Sansirow Jesus christ are you actually stupid? The sun is just a huge piece of paper that is attached to the underside of a plane and it flies through the sky I mean are there people who believe in the sun???? Dont be sheep
@@bdleo300 Good point. Only Nixon said they went. And German Scientists are known for being incompetent. With solid proof like this everyone will be thinking moon hoax any day now.
Spaceman yes it would, the conspiracy exists and it makes people believe things that may or may not be true. And like the flat earth theory (which is stupid) there are some "proofs" so if they just said "no" that isn't going to persuade shit, people want facts and proof
+The Blue Blur There is no proof for the Flat Earth theory, nor is there any justification for it existing in the 21st century. At least the Moon Landings conspiracy theory actually has legitimate questions to ask about the official narrative.
+FlyntofRWBYNation UGH!!!! Maybe you should rethink that statement. They didn't go through all that to unlock a freakin IPhone. They were using this simple ploy and looking at the big picture to enact laws to take away all encryption rights. They were in actuallity, incredibly clever
Open Your Eyes I know they were trying to pass the encryption law so that they could have a back door to every iPhone possible. That still doesn't prove that they were purposely "having trouble" unlocking the phone so that they could pass that law.
Actually they do get one thing wrong here. That model isn't Neil Armstrong as it has the red commanders stripe on the helmet. That wasn't added until Apollo 14, since in the first two landings it was hard to tell the two astronauts apart on video footage (Apollo 11 only had black and white video anyway so a red stripe wouldn't have been seen easily).
If you were to watch the Earthrise movies that were shot from the moon, notice anything wierd? The moon is tital lock to the Earth so that one side can only face the Earth. So from the surface of the moon the Earth CANNOT rise.Apollo debunked in one paragraph.
Maybe he knows that. But it looks like he already had that astronaut way before this video and just decided to use it and explain the stripes but new he don't have it before.
but the pictures have color and there was a second camera inside the lem "filming" in color with like 1 fps or something. The coolest thing about that is it was on the same side where the black n white camera was, so they both had overlapping FOV so sometimes you could see the astronauts in both videos at the same time AND some pictures where taking, so you can see one position from 3 different cameras. That is so cool. Also one really funny thing is, you can see how Neil made the photo of his footprint in the lunar dust. Some conspiracy theorists claimed, that it would have been impossible, as the camera was on his chest, but you can clearly see how took the camera off and held it in his hand. How stupid can you be ... also alle the people who wonder who took the photo of neil exiting the lem. no you idiots, thats neil taking a photo of aldrin ... THAT is also visable in the camera!! AND also you can see how bright neil is. His white suite is perfekt for the sunlight to get reflected, additionally lighting the scene of buzz exiting AND explain the small reflections in his boots and some other places. No stupid "there had to be studio light" bs... :D PS: i am a conspiracy theorist myself, i just love to goo deep into things and ask questions, but i do that because i want to know the truth, not to fall for another lie. So far, most of the apollo fake claims were easily debunked by watching the videos and photos of the moonwalks :D
Okay. Let's start. Adam says that the astronaut figure is scale 1:6. Then I assume that the lunar lander is also 1:6. The only problem is that their sun is not in scale 1:6 or the distance between their model landscape and their fake sun is not 1:6 in relation to the parameters of reality. This is false propaganda and nothing else. Thanks so much. Im not a flat earther either.
This does not prove the landings were real...or fake. Just some camera nerd stuff. The larger story and additional discrepancies are ignored. Exactly what one would expect from mainstream TV.
You said "This does not prove the landings were real...or fake. Just some camera nerd stuff" That's not the point. The hx claim says that despite the moon being bright enough to cast shadows here on Earth, an astrnaut standing in the shadow of the LM should be completely BLACK with nothing seen in that shadow. All anyone has to do to debunk that claim is to show that the astrnaut in shadow would be lit by light reflecting off the surrounding ground and surfaces, and that is exactly what they did. So they've proven this ONE particular hx claim is wrong. Nothing more and nothing less.
You said "The larger story and additional discrepancies are ignored. Exactly what one would expect from mainstream TV." So how many claims do you think anyone can cover in just 45 minutes? This episode of MB was first broadcast in 2008, 14 YEARS ago, where they carried out experiments that NONE of the conspiracy theorists had done themselves! To this day, no-one has carried out the same experiments as MB in this episode and yet arrived at different results, hence debunking the claims they tested. Also, it doesn't matter which claims they selected because there would ALWAYS be many more which they couldn't test in a 45 minute programme :-|
they dont debunk this... think better ... they have that guy with the white reflective tshirt stay right where you would need to put a reflective surface... they think they demonstrated the conspiracy theory false, but they actually proved it true... the white tshirt if put to real life scale wound not only be as big as conspiracists claims, but it would be giant compared to the lander and astronauts... aka more than capable of illuminating the astronaut in the shadow...
I think you're right. This whole video was a waste of time. You could put a Moon Landing-Denier in a rocket ship, go to the moon, and touch down on a moon. The Moon Landing-Denier would still say that the whole thing was fake, and probably that their experience was fake too. Or that NASA drugged them to think they went to the moon to concoct a plan to trick them to think that they landed on the moon. For some people, all of the evidence in the world still isn't good enough.
Probably not the same pool and water . Buzz and Armstrong would look like the Grey's if they would have survived getting passed the radiation belt, twice. 🤔🤔🤔. In the 60s we still had black and white Bulb TVs. But we had wireless video transmission to and from the moon and then it was accidentally deleted to record The Benny Hill show or a Barney Miller episode. Who the hell was in charge of the betamax or VCRs in NASA in those days. The greatest achievement of man kind and oops main footage was deleted. IDK but if I was in charge heads are gonna rolll, before the Eagle has landed.
