the moon's surface was spot on, but like you said he didn't even attempt the gravity element of man walking on the moon. But when Frank Poole is floating in 0 Gs it looks relatively convincing for its time.
@@JoshyMill "The conspiracy goes that stanley kubrick was the one that the CIA got to shoot the moon landing.." It took Kubrick 4 years to make "2001..." - how many decades would he have needed to create the hours of footage from all the Apollo missions?
Hey you, yes you sorting by “newest first” I’ve come from the future to tell you to stop, it’s not worth it don’t go keep your faith in humanity please.
Bro theses people are lost. They think thag they are smarter than everyone and they thing that the whole existence lf your planet is controlled by a large conspiracy 😂
It's not really about the conspiracies per say, but other questions. I'm aware of "no air resistance", I'm aware of the "mechanism made for the flag" I learned these at a very young age as I wanted to be part of Nasa. Even I've debunked those arguments before these recent wave of videos were made. But when your rhetoric is "we cannot make a 2nd moon trip, because its not financially worth it"... I feel that's an ad-hoc reason specifically due to what new technology can do for us now. We'd have far better images, and could even have them bring specific equipment to prove its 100% real to people who're spectating. If anything there's more ways to prove it NOW than back then. Thus, I don't know why Aldren, and the others on Apollo give iffy answers when asked about it. Why he told the little girl they never landed on the moon... given the room around conspiracy, troll bait is the last thing you'd want. I think it's also a mix of data and misinformation included that creates conspiracy, such as inconsistent moon surface temperatures, recordings, and more. Such as how did they make their return trip? And why WOULDN'T you want to visit the moon again? But oh well :\
ATARi _HMB The reason why they wanted to get to the moon is to win the Space Race against the Soviets. Once that’s done, the US pretty much neglected NASA.
ATARi _HMB said _"But when your rhetoric is "we cannot make a 2nd moon trip, because its not financially worth it"."_ Wrong. The real reason is politics and finance. There needs to be political continuity. By that I mean you can't have the political parties canceling each other's projects just to get over on the opposing party. This has been going on for decades. Has virtually nothing to do with technology. - _"We'd have far better images, and could even have them bring specific equipment to prove its 100% real to people who're spectating. If anything there's more ways to prove it NOW than back then. "_ The only thing that would be better is the live TV broadcasts since we now have at least HD. The photos that were taken by Apollo were fantastic as they used medium format film. Even the 16mmDAC film footage is pretty good. The only parts that would be considered bad quality were the live TV broadcasts as they were limited to 320i NTSE video and not the standard 500i of TV back then. As for "more ways to prove it now" well, the conspiracists will just claim it is all CGI. Besides, the LRO shot images of the landing sites in 2011 and that wasn't good enough for the conspiracists. They had their typical excuses. - _"Thus, I don't know why Aldren, and the others on Apollo give iffy answers when asked about it. Why he told the little girl they never landed on the moon... given the room around conspiracy, troll bait is the last thing you'd want. "_ That is not what he was asked. He was asked why we haven't gone back, and his answer was because they just never went back. Keep in mind he is 90 some odd years old talking to a child. Also, his many other answers during that interview are often ignored in favor of that one cherry-picked response. And lastly, a lot of the people complaining about the moon landings have another conspiracy to champion, and that is the flat earth. They thin the earth is flat, therefore space is fake, and nobody went to the moon. That being said, there is no evidence to support mOoN hOaX believers. ALL have been debunked many times.
"we cannot make a 2nd moon trip, because its not financially worth it" *7th. More if we're talking missions that didn't land, but if you're talking about missions like this, there have been six. If you'd really studied these things as much as you said, you would know this, unless you just stopped looking into any of it after 1969. Getting some serious, bad faith, "I'm just asking questions" kind of vibes, dude.
You know they had this massive multi-stage rocket to leave the Earth but they got home on that popcorn maker looking contraption that looks like a golf cart wrapped in aluminum foil I want that amazing ship
@@rock-a-dayjonny7446 actually that wasnt the bit that got them home. After they left the moon, they docked with a cone-shaped spacecraft about the same size. They went from the popcorn maker to the cone, and flew the cone back home. The popcorn maker had a computer that made it deorbit itself and smash itself into the moon so that A; they could measure seismic activity B; it wouldnt help clutter space over the moon
@Bret 1959 Personally, I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I believe people have a right to voice their own opinions of their viewpoint of the world whether it's flat earth or moon landing hoax. I don't know if RUclips did remove those videos but I find that kinda scary.
Same question, very very strange!! Even simple videos of zoomed full moon r taken down, they send u a copyright claim that YOUR video belongs to disney 😂😅 i dont really give one flying f if the landing was real or not but id like to understand why so much censorship all of a sudden
My dad is a generally smart person but believes in the moon landing being fake. His argument is that nasa at the time didn't have advanced enough technology to go up there and back. He says that all the stuff on it was put by unmanned missions. When I try to tell him that they did have the technology, he asks me why did they not have many successive missions.
One of the major hurdles standing between SpaceX and it’s Mars colony mission is how to protect the crew, electronics and organic materials such as seeds from the highly energized particles in the Van Allen belts. The Van Allen belts aren’t just overlapping bands of radiation, that we don’t have the ability to shield against, that would be bad enough. We’re talking about passing slowly through a planetary scale super-massive particle accelerator… It’s a good thing the general public didn’t know just how deadly the van Allen belt regions really are, otherwise the moon landing would have been a total failure.
Not really. They can just fly around the Van Allen Belts. Apollo did. But on the 9+ month trip to Mars and even on the surface of Mars you are exposed to the same radiation, just at a much lower rate for a much longer time. That makes the VAB a fantastic place to test unmanned craft. Also the whole "Moon landings are fake cause da Van Allen Belts is supper scary" argument is tedious. You only know the Van Allen Belt exists because of NASA. You will attempt to pretend it is a sphere surrounding Earth, when it is not... And you will make it super deadly because... why not.
Not quite. The radiation they need protection from is not the Van Allen Belts - which have been proven to be no problem at all - but rather long-term (cosmic) radiation, because they will be exposed to it for _years,_ not a few days.
@@christophe73 Yes, Apollo trips were only a few days. Orion missions are the ones that would be much longer, and thus would need better radiation protection. Which it has!
@@Tim22222 I've read that that isn't so difficult, either (the radiation shielding). You just need a thick enough barrier, and you can use your water supply for that.
According to James Van Allen you'd need a week in the space shuttle in the worst part of the VAB to acquire a fatal dose. And of course you can depart the Earth and go through zero % of the VAB. Just fly around it. The Apollo missions made a compromise and avoided 99% of the VAB at a cost of some time and fuel. And of course we can shield against the VAB 100% it just would not be a spacecraft worth putting into orbit.
@@tasharyder2386 no no no, we asked the people who says it’s fake to prove it Cmon where’s the proof? Are you gonna say it’s staged like always. And the flag is moving?
@@CruzeeStar no you're the ones who say it's been done you prove it. BTW my bible says there's a firmament so my FAITH is all the proof I need. But I'll bring some proof...
Supersonic passenger plane flew in 1969, no supersonic passenger plane flying today over 50 years later. Makes sense to me. See how easy it is to make a similar flawed argument? :-)
@@oppalus - Nah, I lived in London back then, Walworth to be more precise, where Concorde flying over never got old! People back then would look up to gaze at that beautiful airplane, where we knew it was arriving by the deep rumble 'roaring' sound increasing as it approached, and yet no-one was complaining that it was too loud, otherwise can you show me the TV reports and newspaper reports and articles back then about people in London complaining about the noise? I mentioned Concorde because I find it interesting that people can think of all the reasons why it had to come to an end, and yet when it comes to the several orders of magnitude more costly Saturn V rocket needed to get people to the moon, then some of those SAME people are unable to think of any reasons why it would have come to an end during the 70s :-)
im losing my mind reading them - also this wide awake person is really actively watching videos like this to say theyre wrong in multiple comment threads
NASA says the reason we dont go to the moon is because they lost the technology. That's the most absurd statement I have ever heard. You mean to tell me that the technology from the 60s was more advanced than now. Have you ever seen the space craft that they say went to the moon ? It's made out of aluminum foil . Lol
Uh that's not exactly what they mean. If it was they can literally just reverse engineer the actual Saturn V we still have lmao. What they lost is all the scientists who built it and with them their notes. If you think they didnt have to make small adjustments and all that then you are a fool. That's what they lost. Until now we didnt have a reason to go to the moon. That's why we didnt have the technology is because there was no reason to recreate it.
@@ditto9300 . I enjoy your videos. It took me sometime to believe that we live in a flat earth. When I compare the flat theory with the bible it's even more satisfying. Thank Yahweh for opening my eyes
@@ditto9300 that explanation still isn’t a good enough though yes they might have lost some of the notes for adjustments but they still would have been able to be figured out by other scientists too, as long as they had the final blue print they used. your telling you spent tha much money on something just to say we can’t build it again cause we lost some notes on It? 🧢
They are just being really dumb and these people who would rather believe whatever they are told then the truth the space vessel's in 1969 were no where secure to reflect the radiation of the Van Allen belts and lmao it gets better during the time they travelled was the highest radiation ever recorded and the suits of the astronauts literally had only like 2 or 3 layers of tinfoil sheets
In stead of making stuff up and thinking you are smarter that the NASA scientists, why don't you do some research and find out for yourself what the temperature of the moon was at the time of day. You might be surprised that it was no where near what your ignorance tells you.
@@damienrahul80085 No you can't. The astronaut hands are on the pole the whole time it is moving and it moves a little while after because of inertia - there is no atmosphere so no air pressure to slow it down. It is just wishful thinking on your part SMH
@@damienrahul80085 Do some research on the belt. You watch too many of the conspiracy videos which are there to make money. Why don't you do some research, independent of what those videos tell you. You will find that the belt would not have prevented them from going to the moon, not for the short periods they were exposed and the path they took. I guess you think you are smarter than the scientists LOL.
ye how about dust explain help me i need answers i have time i can read every file you trow me and how about Van Allen radiation belt? above belt there will be rain of rediation how ill film survive that and human?
NASA never considered faking the moon landing because the USSR was also trying and if the USSR made it to the moon soon after, the USA would have been exposed and humiliated in front of the world. No country would ever trust the USA for any scientific endeavour. The only people who think NASA would do this are people who themselves have no morals or a brain to realise that NASA would have been caught and face consequences. The idea that a nation would fake such a mission is preposterous, but here we are (we I am anyway) defending NASA. SMH.
@@nickrose8733 I know the moon landing was real but I just imagine it would be funny if they considered faking it but quickly realized it was impossible, I know that didn’t happen
It's generally very easy to debunk the supposed anomalies. For instance, the waving flag is one of the most 'simplistic' to explain - the flag moved when one of the astronauts was manipulating the flag pole - there, easy as.
Your dad was correct, just like Bill-Clinton's local carpenter, who told clinton the same thing when it happened!!! He didn't believe him, until he became president and found out for real that it had been faked, then he revealed it in his book, although by implication!!!!
@@oppalus - The temperature range in low Earth orbit is down to -250 F in the shade and up to 250 F in the sun, the same as when on the moon. Now search the net for images of; Ed White SpaceWalk Please tell me what you see Ed White holding out in the -250 F to 250 F of low Earth orbit. Isn't that a camera? :-)
How did they just gloss over the fact that with the Van Allen belts, if you actually look at the trajectory they took, they fly through the South pole on departure and through the North pole on arrival, you know, where the radiation belts ARE THE WEAKEST. I love how conveniently they always leave that out in all these handicapped conspiracy videos lmao.
The Van Allen belts as shown in this video do not represent reality. The bands completely encompass the earth and like the toroid that they are, they are the strongest at the poles. If you actually check on Nasa's trajectory they did not go through the poles for the aforementioned reason.
Maybe they leave it out because they know that Apollo 14 flew directly through the heart of the van Allan belts and not around them. Easy to find in the official mission report published by nasa.
I've never believed it was fake, and don't believe that now. Having said that, the explanation given here about the shadows is lacking. It may be that reflecting light is the cause of the purported "illusion," but simply stating that it was the cause is merely conclusory. More is required. How about a demonstration showing how reflecting light can cause such effects?
The explanation about shadows and the way the questions was phrased was bad. She mentioned shadow angles AND the fact that the shadows are not pitch black. These are 2 separate issues, and the shadow angles were not mentioned or explained in the answer. The explanation for the shadow angles is... That is totally normal. Photos taken on Earth can show the shadows at all sort of different angles. Wide angle lenses and uneven terrain make the effects more noticeable. The shadows of strange uneven shapes (rocks) are also strange and uneven. As for the fill light effect, the explanation is correct, but could go a step farther and mention the spacesuit of the astronauts, and the shiny silver surface of the lander, are acting as reflectors (in addition tot he surface of the moon that was mentioned).
Well actually mythbusters actually debunked this myth. Look it up, recreated the moon on a set and everything and showed that the dust on the moon is so reflective that what you see in the videos are possible.
@@501jaylee Imagine taking mythbusters seriously. That doesnt explain anything. Why was there no dust on Apollos feet ay? Because it was placed there as a prop. Not because of whatever excuse those 2 bafoons gave.
The sheer cost of this is without disute. However, back then it would still be possible, and cheaper than actually fake it. These flat earth people come up with some bull excrement, they cant even decide which model of a flat earth to choose from 😂
They should have incorporated the rubber suit Godzillas they were using in the late 60s. I mean, with that kind of Bogus film production, having astronauts chased by rubber dinosaurs and model planes on wires would have been worth the billions nasa stole.
Two things they didn't cover in enough detail about the Van Allen Belts . They should have said the Apollo space craft, didn't go straight through the belts, rather it just traversed the thinner parts and less harmful layers, and because of this, they weren't exposed to deadly amounts of radiation, and therefore they weren't affected as much. But to those who say "if that's the case, then why is the new Orion capsule needing more radiation protection than Apollo did?", Simple. the SLS isn't as powerful as the Saturn V, and because of this, it needs a higher orbit to gain momentum when doing TLI....The Saturn V was capable to get into a perfect circular orbit, and could be just below the radiated areas, like how the ISS is today.... but for SLS, because it's in an higher orbit, that orbit goes right into those belts.....There's your Answer *ADDENDUM* March 20th 2023:The engineer talking about Orion and the van allen belts was specifically talking about the first unmanned mission of the Orion capsule, EFT-1, that specific mission had a HIGHLY eccentric orbit, meaning at its highest point in the orbit the space craft would be taking on FAR MORE radiation for a LONGER period of time than any Apollo,Artemis astronaut would ever experience on these missions, as their trajectory is going through the belts at a much faster rate, meaning they experience less radiation.
It's also because of the electronics. The microcircuits of today are much more sensitive to radiation effects than the physically big electronics of Apollo.
@@GumballAstronaut7206 It's your comment, Goofball. It's just you and another user "Randy Schissler". I believe you're intelligent enough to know who "Financial Wizard" was talking to. They said "You guys". Come on, now, it's not that complicated. If anyone has a problem believing we don't go into space, they can pay Elon Musk to take them there. He'll prove them wrong.
I was listening to Eugine Cernan speaking. He was describing the wonder of landing on the moon. He said the engine shuts down, the dust settles and its complete silence. It was complete silence before the engine shut down as there is no air there so no sound can travel on the moon.
There is still vibration and sound transmitted through from the engines into the capsule. So they do hear the engines as there is air inside their lunar module which transmits sound. Its only when they depressurise the inside so there is no air that they would not be able to hear anything. If this was some sort of gotcha, you failed miserably.
@@nickrose8733 I'd actually thought of vibration, you provided confirmation. Vibration and dust swirling could be as intrusive as noise in a completely silent nviroment.
And that's the big reason it didn't happen. CCCP didn't open their mouth. That's very very suspicious. If this land on the moon was/is true I cannot imagine CCCP keeping their mouth shut.
@@ilkeadrall710 your logic is completely the opposite of what it should be. So if the ussr or china or india or anyone KNOWS ITS FAKE they shouldn’t talk about it? Why let the usa take the glory of winning the space race?? It happened. Its over, move on
@@alexalexalex797 I trust in my logic. And my logic tells me that you aren't quiet sure about that landing on the moon too. It happened, it's over, move on ... you agree with me ... it's not logically logic. By the way, may I have to understand that your logic is what it should be and that you're a great connoisseur on CCCP?
@@ilkeadrall710 once again. “Hello im the ussr and we hate the usa. We have an entire cold war going on where we spy and compete with eachother on everything. I just lost the space reace to a FAKE video. But i wont say anything or react. Its ok, let the usa win.” 🤷♂️
@@alexalexalex797 May I ask you how old you are? I don't want the precise number. Just between 30 - 35, or maybe 20 - 25. I don't know. Will you answer that question?
Thats the worst of them all. Anyone who knows Kubrick as a person knows he would of never had done it anyway. Its against his principles. Also when was the last time you have seen 2001 a space odyssey? Compare the effects in the film against real NASA Apollo 11 footage. Need I say more. CHEERS!
Armstrong was asked in an interview if he had seen stars in space and he stuttered answered: "no, space is black. Sometimes I saw some". So, her explanation is not correct.
@@randyschissler5791 If I was on the moon, under the blazing unfiltered sun, I'd pop my helmet off and take a good look for stars. From the moon you could see the exact same stars we see from Earth, so it would be really important to take a look.
So you’re telling me they broadcast this live in the 60’s when there was no color tv, and yet I lose reception on my phone in the woods in 2020 lol I guess
You're phone antenna is only designed to transmit to your nearest cellular tower and Cellular towers can only pick up a signal from a certain distance. So if theres no cellular towers near you...you wont get a signal. The lunar module antenna was transmitting to a tracking station in Australia, Tracking stations can pick up signals from a much greater distance compared to a Cellular tower. I hope that answers your question.
joshua hughes Lol bro I don’t mean literally my phone, it’s like now we can’t even get a live feed of them going to the moon, we get a blue screen etc.
@@jonathancerda794 what are you on about?? Haha, what do you mean by we now cant get a live feed of them going to the moon?? Well maybe because they haven't been to the moon since 1972 haha and blue screens???
They didnt mention the crater that was supposed to be left by the lunar module from its landing. If they really did land on the moon then why isnt there a crater underneath the lunar module. The moon surface is said to be dusty in a way. Like in a underwater cavern you disturb the dirt it goes everywhere. That didnt happen with the lunar module and it didnt happen with them walking around to. Also got to mention that in a few of these so called landings you can see a wire hooked on top of the astronauts head.
Which Apollo landing are you talking about? You know that there were six of them, right? Or, like most moon landing hoaxers, they think there was only one landing in question. Surely, you wouldn't expect a big huge crater, right? With such light gravity, 1/6 of earth's, it wouldn't take much to blast off. Astronauts held up by wires is nonsense!
@@randyschissler5791 Apollo 11 I saw it during a documentary beyond venus I believe it was. The wire was clear as day. It reflected off of the light. And if you can't see that well then get your eyes checked. Plus I wasnt expecting a huge crater. I was expecting a crater to be left by the lander when landing. Plus Buzz Aldrin came out and said that he never went up to space. Explain that one to me. But actually fo your research before commenting next time.
@@anthonyw9743 "Plus Buzz Aldrin came out and said that he never went up to space." Citation needed. Regarding the crater issue. There was only a thin layer of dust to be disturbed and solid rock below it. The dust layer was blown away, but it is too thin so leave a visible crater. The engine was also operating at low power and was shut off while the lander was still a few meters above the surface. The "wires" you believe you see are actually the antennas at the top of the life support pack.
@@anthonyw9743 There was no wire. What you saw was a reflection off light of the communications antenna on the backpack. Buzz never said we didn't go, He said we haven't been back. The lunar surface is hard rock beneath dust; the LEM used a low pressure (for reliability) rocket engine that was firing at only 3,000 pounds thrust before landing so along with the very thin atmosphere and low gravity there was not enough pressure to produce a crater; and the blast deflected dust sideways. If you look closely at some pictures of landing sites e.g. Apollo 11 you can see some disturbance under the engine.
Three days yes. Now just use a little brainpower.. think about how long a lunar day is. Then consider that if they landed in lunar morning (as they did), would they ever experience either of those maximums? After this, go google how a thermos flask works, and consider that maybe.. just maybe, them being in vacuum and only receiving and losing heat through radiation, wouldn't in any way be particularly worried about the surface temp.
What you have quoted are possible (You have not specified units so basically your numbers are meaningless) the max and min temperatures of the lunar surface over the course of a lunar day/night cycle. All 6 lunar landings took place shortly after lunar dawn when the temperatures were mid range. The measured temperature range encountered on the Apollo 11 landing for example was -23C to 7C. Take care.
@@TELEVISIONARCHIVES "Apollo 11 was lost" This is a fallacy. No data was lost. The only things that have gone astray are the original backup tapes. The data that they contained had been transposed to other tapes before the Apollo 11 tapes were sent to the archives.
My mother said the moon landing is cgi because the flag waving showed her this anddd she said, “I still don’t believe it.” I swear to god.. she believes it now lol.
Because since the 50s BOTH the USSR and USA were sending spacecraft into space (including to the moon) to collect information about radiation types and intensity, temperature, micro-meteoroid levels, etc. Hence the conditions were very well known by the end of the 60s. I hope that helped :-)
@@jonsmith3945 Yep, but the original assertion was this - "they couldn't go again even after 50years with high technology in 2023" Which as Artemis 1 demonstrated, is incorrect.
why did they never pan the camera up and show us the earth from the moon in any of the Apollo landing footage? The moon is in tidal lock and the earth would have always been above them and not once did they even mention it.
It’s weird how China said they need at least 15 years to go the moon and we did it 50+ years ago. Too bad according to NASA, we “destroyed” all the technology on how to get back to the moon, and lost the original footage because of the tape shortage in the 80’s. Especially because we nailed it first try, well except for the original crew of the Apollo 11, who died in a training accident around the same time as Kennedy. But yeah this video solved all my questions, i know for sure I can trust NASA, they’ve never been caught doctoring photos in this particular situation
@@TexMex421 thank god we didn't discover all the radiation that we can't get passed to clear low Earth gravity. NASA claims that since they didn't know about Van allen radiation belt, it didn't have any effect on them. It's that kind of sense that they had back when, those were the days. Agreed. Moving on.
@@awareoftheworldshotel9941u do know that they went to the moon from the south side and came back through the north where the radiation is the weakest but noooo why would we need actual science to explain we just need our big egos and not listen to experts
I'm kinda disappointed. Too many just give up after you debunk their argument and it is unclear whether they have changed their minds or just backing out of a fight they know they can't win.
becuase we don't need to. The Apollo program was successful because everyone wanted to beat the soviets at the time and NASA got tons of money to beat them in the space race. It only happened because of a perfect storm of money and public interest in space. Now, we don't really have the willingness to go, and, while it would be nice, it's not even needed. We got all the information of the moon we really need from apollo and LRO.
Will somebody please tell me how the photographic films survived the van Allen radiation belt. Also I guess those so called moonwalkers are actually pro Photographer s and not astronauts as they can shoot with perfect framing even without a viewfinder.
How about you know.. educating yourself? The VAB is comprised of alpha and beta radiation, both of which is easily stopped by the walls of the apollo spacecraft. And photos weren't shot perfectly. In fact the vast mayority was sort of all over the place, with the ones we know best being the few standouts (and even then many were retouched to look nicer for the press). Mind you, they had a TON of training in photography as part of their astronaut training (in addition to fields like geology etc, though these fields were focused way more on the later landings when they better knew how much time they'd be able to spend on the surface, how much payload they could afford to bring etc).
_Will somebody please tell me how the photographic films survived the van Allen radiation belt._ Easily. The Van Allen Belt radiation wasn't strong enough to destroy the photographic films. Whoever told you otherwise is either ignorant or being deliberately dishonest. _Also I guess those so called moonwalkers are actually pro Photographer s and not astronauts as they can shoot with perfect framing even without a viewfinder._ On _Apollo_ 11, precisely one roll of film was exposed on the lunar surface during the EVA. 125 pictures were taken. No less than 32 of them are obvious 'bad shots'. They are out of focus, badly framed, obvious accidental exposures and so on. A few are in perfect focus and do in fact contain things of interest, but are taken at an angle that makes it clear they were not taken deliberately. Still more are simple landscape shots that are very difficult to screw up as they contain no distinct 'subject'. Even with that, 25% of the pictures taken were not in perfect focus or perfectly framed. Even the iconic 'man on the Moon' image is badly framed and comes close to clipping Aldrin's head off.
It's easy to get "perfect framing" when you have a professional publicity department to search through thousands of photographs and select the best ones for publication.
@@kevinskinner4986 a slight problem there again. They aren't autofocus cam so the chances are almost nil. And it seems like "weight " is like a luxury that can't be afford., so taking thousands of photographs of a particular frame sounds like "₩%$# YOU"
@@dewishesso2305 _They aren't autofocus cam so the chances are almost nil._ Please, if you don't know much about photography, please don't pass judgements about the chances of the wide-angle infinity-focus camera capturing a good picture, okay?
They didn't fake it. But the explanation at the end seemed bad. Many people worked on the atomic bomb (130k) and most didnt know what was being worked on. That is just one example as well...
Not comparable my friend. Everyone at ALL LEVELS who worked on Apollo knew exactly what it was they were working towards and hence they knew EXACTLY where their work would fit within the bigger picture. The same cannot be said of the Manhattan Project.
@Hi i’m Dale! - Nope, even today it is impossible to recreate in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, unless that studio is on the moon ;-)
While "most" might not have known exactly. A LOT had a very high degree of understanding about the work they did. And most damning, they could NOT KEEP IT SECRET. Not from other countries who realised what they were doing, and not even as far as keeping the designs away from the USSR afterwards.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
ima be honest I'm only here because I was curious about the flag waving
Roswell 1947 UFO
Your FBI Agent yeah me too
There are videos of it waving
The flag moved without any one touched it. it just moved whenever someone passed nearby. just like earth. wind moved it. and there is no wind on moon.
@@nirvanaphoenix1858 No, the only time the flag moved was when an astronaut touched or came into contact with the flag pole.
You do realise that when the pole was moved, the flag would also move as a result.
This isn't rocket science my friend, but you are apparently too simple to understand it, lol.
Next Video: Why you can’t land on the sun at night
Sibi ....lol sounds like something AOC would say
XD
raisa y. ...surely you do realize it’s a joke. It’s called sarcasm humor lol The question is....what are “you” smoking ?
Chief Goose ikr thx
Chief Goose
He was joking
Legend says, the camera man is still chilling on the moon.
He's immortal
Yeah
He needs a q u a
@Aaron Saucedo ehh f'kim
He's still waiting for a ride back!!!
The Soviet Union.
The one country in the world at the time powerful enough to go toe to toe with America on pretty much everything.
Was completely ideologically opposed to America.
Had arguably the most expansive and sophisticated espionage organisations on the planet. Was able to successfully infiltrate America's nuclear weapon programs and steal several key data points for their own such research. The fact that they never got their hands on America's launch codes is a goddamn miracle
In short, a country with both the capabilities and all the reason in the world to show that America faked it.
...
They never once claimed America faked it.
because that's a rival that will do
@Bret 1959 money? To the soviets, useless american dollars, or even in roubles, that would just inflate their economy, not more money
Besides they even compared it to rocks they brought with the unmanned luna missions and found it to be the same
They had all the reason to do it
@Bret 1959 neil armstrong was a deist if i remember correctly, and buzz aldrin is a devout christian so dont know whats up with that. What i do know is they brought like ~380kg (840ish pounds) of moon rock checked by the soviets. Which would have been pretty hard using unmanned probes, as the luna missions bring back ~20 micrograms i believe
So whatever they did launch, it was hella impressive either way
@Bret 1959 also id like to hear why you thing manned space exploration is a fraud
@Bret 1959 they were not cooperating during the apollo era. If you could say your opponent was faking the winning why the hell wouldnt you? Also, intimidate? The ussr? Yeah good luck with that
Stars are not there cause it was day
Aryan Amatya
.... you’re really dumb
@@jellyfishsquawk Stars are not there because it is too bright on the moon to see stars. It's an eye thing. Go under a bright street light as see how many stars you see in the sky.
John Miller
Yes exactly.
R/wooooosh
And the camera can't take photos of stars, it's the 70's.
Another important aspect - if they were faked, would the Soviets not want to 'expose' the fake in a Cold War context? ie to get one over in the Space Race.
Even Soviet documents took the landings as factual
That's one aspect I didn't think about. I knew the moon landing was real, even before Mythbusters, but I didn't think about the Soviet response.
The reason is, both countries benefitted from having their populations brainwashed by fear. That's why Russia got all the wins and the US the big one. It was all agreed. The US not only didn't dispute the Luna program, they reported it on TV. This event obviously didn't happen. We can barely land a probe on the moon in 2024 and send a decent photo back with today's tech, and we're supposed to believe the Russians did it in 1966. How did they land it? What did they do that we can't seem to do nowadays (with any degree of certainty) with infinitely better tech?
The Cold War narrative has to be taken at face value for this argument to run (mind you, this argument, that the Soviets would have exposed it, is the strongest for why the moon landing actually happened, given the physical evidence requires you to believe in miracles). But if you know your history, you'll be aware of who was pulling Soviet strings, acting as financiers and transferring much technology to a technologically static society. Then, you'll understand the Soviets did not it was phony, and they knew better than to say something.
Well everyone was aware of eachother lies, in other words you tell the moon lading was fake I tell that Gagarin wasn't the first but the first to come back alive.
Also since when were the Soviets a truth reference ???
Step 1: click "sort by new"
Step 2: *grabs popcorn*
Step 3: enjoying ww3 but it's with keyboard instead of fighter planes,tanks etc
thats exactly what im here for :D
I thought the moon landing was real, however, after this video, I'm no longer sure the moon is even real
Look out your window at night buddy
@@gigachaf6986 Hologram.
@Hussain Ibn Ali , I thought we were all just Sims...I personally prefer Sims 3 to Sims 4...
@Mango Man don't bother urself thinking then
@@gigachaf6986 Thanks for making me laugh
I absolutely love how tv show about mysteries regarding moon landing is like 6 episodes long but you can get the same answers from this in like 4 minutes. Show is "Truth behind moon landing"
Well, those shows have to actually cite, and explain their standpoint, in detail. This video uses almost no detail to "debunk" everything.
@@Kaos1382 Uhm, yes it does? It's basic information. Not only that, but it's common science, like really, you have to have several accounts of brain damage not to see how stupid the conspiracies are.
@@finnicknoth6409 have you seen the Conspiracy that the moon is a hologram?
It's getting ridiculous
@@victoriannecastle even worse that its a artifical satellite made by extraterrestrial life and guess what the guy who made the theory said it was part of science fiction😂😂
You can get the 'answers' by watching their performance at the infamous 'return' press conference.
Never have I witnessed such sadness and brokenness from three souls on what should have been a momentous celebration of achievement. 🎉
So imagine what they saw up there? Would have been so beautiful
There's a interve of all the astronauts a few weeks after they got back and they said they didnt see or remember seeing any stars.
Well thats a downer
@@shawnsimmons697 the moon rock given to Holland was fake, 60% of Russians 40+% of England belive we faked it to prove superiority over Russia. Lost the technology to go back when neil Armstrong was asked about the computing power at the time he said it was less than a laptop. SpaceX isn't more technically advanced as nasa in the 60s?
not very much. people seem to forget about "light pollution". meaning more lights, less stars and sky. the sun itself, in all of its glory, was causing enough light pollution for there to be virtually no stars in the sky. they also saw alot of black. no atmosphere for the suns light to reflect off of and absorb means the sky was very black while looking one way and very bright while looking the other
In the movie studio? The saw the hot studio lights.
So iluminati is a lunar organisation....
i-lunar-nati
How high r u?
The UK realizing no one officially claimed Mars:you know the rules and so do I
Quick! Let's get Kubrick on the phone! 😂
Basically it’s a more universal establishment and no one can legally own it. It’s the same way with the South Pole and the moon. That’s why fe have researchers from all over the world studying the landings.
“Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”
mate you cant even claim the whole of Ireland
Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the Space!
Here before flat earthers
BrickRedDonut um no cuz flat earthers already new it was and always will that's y they teach different in school to throw you off into believing there is no creator c'mon you can't really believe everything they teach you in school but ever notice not one time does any teacher mentioned the Bible hum....
@Julie Walker oh yeah cuz I just love pills yup .n you don't forget to blow the balls since that's your belief's lol
Israel Garza how is the Bible a proof ? It’s a fictional book...
@@raf3611 Bible more accurate then your info so far revelation is accurate damn with all the crap going on and your going to doubt it lol your daydreaming wake up not talking crap just trying to help you understand just look into it add it up it's not coencedens
Israel Garza I’m pretty sure you haven’t been to school, I’m 16 yet I’m more intelligent than you 😂😂😂
People not believing in the moon landing is so disappointing
It’s very very frustrating not knowing the complete science and trying to explain sick obvious things
@rainforest walker Oh? Why?
@@coolnamebro We know how rockets work. You don't, so you have some homework to do.
@@Stubrit Because the moon has one sixth the gravity of earth, also they should literally be coming off the ground by at least three feet, and it looks like them moving on the moon was shot in slow motion. When you speed it up by twice the speed, you can tell they aren't on the moon.
@@2ndtonone1000 Why three feet? When did you speed it up and can we see that please?
@@2ndtonone1000 nope, stuff falls quite fast on the moon, why? No atmosphere, most people don’t realize just how much earth’s atmosphere slows everything down, you know what earth’s gravity is? 9.8 meters per second per second, but objects on earth fall much slower than that due to drag, the moon has no drag, and all objects fall at the same rate (which can be observed in the videos), so dust does not float in the air like it does on earth
People need to know that the space suits were literally emitting light from the sun
Not emitting, but reflecting back almost all of the light.
@Winged_Hunter256
No it wouldn’t melt since light from the Sun falls from a single direction, while the suit reflects the light in all directions around the space suit.
Beside, light from the Sun is not that strong to melt object around astronauts, so reflected light couldn’t do that either.
That's not right.
@@pascalxavier3367 I made a mistake the suits were reflecting light and almost reflecting all the light the sun was throwing at them
They were?
I have lost brain cells reading the comments.
Whatever you do, please do not go down there.
I just did Jesus it's terrible help me
HDXD OH NO
Same, some people think just because their Facebook group says it’s was fake and because they weren’t there with the astronauts means it was set up by the evil communists or something like that.
You are one of those who thinks the moon exists? Whateva. I have never seen no moon orbiting our planet.
Gregory Mosher same we clearly live in the matrix
I learned about all these when I was in high school in the late 1970's.
Lar M I used to get up in the middle of the night to watch each blast off. It was very exciting.
We went to Florida and watched one blast off.
It was incredible!
Do you know Mr. Edward Snowden ? A former US intelligence agency employee who fled to Russia. He said the "Apollo Manned Lunar Landing" was fake. Now the Chinese aircrafts on the moon are showing various details of truth silently, and use fact to debunk the scam of "Apollo program " in 51 years ago. When the Chinese aircraft landed on the surface of the moon, the shock wave of the reverse thruster blew all the dust (on the surface where the aircraft landed) very clean. But In the landing place of the "Apollo manned spacecraft landing " had so much soft dust that it can leave clear footprints, and under the "Apollo aircraft" was also no shock wave pit that will inevitably appear if used the parachute slows down during the landing process.
@@crestraizn 😂😂
@@ianchan9670 this is what 3 lines of coke does to a man
Well now you'll have to 'unlearn' it...
as it was faked.
Bro it was Kubrick but he was such a perfectionist he had to film it on the moon
Now thats a good theory. The moon landings were filmed on the moon. I love it.
I was thinking Scorsese myself 😂
Stanley 👏
Thats now the 834th time i have seen this comment
Satellites have been image-mapping the moon for years now. I'm trying to find a complete and detailed database of the entire thing, but haven't found anything. Can anyone supply such a link? Why is there more hi-detail imagery of Mars on Google Earth than there is of the Moon? If there is in fact no complete hi-detail of the whole Moon's surface, then can anyone tell me why?
Please and thank you.
I’m 90% sure the proper map of the moon you need some sort of good reason to access it and use it as mars has been mapped but not in detail as it’s very far away so many people cant just look at it like the moon I reckon if you ask the right people they will just hand you the map let’s say you study astronomy you have a great reason to use it and you will have no worries access it
(a) we don't have a high-detail map of the earth. It's not simple to do, since good resolution (i.e. 1 pixel per meter) requires quite high technology and VERY expensive optics.
(b) a typical mapping probe can only map a path a mile or so wide, at maximum resolution. It has to be fairly low (i.e. close) to get the good resolution. How many 1-mile stripes do you think it takes to map the whole moon?
(c) all orbiting things have a fixed path. In order to change that path, you need to have some external force. While the moon's gravity can alter the orbit path slightly, in order to map you really would have to use rocket fuel. That's a LOT of rocket fuel to make the adjustments.
(b) there's no real incentive to image-map the moon. We don't need it, and there's not really anything specifically interesting to learn. Heck, we haven't mapped the earth, and we live here.
TL;DR: you'd have to build a very expensive camera, put it in a satellite with a massive amount of fuel, and then you'd still probably need several of them. It's too costly, since we don't have a reason to do it, and there's lots of other more interesting stuff to do with the money. E.g. We can build SEVERAL Hubble replacements, or map the moon. We don't care about the moon.
@Winged_Hunter256 because Google Maps depends on low flying aircraft for the high quality pictures. Also note that less than 0.1% of the Earth has the high res that you see on Google.
Dont make the mistake of presuming that what you see in Google while looking at 1st world cities is what is available for even 99% of the rest of the planet.
NASA sent up a probe called the LROC that photographed the entire surface of the Moon. Somewhere on the internet is a repository of all the images, but beware, they are all around 500Mb each
NASA has some maps of the moon you can get from their site. It is only patches around where they say that they landed though.. Interesting huh?
All 3 astronauts were asked at the press conference if they had seen any stars from the lunar surface..they replied they don't recall seeing any stars.
You should have paid attention to the reporter's question, when he asked: "could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?" Could you see stars while looking in the solar corona?
@@randyschissler5791 .Michael Collins confirmed he "I dont remember seeing any stars" in general terms .
@@shazyboy227 False! His answer was in reference to the period of time they were photographing the solar corona.
@@randyschissler5791 Michael Collins orbited the moon alone in the command module while Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon.Whilst orbiting around the dark side of moon he was in total darkness .He says he can't remember seeing any stars at all. Micheal Collins never set foot on the moon.
@@shazyboy227 "He says he can't remember seeing any stars at all. "
He was responding to the reporter's question: "could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?"
i was so confused when people said there was a "waving flag". I literally could see the rod going through the top of the flag in any pictures and automatically decided the other bit was drooping because the astronauts would've moved the flag causing it to be disturbed, giving it the rippling effect. I was like you guys are silly to believe that it's waving, but i guess you all know that now so good on you!
As soon as I saw the theory of that I was like are people rlly that stupid there a rod that you can see
@@hdxd5808 yes, i was thinking the exact same thing. and its so called 'moving' cuz there isnt one at the bottom.
It's nothing to do with a rod at the top, it was blowing *despite* that.
@@neilarmstrongsson795 Yes, even in the still photos you can see movement if you take enough drugs.
@@neilarmstrongsson795 I suppose you believed your dad when he said the reason they didn't drown in the Sea of Tranquility is because they landed whilst the tide was out?
#1: If you actually watched the moon landing (full video), you’d see them setting up the flag.
And the astronaut almost broke his legs when jump dawn the apolo hahahah fo fake !!!
Lovo Del Sur what? Broken English much?
rescue08jr Gaming I’m not even sure what he’s trying to say.
@@rescue08jrgaming91 wdym this is FO FAKE!!!!!! When the, jump dawn apolo lags stAd STIL! fejk!
@@te69penene no enhglist
We see the flag suddenly start waving during lunar liftoff because the moon has a very very thin atmosphere. Conspiracy theorists use this flag waving to prove it was filmed in a studio on Earth ( with an atmosphere ).
The flag is waving (on lift off) because there is a rocket engine spewing gas. Some of the slight waving when the astronauts are on the surface may be due to waste gas released from the space suits.
The moon's atmosphere is not an atmosphere. It has gas particles that seep out of its rock and escape into space, or come from the sun as part of the solar wind and happen to hit the moon. This gas is 10^13 times thinner than earth, that is 1/10,000,000,000,000 and it is not bound to the moon by gravity. It just floats away into space.
@@DeputyNordburg a flag can also wave in a vacuum even without wind if its tapped at all
@@Tree-hp6rw except it can’t
@@monsecko4792 if theres no air to put force against the flag then if its tapped it will wave for a very long time
@@Tree-hp6rw not necessarily, a small blast of wind in the studio is enough.
One thing I absolutely loathe about moon landing conspiracy theories, and that prevents me from taking them in the slightest consideration, is their one-sided arguments and double standards in favor of the Soviets. Conspiracy theorists absolutely do not want to accept that the Americans actually sent humans to the moon, but at the same time, they never have the slightest problem blindly accepting that all Soviet successes in the early years of the Space Race are one hundred percent real and authentic. I would ask the following questions: Why should only the Apollo missions seem "suspicious" and be accused repeatedly of being fake? What is it about the Soviet space milestones that is most realistic and credible that makes them immune to any doubt? What would be the certain, absolute, irrefutable, unfalsifiable proof of everything the Soviets did, and why can't the same reasoning be used to confirm once and for all that man really did walk on the moon? I have yet to find anyone who gives me an answer.
👏👏👏
the shadows arent wrong you can the stars on the dark side or the shadows and the people say its fake they are freakin stupid and very very not educated
but actually NASA did not know how to fake the moon landing like if you say why are there no stars on the moon it's because can you see stars in the day on earth that's how it works you can't see the stars in the day light in the dark side you can see stars in the dark side😑
I never believed the conspiracy theory
You better wake up! The government bumped yo' head real good!
Sheep
sandrarthornton you "believers" worry that you are so insignificant,you so desperately want to be a part of something larger,to rebel and think you made a change or difference without actually trying,you just can't seem to take in the fact that you have a normal life,you cannot change that,you never can
supah comix who was this directed to ? Not clear.
Have a great day
@@DVDRAR bruh chill
If they could go to the moon in the 1960's, why don't they go back on a regular basis?
Literally the government said they lost the paperwork that had the proper technology to do so. I wish I was making that up
Because it would cost enormous amounts of money to do so, and there would little if any practical benefit. And no, space tourism is not a money making venture.
Because it is insanely expensive to go back. After Apollo 17 (6th time landing on the moon) government funding was cut and parts to the SaturnV rocket were no longer being manufactured and sold therefore they became obsolete. So NASA turned their attention to other missions. All those Apollo missions was a total of about 28 billion USD. Due to inflation today that would be 283 billions USD. NASA’s budget is only 22 billion USD. Don’t worry though, NASA will be landing humans on the moon again in 2024! Possibly 2025. The Artemis Program
@@nashiacharlson9899 where are you getting this from. Paperwork?? Do you have any link to an article or video where this was said?
It is like saying if you climbed Mt Everest once, then it should be easy and you should be going regularly. It is a silly suggestion because climbing Mt Everest is risky, expensive, and once you have gone once, there is kind of no reason to keep going. Same as the moon missions.
Did he just say “the government can’t keep a secret “
Democratic governments find it extremely hard to keep stuff secret for long, yes! Especially if it involved multiple agencies.
Everything the government tells you is a lie. Evolution moon landing coronavirus marriage
Then why not go back 🤨🤨
Because to get people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in *history,* which NASA achieved in the 60s with the Saturn V rocket thanks to Congress increasing their budget to a peak of *9 times normal* to make it happen.
Once Congress felt it was "mission accomplished" they withdrew all the extra funding for NASA and so no more Saturn V rockets could be built, resulting in the end of the Apollo program (the planned missions Apollo 18 to 20 had to be cancelled!).
But now look up the *SLS rocket* being built by NASA/Boeing and due to launch this year (after many delays), where it will take the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth.
The SLS is slightly more powerful than the 60s Saturn V rocket, and hence that's the massive rocket that will return people back to the moon in 2024.
I hope that information helps :-)
@بن محمد no the supply chain doesn't exist anymore and the saturn v although a beast was bassicly engineering through brute force not very safety
because they never really went there at first place
They did. Several times
Literally just ONE word *"Money"*
''5 famous moon landing conspiracy theories''
You don't even know what the word 'conspiracy' means
I think the conspiracy comes from how much 2001 a space odyssey looked to the actual moon landing. Like considering man hadn't been on the moon by the release of 2001 a space odyssey that makes what the movie accomplishes even more of a feat of human achievement.
Though a great movie, it was lousy when it came to the moon sequences. Kubrick hardly even tried to replicate 1/6 gravity in a vacuum. He was smart enough to know it couldn't be done convincingly, so didn't bother.
@@randyschissler5791 in a previous comment I said that my superstition of the conspiracy ended at the movement of the astronauts in the moon sequence. Like the scenery of the moon's surface was spot on, but like you said he didn't even attempt the gravity element of man walking on the moon. But when Frank Poole is floating in 0 Gs it looks relatively convincing for its time.
@@JoshyMill you couldn't fit that in a basement though. That's just the red hot chili peppers line.
@@JoshyMill
"The conspiracy goes that stanley kubrick was the one that the CIA got to shoot the moon landing.."
It took Kubrick 4 years to make "2001..." - how many decades would he have needed to create the hours of footage from all the Apollo missions?
Kubrick filmed the moon landings on the moon! He demanded authenticity.
Ppl are supposed to become smarter overtime not dumber 😂😂😂
Yes, but the people really in charge, want us dumbed down. That's the purpose of schooling. Read Charolette Iserbyt or John Taylor Gatto.
same with technology
And what about the footprint on the moon being different than the sole of the Boot of Neil.A
They wore moon boots for the moon, which they left behind. Dah
Neil was wearing a boot cover on the the moon and took it off once he got back on the spacecraft.
Hey you, yes you sorting by “newest first” I’ve come from the future to tell you to stop, it’s not worth it don’t go keep your faith in humanity please.
Tell my mum i love her
You were right, now I am regretting,
I should have stopped reading comments.
My all hopes for humanity is now gone.
Too many ridiculous conspiracies out there. It messed my brother up.
This video is unofficially sponsored by NASA
Nasa does not sponsor
@@basedguns8218 Ok Nasa
" You can tell it's real because it looks so fake "
Elon Musk
People just can't accept the fact that Neil Armstrong did land on the moon, it's pathetic
Deep throat the propaganda and disregard your instincts
Bro theses people are lost. They think thag they are smarter than everyone and they thing that the whole existence lf your planet is controlled by a large conspiracy 😂
It's not really about the conspiracies per say, but other questions. I'm aware of "no air resistance", I'm aware of the "mechanism made for the flag" I learned these at a very young age as I wanted to be part of Nasa. Even I've debunked those arguments before these recent wave of videos were made.
But when your rhetoric is "we cannot make a 2nd moon trip, because its not financially worth it"... I feel that's an ad-hoc reason specifically due to what new technology can do for us now. We'd have far better images, and could even have them bring specific equipment to prove its 100% real to people who're spectating. If anything there's more ways to prove it NOW than back then.
Thus, I don't know why Aldren, and the others on Apollo give iffy answers when asked about it. Why he told the little girl they never landed on the moon... given the room around conspiracy, troll bait is the last thing you'd want.
I think it's also a mix of data and misinformation included that creates conspiracy, such as inconsistent moon surface temperatures, recordings, and more. Such as how did they make their return trip? And why WOULDN'T you want to visit the moon again? But oh well :\
ATARi _HMB The reason why they wanted to get to the moon is to win the Space Race against the Soviets. Once that’s done, the US pretty much neglected NASA.
ATARi _HMB said _"But when your rhetoric is "we cannot make a 2nd moon trip, because its not financially worth it"."_
Wrong. The real reason is politics and finance. There needs to be political continuity. By that I mean you can't have the political parties canceling each other's projects just to get over on the opposing party. This has been going on for decades. Has virtually nothing to do with technology.
-
_"We'd have far better images, and could even have them bring specific equipment to prove its 100% real to people who're spectating. If anything there's more ways to prove it NOW than back then. "_
The only thing that would be better is the live TV broadcasts since we now have at least HD. The photos that were taken by Apollo were fantastic as they used medium format film. Even the 16mmDAC film footage is pretty good. The only parts that would be considered bad quality were the live TV broadcasts as they were limited to 320i NTSE video and not the standard 500i of TV back then. As for "more ways to prove it now" well, the conspiracists will just claim it is all CGI. Besides, the LRO shot images of the landing sites in 2011 and that wasn't good enough for the conspiracists. They had their typical excuses.
-
_"Thus, I don't know why Aldren, and the others on Apollo give iffy answers when asked about it. Why he told the little girl they never landed on the moon... given the room around conspiracy, troll bait is the last thing you'd want. "_
That is not what he was asked. He was asked why we haven't gone back, and his answer was because they just never went back. Keep in mind he is 90 some odd years old talking to a child. Also, his many other answers during that interview are often ignored in favor of that one cherry-picked response. And lastly, a lot of the people complaining about the moon landings have another conspiracy to champion, and that is the flat earth. They thin the earth is flat, therefore space is fake, and nobody went to the moon. That being said, there is no evidence to support mOoN hOaX believers. ALL have been debunked many times.
They also dont explain how they were able to shield against the deadly radiation that exists beyond earth's near orbit.
"we cannot make a 2nd moon trip, because its not financially worth it"
*7th. More if we're talking missions that didn't land, but if you're talking about missions like this, there have been six. If you'd really studied these things as much as you said, you would know this, unless you just stopped looking into any of it after 1969.
Getting some serious, bad faith, "I'm just asking questions" kind of vibes, dude.
@@maskonfilteroff3145 nah, I just want to watch the world burn.
If mr. Neil Armstrong said he landed on the moon, then he landed on the moon.
The CIA probably threatened his family so he wouldn’t spill the beans
I want one of those popcorn makers that they used to get back home
???
What
You know they had this massive multi-stage rocket to leave the Earth but they got home on that popcorn maker looking contraption that looks like a golf cart wrapped in aluminum foil
I want that amazing ship
@@rock-a-dayjonny7446 ditto
@@rock-a-dayjonny7446 actually that wasnt the bit that got them home. After they left the moon, they docked with a cone-shaped spacecraft about the same size. They went from the popcorn maker to the cone, and flew the cone back home. The popcorn maker had a computer that made it deorbit itself and smash itself into the moon so that
A; they could measure seismic activity
B; it wouldnt help clutter space over the moon
It's hilarious to me that a lot of the same people who think that the Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot film is real, think that the moon landing film is fake.
Ok , flat earther would you try to watch the video next time
@@SuhaybSuhayb-sc2po Will you?
@@torreyintahoe not trying to be mean, but the video debunked every argument
@@SuhaybSuhayb-sc2po I know.
@@torreyintahoe ok👍 (sorry for calling you a flat earther)
Space propaganda is like the movie business, You collect billions of tax payer dollars and play a film for them.
Nope. Next? :-)
What happened to all the NASA conspiracy theory videos on RUclips ??
@Bret 1959 Personally, I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I believe people have a right to voice their own opinions of their viewpoint of the world whether it's flat earth or moon landing hoax. I don't know if RUclips did remove those videos but I find that kinda scary.
Bret 1959 Is it just hard to believe that they landed it or are you on a communist side and don’t want to believe it
Bret 1959 OK you have a lot of evidence but NASA has more
Same question, very very strange!! Even simple videos of zoomed full moon r taken down, they send u a copyright claim that YOUR video belongs to disney 😂😅 i dont really give one flying f if the landing was real or not but id like to understand why so much censorship all of a sudden
My dad is a generally smart person but believes in the moon landing being fake. His argument is that nasa at the time didn't have advanced enough technology to go up there and back. He says that all the stuff on it was put by unmanned missions. When I try to tell him that they did have the technology, he asks me why did they not have many successive missions.
Did you tell him that they had nine missions to the moon, and six of them landed on the moon? I would call that successive missions.
I know this is late but tell him that it just costs to much and doesn't make much sense to. We are permanently going back in 2024 though can't wait.
@@nebtheweb8885 I think until 1972. And never more. I would call that non-successive misisons.
Bro my dad keeps saying the same things
The Soviets did use a 20t rocket to land their unmanned probes on the Moon. The US massive 3000t rockets for their manned missions.
One of the major hurdles standing between SpaceX and it’s Mars colony mission is how to protect the crew, electronics and organic materials such as seeds from the highly energized particles in the Van Allen belts. The Van Allen belts aren’t just overlapping bands of radiation, that we don’t have the ability to shield against, that would be bad enough. We’re talking about passing slowly through a planetary scale super-massive particle accelerator… It’s a good thing the general public didn’t know just how deadly the van Allen belt regions really are, otherwise the moon landing would have been a total failure.
Not really. They can just fly around the Van Allen Belts. Apollo did. But on the 9+ month trip to Mars and even on the surface of Mars you are exposed to the same radiation, just at a much lower rate for a much longer time. That makes the VAB a fantastic place to test unmanned craft.
Also the whole "Moon landings are fake cause da Van Allen Belts is supper scary" argument is tedious. You only know the Van Allen Belt exists because of NASA. You will attempt to pretend it is a sphere surrounding Earth, when it is not... And you will make it super deadly because... why not.
Not quite. The radiation they need protection from is not the Van Allen Belts - which have been proven to be no problem at all - but rather long-term (cosmic) radiation, because they will be exposed to it for _years,_ not a few days.
@@christophe73 Yes, Apollo trips were only a few days. Orion missions are the ones that would be much longer, and thus would need better radiation protection. Which it has!
@@Tim22222 I've read that that isn't so difficult, either (the radiation shielding). You just need a thick enough barrier, and you can use your water supply for that.
According to James Van Allen you'd need a week in the space shuttle in the worst part of the VAB to acquire a fatal dose. And of course you can depart the Earth and go through zero % of the VAB. Just fly around it.
The Apollo missions made a compromise and avoided 99% of the VAB at a cost of some time and fuel.
And of course we can shield against the VAB 100% it just would not be a spacecraft worth putting into orbit.
Who else is here for online homework
Nasa makes the "Fast n Furious " franchise look legit by comparison
Imagine doing the most ambitious thing ever in mankind and people saying it’s fake
Yes ofc it was
To Every people who thinks it's FAKE, I have one question for ya. PROVE IT
Do ONE MORE moon walk and we'll believe...
You prove it...
@@tasharyder2386 no no no, we asked the people who says it’s fake to prove it
Cmon where’s the proof? Are you gonna say it’s staged like always. And the flag is moving?
@@tasharyder2386 sorry I overreacted lol
@@CruzeeStar no you're the ones who say it's been done you prove it.
BTW my bible says there's a firmament so my FAITH is all the proof I need.
But I'll bring some proof...
@@tasharyder2386 Oh my gosh, the BIBLE? THE BIBLE?!
When Russia goes to the space :
🙂😃🤗 let go haha American is falling behind
When us goes to the space :
😡🤬😠 no it's fake it's media game
its the only time in history till this day a human 'travelled to the moon' lol
Lands on moon in 1969, but can't land on moon for another 5 years in 2022. Makes sense to me.
5 years?
Supersonic passenger plane flew in 1969, no supersonic passenger plane flying today over 50 years later. Makes sense to me.
See how easy it is to make a similar flawed argument? :-)
@@yazzamx6380 people really hated the sound of the Concorde
@@oppalus - Nah, I lived in London back then, Walworth to be more precise, where Concorde flying over never got old!
People back then would look up to gaze at that beautiful airplane, where we knew it was arriving by the deep rumble 'roaring' sound increasing as it approached, and yet no-one was complaining that it was too loud, otherwise can you show me the TV reports and newspaper reports and articles back then about people in London complaining about the noise?
I mentioned Concorde because I find it interesting that people can think of all the reasons why it had to come to an end, and yet when it comes to the several orders of magnitude more costly Saturn V rocket needed to get people to the moon, then some of those SAME people are unable to think of any reasons why it would have come to an end during the 70s :-)
Except you could buy a ticket and fly on the Concord, they didn't have to fake that like they did the "moon landings".
False equivalency fallacy.
🔥
Please don't sort comments by new. I've lost all faith in humanity, not that I had a lot to begin with.
Don't let the trolls put you off :-)
@@jeviljuice1633 - Thanks my friend, that means a lot
👍
im losing my mind reading them - also this wide awake person is really actively watching videos like this to say theyre wrong in multiple comment threads
NASA says the reason we dont go to the moon is because they lost the technology. That's the most absurd statement I have ever heard. You mean to tell me that the technology from the 60s was more advanced than now. Have you ever seen the space craft that they say went to the moon ? It's made out of aluminum foil . Lol
Uh that's not exactly what they mean. If it was they can literally just reverse engineer the actual Saturn V we still have lmao. What they lost is all the scientists who built it and with them their notes. If you think they didnt have to make small adjustments and all that then you are a fool. That's what they lost. Until now we didnt have a reason to go to the moon. That's why we didnt have the technology is because there was no reason to recreate it.
Well, its actually because NASA is pretty much broke for a space agency.
@@ditto9300 . I enjoy your videos. It took me sometime to believe that we live in a flat earth. When I compare the flat theory with the bible it's even more satisfying. Thank Yahweh for opening my eyes
Project Artemis 2024
@@ditto9300 that explanation still isn’t a good enough though yes they might have lost some of the notes for adjustments but they still would have been able to be figured out by other scientists too, as long as they had the final blue print they used. your telling you spent tha much money on something just to say we can’t build it again cause we lost some notes on It? 🧢
I always believed we went to the moon until I watched this video
You never did
Damn bro go to school
"Moon buggy " wheels that spray dust everywhere..
Lunar landers that don't.
🤔 🤔
The lunar lander did. You can see it in the footage and hear the astronauts acknowledge it.
If the sun was shining on them then the heat would have been absolutely crazy. They literally would have been cooked to a burned steak
They are just being really dumb and these people who would rather believe whatever they are told then the truth the space vessel's in 1969 were no where secure to reflect the radiation of the Van Allen belts and lmao it gets better during the time they travelled was the highest radiation ever recorded and the suits of the astronauts literally had only like 2 or 3 layers of tinfoil sheets
Watch from 3:04 and you can clearly also see the flag movement not because of the astronauts shaking it but the air
In stead of making stuff up and thinking you are smarter that the NASA scientists, why don't you do some research and find out for yourself what the temperature of the moon was at the time of day. You might be surprised that it was no where near what your ignorance tells you.
@@damienrahul80085 No you can't. The astronaut hands are on the pole the whole time it is moving and it moves a little while after because of inertia - there is no atmosphere so no air pressure to slow it down. It is just wishful thinking on your part SMH
@@damienrahul80085 Do some research on the belt. You watch too many of the conspiracy videos which are there to make money. Why don't you do some research, independent of what those videos tell you. You will find that the belt would not have prevented them from going to the moon, not for the short periods they were exposed and the path they took. I guess you think you are smarter than the scientists LOL.
Look I’m baldi
What
Ok that’s cool
ye
how about dust explain
help me i need answers
i have time i can read every file you trow me
and how about Van Allen radiation belt?
above belt there will be rain of rediation
how ill film survive that and human?
Now I like to think that NASA almost considered faking the moon landing and then realized it would basically be impossible
NASA never considered faking the moon landing because the USSR was also trying and if the USSR made it to the moon soon after, the USA would have been exposed and humiliated in front of the world. No country would ever trust the USA for any scientific endeavour. The only people who think NASA would do this are people who themselves have no morals or a brain to realise that NASA would have been caught and face consequences. The idea that a nation would fake such a mission is preposterous, but here we are (we I am anyway) defending NASA. SMH.
@@nickrose8733 I know, I just find it funny to think that could’ve happened
@@nickrose8733 I know the moon landing was real but I just imagine it would be funny if they considered faking it but quickly realized it was impossible, I know that didn’t happen
It was more easy to really land on the moon that time than faking it.
Today it whould be very easy with CGI
Well. It’s hard to believe it, but the sun still exists on the moon, 🤯. Crazy right? It’s like earth. When the suns out you can’t see any stars.
The worst debunking I have ever seen, awfully simplistic.
It's generally very easy to debunk the supposed anomalies.
For instance, the waving flag is one of the most 'simplistic' to explain - the flag moved when one of the astronauts was manipulating the flag pole - there, easy as.
I want to thank the people who made this
Cause don't have to deal with idiots say the earth is flat Donald Trump is the kraken I don't know
My dad thinks that the moonlanding is fake... I feel so ashamed
AND WE AREN'T EVEN AMERICANS
Funny thing happend on the way to the moon
Your dad was correct, just like Bill-Clinton's local carpenter, who told clinton the same thing when it happened!!! He didn't believe him, until he became president and found out for real that it had been faked, then he revealed it in his book, although by implication!!!!
@@kareemsalessi i'm dissapointed In you.
My father never went there.
@@neilarmstrongsson795 Thanks for blowing his whistle, at last!!!! Did he leave a recording of this confession???
Cameras not affected by heat/cold extreme or radiation.
Do you really think they would get normal cameras and not modified ones?
@@oppalus beep boop fallacy bot
@@BadAtTeaDude so true
@@oppalus Turing test
@@oppalus - The temperature range in low Earth orbit is down to -250 F in the shade and up to 250 F in the sun, the same as when on the moon.
Now search the net for images of; Ed White SpaceWalk
Please tell me what you see Ed White holding out in the -250 F to 250 F of low Earth orbit.
Isn't that a camera? :-)
How did they just gloss over the fact that with the Van Allen belts, if you actually look at the trajectory they took, they fly through the South pole on departure and through the North pole on arrival, you know, where the radiation belts ARE THE WEAKEST. I love how conveniently they always leave that out in all these handicapped conspiracy videos lmao.
@@nikezak22 Continue hiding from reality. I'm sure it'll go away eventually.
The Van Allen belts as shown in this video do not represent reality. The bands completely encompass the earth and like the toroid that they are, they are the strongest at the poles. If you actually check on Nasa's trajectory they did not go through the poles for the aforementioned reason.
Maybe they leave it out because they know that Apollo 14 flew directly through the heart of the van Allan belts and not around them. Easy to find in the official mission report published by nasa.
Yep, and they're only in the Van Allen belts for a very short time (a few hours I think). They just clipped the edge of it.
@@Christobanistan No they didnt clipped the edge. They travelled through the heart ^^
came for the moon landing deniers. did not disappoint
Tell the Easter bunny we said hi
*angry shane noises*
At least Shane points out that these are conspiracies and not fact
Shine light bounces and lights the man much brighter the the lander ... So sunlight now chooses what it wants to light up ? How does that work ?
Which proves your understanding of light is as poor as your understanding of radiation :-)
Yes the light has decided to light the bright white spacesuit much more than. the dull grey spacecraft. Who would have believed it!!!????
I've never believed it was fake, and don't believe that now. Having said that, the explanation given here about the shadows is lacking. It may be that reflecting light is the cause of the purported "illusion," but simply stating that it was the cause is merely conclusory. More is required. How about a demonstration showing how reflecting light can cause such effects?
The explanation about shadows and the way the questions was phrased was bad. She mentioned shadow angles AND the fact that the shadows are not pitch black. These are 2 separate issues, and the shadow angles were not mentioned or explained in the answer.
The explanation for the shadow angles is... That is totally normal. Photos taken on Earth can show the shadows at all sort of different angles. Wide angle lenses and uneven terrain make the effects more noticeable. The shadows of strange uneven shapes (rocks) are also strange and uneven.
As for the fill light effect, the explanation is correct, but could go a step farther and mention the spacesuit of the astronauts, and the shiny silver surface of the lander, are acting as reflectors (in addition tot he surface of the moon that was mentioned).
@@TexMex421 Thank you for explaining apsolutely nothing.
Well actually mythbusters actually debunked this myth. Look it up, recreated the moon on a set and everything and showed that the dust on the moon is so reflective that what you see in the videos are possible.
@@501jaylee Imagine taking mythbusters seriously. That doesnt explain anything. Why was there no dust on Apollos feet ay? Because it was placed there as a prop. Not because of whatever excuse those 2 bafoons gave.
@@caravan3636 I’m not gone argue with you lmaoo, we landed on the moon, and our government isn’t lizard people.
The sheer cost of this is without disute. However, back then it would still be possible, and cheaper than actually fake it.
These flat earth people come up with some bull excrement, they cant even decide which model of a flat earth to choose from 😂
They should have incorporated the rubber suit Godzillas
they were using in the late 60s.
I mean, with that kind of Bogus film production, having astronauts chased by rubber dinosaurs and model planes on wires would have been worth the billions nasa stole.
The number of people who can keep a secret is about the same number that you invite to a birthday party.
They didn't need the contractors to know that the things they were contracted to make weren't actually going to be used or worn on the moon.
Two things they didn't cover in enough detail about the Van Allen Belts . They should have said the Apollo space craft, didn't go straight through the belts, rather it just traversed the thinner parts and less harmful layers, and because of this, they weren't exposed to deadly amounts of radiation, and therefore they weren't affected as much.
But to those who say "if that's the case, then why is the new Orion capsule needing more radiation protection than Apollo did?",
Simple. the SLS isn't as powerful as the Saturn V, and because of this, it needs a higher orbit to gain momentum when doing TLI....The Saturn V was capable to get into a perfect circular orbit, and could be just below the radiated areas, like how the ISS is today.... but for SLS, because it's in an higher orbit, that orbit goes right into those belts.....There's your Answer
*ADDENDUM* March 20th 2023:The engineer talking about Orion and the van allen belts was specifically talking about the first unmanned mission of the Orion capsule, EFT-1, that specific mission had a HIGHLY eccentric orbit, meaning at its highest point in the orbit the space craft would be taking on FAR MORE radiation for a LONGER period of time than any Apollo,Artemis astronaut would ever experience on these missions, as their trajectory is going through the belts at a much faster rate, meaning they experience less radiation.
It's also because of the electronics. The microcircuits of today are much more sensitive to radiation effects than the physically big electronics of Apollo.
You guys should stop feeding into the lies, it's unhealthy
You so much invested in this cap
@@financialwizard5181 who you talking to?
@@GumballAstronaut7206 It's your comment, Goofball. It's just you and another user "Randy Schissler". I believe you're intelligent enough to know who "Financial Wizard" was talking to. They said "You guys". Come on, now, it's not that complicated. If anyone has a problem believing we don't go into space, they can pay Elon Musk to take them there. He'll prove them wrong.
I was listening to Eugine Cernan speaking. He was describing the wonder of landing on the moon. He said the engine shuts down, the dust settles and its complete silence. It was complete silence before the engine shut down as there is no air there so no sound can travel on the moon.
There is still vibration and sound transmitted through from the engines into the capsule. So they do hear the engines as there is air inside their lunar module which transmits sound. Its only when they depressurise the inside so there is no air that they would not be able to hear anything. If this was some sort of gotcha, you failed miserably.
@@nickrose8733 No I got an I explanation didn't I. And a like for you to.
@@nickrose8733 I'd actually thought of vibration, you provided confirmation. Vibration and dust swirling could be as intrusive as noise in a completely silent nviroment.
Here’s the easiest debunk.
NO OTHER NATION DENIED IT HAPPENED.
And that's the big reason it didn't happen. CCCP didn't open their mouth. That's very very suspicious. If this land on the moon was/is true I cannot imagine CCCP keeping their mouth shut.
@@ilkeadrall710 your logic is completely the opposite of what it should be.
So if the ussr or china or india or anyone KNOWS ITS FAKE they shouldn’t talk about it?
Why let the usa take the glory of winning the space race??
It happened. Its over, move on
@@alexalexalex797 I trust in my logic. And my logic tells me that you aren't quiet sure about that landing on the moon too. It happened, it's over, move on ... you agree with me ... it's not logically logic. By the way, may I have to understand that your logic is what it should be and that you're a great connoisseur on CCCP?
@@ilkeadrall710 once again.
“Hello im the ussr and we hate the usa. We have an entire cold war going on where we spy and compete with eachother on everything. I just lost the space reace to a FAKE video. But i wont say anything or react. Its ok, let the usa win.”
🤷♂️
@@alexalexalex797 May I ask you how old you are? I don't want the precise number. Just between 30 - 35, or maybe 20 - 25. I don't know. Will you answer that question?
1 more missing conspiracy is that Stanley Kubrick was hired
Thats the worst of them all. Anyone who knows Kubrick as a person knows he would of never had done it anyway. Its against his principles. Also when was the last time you have seen 2001 a space odyssey? Compare the effects in the film against real NASA Apollo 11 footage. Need I say more. CHEERS!
Armstrong was asked in an interview if he had seen stars in space and he stuttered answered: "no, space is black. Sometimes I saw some". So, her explanation is not correct.
It was referring to seeing stars in daylight on the moon. I'm sure you wouldn't be able to see stars in daylight either.
"Armstrong was asked in an interview if he had seen stars in space"
The question was whether they were able to see stars through the Sun's corona.
@@randyschissler5791 If I was on the moon, under the blazing unfiltered sun, I'd pop my helmet off and take a good look for stars. From the moon you could see the exact same stars we see from Earth, so it would be really important to take a look.
The same reason why light pollution makes stars harder to see in cities
@@DeputyNordburgyou wouldn’t be able to see anything except the sun and earth because the sun is so bright
So you’re telling me they broadcast this live in the 60’s when there was no color tv, and yet I lose reception on my phone in the woods in 2020 lol I guess
You're phone antenna is only designed to transmit to your nearest cellular tower and Cellular towers can only pick up a signal from a certain distance. So if theres no cellular towers near you...you wont get a signal. The lunar module antenna was transmitting to a tracking station in Australia, Tracking stations can pick up signals from a much greater distance compared to a Cellular tower. I hope that answers your question.
joshua hughes Lol bro I don’t mean literally my phone, it’s like now we can’t even get a live feed of them going to the moon, we get a blue screen etc.
@@jonathancerda794 what are you on about?? Haha, what do you mean by we now cant get a live feed of them going to the moon?? Well maybe because they haven't been to the moon since 1972 haha and blue screens???
joshua hughes just look it up lol it’s too much typing, and we never went to the moon lol you weren’t there
Jonathan Cerda You weren’t there either so how can you says it’s fake?
They didnt mention the crater that was supposed to be left by the lunar module from its landing. If they really did land on the moon then why isnt there a crater underneath the lunar module. The moon surface is said to be dusty in a way. Like in a underwater cavern you disturb the dirt it goes everywhere. That didnt happen with the lunar module and it didnt happen with them walking around to. Also got to mention that in a few of these so called landings you can see a wire hooked on top of the astronauts head.
Which Apollo landing are you talking about? You know that there were six of them, right? Or, like most moon landing hoaxers, they think there was only one landing in question. Surely, you wouldn't expect a big huge crater, right? With such light gravity, 1/6 of earth's, it wouldn't take much to blast off. Astronauts held up by wires is nonsense!
@@randyschissler5791 Apollo 11 I saw it during a documentary beyond venus I believe it was. The wire was clear as day. It reflected off of the light. And if you can't see that well then get your eyes checked. Plus I wasnt expecting a huge crater. I was expecting a crater to be left by the lander when landing. Plus Buzz Aldrin came out and said that he never went up to space. Explain that one to me. But actually fo your research before commenting next time.
@@anthonyw9743 "Plus Buzz Aldrin came out and said that he never went up to space." Citation needed. Regarding the crater issue. There was only a thin layer of dust to be disturbed and solid rock below it. The dust layer was blown away, but it is too thin so leave a visible crater. The engine was also operating at low power and was shut off while the lander was still a few meters above the surface. The "wires" you believe you see are actually the antennas at the top of the life support pack.
"this helicoptre is fake since there's no crater under it when it lands". This is literally what you're claiming.
@@anthonyw9743 There was no wire. What you saw was a reflection off light of the communications antenna on the backpack.
Buzz never said we didn't go, He said we haven't been back.
The lunar surface is hard rock beneath dust; the LEM used a low pressure (for reliability) rocket engine that was firing at only 3,000 pounds thrust before landing so along with the very thin atmosphere and low gravity there was not enough pressure to produce a crater; and the blast deflected dust sideways. If you look closely at some pictures of landing sites e.g. Apollo 11 you can see some disturbance under the engine.
Let’s hang out on the moon with temperatures ranging from -200° to +200° with a battery as our power. Three days right? 😂
Three days yes. Now just use a little brainpower.. think about how long a lunar day is. Then consider that if they landed in lunar morning (as they did), would they ever experience either of those maximums? After this, go google how a thermos flask works, and consider that maybe.. just maybe, them being in vacuum and only receiving and losing heat through radiation, wouldn't in any way be particularly worried about the surface temp.
What you have quoted are possible (You have not specified units so basically your numbers are meaningless) the max and min temperatures of the lunar surface over the course of a lunar day/night cycle. All 6 lunar landings took place shortly after lunar dawn when the temperatures were mid range. The measured temperature range encountered on the Apollo 11 landing for example was -23C to 7C. Take care.
What about the lost telemetry data?
Apollo 11 was lost but not 12, 13,14,15, 16 and 17.
Uh.. it was not lost;)
There is no data and you know it!
@Dan Howell Did you not see the relevant response?
@Dan Howell Read the first response.
@@TELEVISIONARCHIVES
"Apollo 11 was lost"
This is a fallacy. No data was lost. The only things that have gone astray are the original backup tapes. The data that they contained had been transposed to other tapes before the Apollo 11 tapes were sent to the archives.
My mother said the moon landing is cgi because the flag waving showed her this anddd she said, “I still don’t believe it.” I swear to god.. she believes it now lol.
@Hugh Mungis whoud you care to explain what's wrong?
@Hugh Mungis she believes it now convinced her.
@@RedHeavy- Good for you!
That’s what you call wilful ignorance
In the pics you can clearly see a rod on the flag
This is the 3rd straight moon landing conspiracy video with the EXACT same first sentence
"It’s Easier To Fool People Than To Convince Them That They’ve Been Fooled" ~ Mark Twain
And conspiracy freaks are living proof of that statement.
Flerf booo
@@coolnamebro some of them
Howd they know the radiation levels if it was the first trip??
Because since the 50s BOTH the USSR and USA were sending spacecraft into space (including to the moon) to collect information about radiation types and intensity, temperature, micro-meteoroid levels, etc. Hence the conditions were very well known by the end of the 60s.
I hope that helped :-)
@@yazzamx6380 I don't think hoaxtards are interested in help or facts for that matter.
it wasn't, hence Apollo 11. It was the first time landing on the moon, but manned spacecraft had reached orbit multiple times prior.
Yeah what tools they have to prove what is so in a place no man has ever gone how they get all that Intel lol! To make a decision like that!
Sure let’s forget about the numerous probes sent to the moon prior to Apollo 11 and the 3 MANNED missions Apollo 8, Apollo 9, and Apollo 10
My father never went there, I'm sorry, please forgive him.
He did
Nah he just left you
How will the moon fake landing theorists respond to the Artemis ? !
@Cognitive MGTOW - And when that happens, what next? Countless conspiracy believers calling that mission fake too, right? :-)
@Cognitive MGTOW Crewed or Mission Control? If crewed, wait until 2024, if mission control, just wait
Simple logic is they couldn't go again even after 50years with high technology in 2023, it's completely a fake drama in area51
What are you talking about? Artemis 1 returned from the moon last month.
Precisely what technology was lacking during the Apollo Programme?
Exactly. Even after 50 years of new tech. They don't do it again. Its weird
@@kuro.editzzz
So you are completely ignorant of Project Artemis?
@@yassassin6425 Artemis hasn't landed anyone on the Moon.
@@jonsmith3945
Yep, but the original assertion was this -
"they couldn't go again even after 50years with high technology in 2023"
Which as Artemis 1 demonstrated, is incorrect.
why did they never pan the camera up and show us the earth from the moon in any of the Apollo landing footage? The moon is in tidal lock and the earth would have always been above them and not once did they even mention it.
It’s weird how China said they need at least 15 years to go the moon and we did it 50+ years ago. Too bad according to NASA, we “destroyed” all the technology on how to get back to the moon, and lost the original footage because of the tape shortage in the 80’s. Especially because we nailed it first try, well except for the original crew of the Apollo 11, who died in a training accident around the same time as Kennedy. But yeah this video solved all my questions, i know for sure I can trust NASA, they’ve never been caught doctoring photos in this particular situation
Why do you mindless fools insist on repeating the same old lies time after time? Don't you clowns ever have an original thought?
we did it 50+ years ago. Agreed. Moving on.
@@TexMex421 thank god we didn't discover all the radiation that we can't get passed to clear low Earth gravity. NASA claims that since they didn't know about Van allen radiation belt, it didn't have any effect on them. It's that kind of sense that they had back when, those were the days. Agreed. Moving on.
@@awareoftheworldshotel9941u do know that they went to the moon from the south side and came back through the north where the radiation is the weakest but noooo why would we need actual science to explain we just need our big egos and not listen to experts
@@awareoftheworldshotel9941 also are you gonna ignore the points in the video?
If India or pakistan land on moon you all say it's fake and if we make this video you also say it's fake So Unfair World
lol why are they both so ugly
I came for the nutter comments, so far I'm pretty amused. : )
I'm kinda disappointed. Too many just give up after you debunk their argument and it is unclear whether they have changed their minds or just backing out of a fight they know they can't win.
Only conspiracy theory I believed in is that "Why NASA never sent humans on Moon again?" I think they found something!"
they are going back in 2024. They didnt go because they didnt have the funding
becuase we don't need to. The Apollo program was successful because everyone wanted to beat the soviets at the time and NASA got tons of money to beat them in the space race. It only happened because of a perfect storm of money and public interest in space.
Now, we don't really have the willingness to go, and, while it would be nice, it's not even needed. We got all the information of the moon we really need from apollo and LRO.
@@ohnoachild5910 well colonizing the moon would make space travel easier
@@drobnoxius9483 i think that too.
@@drobnoxius9483 the moon is to dangerous were building gateway instead
please dont keep reading the comments, your brain will melt
My co worker who needs 2 full cases of beer to sleep and grows weed believes the moon isn’t real..
I use to believe in this theory, now I’m skeptical. Great job 👍
Heard that joke a million times. Yaen
Yes ...no way in hell these pr***s went to the moon ....a joke 😉😉😉😉
@@krishnan-resurrection714 it’s been 50 years, get over it.
@@LanzX502 its a LIE mate ....no one can travel to the moon !
Look at the footage . ..what a joke🦍🦍🦍🦍🦍🐒🐒🐒🐒🐵
Will somebody please tell me how the photographic films survived the van Allen radiation belt. Also I guess those so called moonwalkers are actually pro Photographer s and not astronauts as they can shoot with perfect framing even without a viewfinder.
How about you know.. educating yourself? The VAB is comprised of alpha and beta radiation, both of which is easily stopped by the walls of the apollo spacecraft. And photos weren't shot perfectly. In fact the vast mayority was sort of all over the place, with the ones we know best being the few standouts (and even then many were retouched to look nicer for the press). Mind you, they had a TON of training in photography as part of their astronaut training (in addition to fields like geology etc, though these fields were focused way more on the later landings when they better knew how much time they'd be able to spend on the surface, how much payload they could afford to bring etc).
_Will somebody please tell me how the photographic films survived the van Allen radiation belt._
Easily. The Van Allen Belt radiation wasn't strong enough to destroy the photographic films. Whoever told you otherwise is either ignorant or being deliberately dishonest.
_Also I guess those so called moonwalkers are actually pro Photographer s and not astronauts as they can shoot with perfect framing even without a viewfinder._
On _Apollo_ 11, precisely one roll of film was exposed on the lunar surface during the EVA. 125 pictures were taken. No less than 32 of them are obvious 'bad shots'. They are out of focus, badly framed, obvious accidental exposures and so on. A few are in perfect focus and do in fact contain things of interest, but are taken at an angle that makes it clear they were not taken deliberately. Still more are simple landscape shots that are very difficult to screw up as they contain no distinct 'subject'. Even with that, 25% of the pictures taken were not in perfect focus or perfectly framed.
Even the iconic 'man on the Moon' image is badly framed and comes close to clipping Aldrin's head off.
It's easy to get "perfect framing" when you have a professional publicity department to search through thousands of photographs and select the best ones for publication.
@@kevinskinner4986 a slight problem there again. They aren't autofocus cam so the chances are almost nil. And it seems like "weight " is like a luxury that can't be afford., so taking thousands of photographs of a particular frame sounds like "₩%$# YOU"
@@dewishesso2305 _They aren't autofocus cam so the chances are almost nil._
Please, if you don't know much about photography, please don't pass judgements about the chances of the wide-angle infinity-focus camera capturing a good picture, okay?
Wow 2:59 what an amazing photo, so clear and detailed
They didn't fake it. But the explanation at the end seemed bad. Many people worked on the atomic bomb (130k) and most didnt know what was being worked on. That is just one example as well...
Not comparable my friend. Everyone at ALL LEVELS who worked on Apollo knew exactly what it was they were working towards and hence they knew EXACTLY where their work would fit within the bigger picture. The same cannot be said of the Manhattan Project.
@Hi i’m Dale! - Nope, even today it is impossible to recreate in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour after hour of Apollo footage, unless that studio is on the moon ;-)
@Hi i’m Peyton! - Thanks for the clarification, I thought your first reply was to me :-)
While "most" might not have known exactly. A LOT had a very high degree of understanding about the work they did. And most damning, they could NOT KEEP IT SECRET. Not from other countries who realised what they were doing, and not even as far as keeping the designs away from the USSR afterwards.