Flat earther but yet, he doesn’t know his facts. Even as simple as the earth... ya... u do research haha. Gosh, this is what you expect from a flatbrain.
Didn't realize a 60s technology cameras film could resist 250+ degree heat .I couldn't get mine to survive being in the glove box of my car...impressive
It's not really 250° in the sense that it's a warm day on earth. The _surface_ is 250° (and only after the sun has been up for a week!!) Did you know there is no atmosphere on the moon?
Your camera didn't cost billions of dollars though. Obviously your camera won't have the same quality as billions of dollars of technology, scientists extensively testing and planning the entire thing and the best engineers to build the rocket.
@@fluffycorgi3695The camera they used on the moon didn’t cost billions of dollars, though. You can see in the alleged footage that the camera is the same commercial one you can buy at the store, but what makes it even more suspicious is the fact that there isn’t any insulation or anything to handle the massive differentiating of temperatures that would otherwise destroy a camera here on Earth with less extreme conditions.
But they're showing why it's not a secondary light source from stage lights. The moon reflects light, a lot of it. If it didn't, moonlight wouldn't be a thing, since moonlight is only reflected sunlight.
I understand the reflectivity of the moon, how else would there moonlight? Either way debunking the hoax based on the photo by recreating the landing in a garage is almost in itself recreating a studio landing...that's the point.
You could put a conspiracy theorist on the moon and he would still think it was fake. Let them think what they want: They want to feel special by supporting an unpopular position.
"Apollo Program" Producer: Walt Disney deceased at that time. Co-producer: Wernher Von Braun. Director: Stanley Kubrick Art Director: John Hoesli. Writer: Arthur C Clarke. Photographer: Geoffrey Unsworth. Total cost = 169.51 billion current dollars.
The director was more likely Kubrick's effects supervisor at the time - Douglas Trumbull - as he had worked in the past for NASA shooting training films.
Education is indoctrination! All you need is common sense. Trust your senses. Unlearn everything you were taught in schools. It's all lies, but the math works! everything else is pseudoscience, bullshit and unproven theories. Whatever you learn in schools is Masonic bullshit, indoctrination and lies.
Just ask yourself some questions like; When has a nation ever made an innovation, (planted a flag on a new continent, made a scientific advancement) without any other nation following? How was all the data and scientific research to accomplish the moon landing lost? Why has the US not gone back to make a base? Wouldn't it have been beneficial to fake the whole thing to be able to spend more money on the military budget, while the Soviets were actually wasting trillions on trying to get there?
@@yakovendelman7659 because the moon is a luminary that generates it's own magnetic energy and light, it's not terra firma like earth. An astrophysicist from Australia tried to warn NASA in 1965 not to go to the moon, because nobody is ever going to be able to land on it. He said the moon is made of magnetic plasma. The sun is electrical in nature and the moon is magnetic and they are luminaries. If you can't land on the sun, you can't land on the moon. Nobody ever landed on the moon and nobody ever will, if NASA or the president tell you otherwise, you know they are lying to us.
@@xavierlopes9204 ahahahahahahahahaha please provide a link to those documents.... or did u just hear them in a bar one night. If the moon was made from plasma we would all be dead
Hybrid_ Cuber well let me explain why we only see one side of the moon. Simply because the earths gravity is so strong that the moon don’t spin like other birds planets. Saturnus moon doesn’t spin either nor Neptune’s. And yes you do see the same stars it’s just that you can’t tell the difference
Hybrid_ Cuber I would recommend watching some videos about gravitation and how it all works. Everything in our solar system orbits the sun except the moons who orbits their planets wich in its turn obits the sun. The higher mass a planet have the bigger gravitational force it have wich is why the moons orbits the planets closest to them
Anyone who has ever learned of how reflections work, should be able to realize why the astronaut is lighter than the shadow. How this myth came about in the first place, I really want to know.
mamberu because they have a partial understanding of how shadows work in space. see, in space, shadows are utter black with no gradient. it's why you can't see the dark side of the earth in space pictures. the reason is because there's nothing to scatter the light and break up the shadow, so light travels in straight lines, drawing perfectly straight edges to shadows. problem is, that picture wasn't taken in space. it was taken on the moon, which has a way to scatter light and cut shadows, the regolith dust that coats it, plus it's own pathetic atmosphere of dust. what that means is that shadows on the moon are more similar to shadows on earth than in space, and if i stand in a shadow on earth, i don't melt into the dark and vanish from sight, you can still see me because of scattered light. it's the same here. but conspiracy theorists only listen to the first half, completely disregard the second half and make up an explanation to suit their feelings ("there's only one light source". yeah, there's only one light source when i stand in an open field at noon too, that doesn't mean i could step in a shadow and be gone).
People who lived in the 60s/70s know how crude technology was then. When I say crude I mean really crude in comparison to today. Its hard to believe they went to the moon when you take a good look at 60s tech. Especially when they say they don't have that tech anymore and are unable to reproduce it. You would have thought that with something so important and groundbreaking that every little piece would have been kept and the whole thing massively documented right down to the smallest nut, bolt and rivet as this is meant to be man's greatest achievement. Why didn't they do this.
Ironically enough, this goes to show how east it was to re create the “‘moon landing”, even though it was 1/6 scale it still goes to show how easy it was to take an almost identical photo as NASA’s
@@mocapcow2933 really? This video of mythbusters laying down sand, making a mock up model and coverng a building to make it as dark as possible is cutting edge and could not be done 40 years ago?
@@sandermez3856 they took pictures, you know how much hard it would be to create this, to real life scale, and record it all? No, cause people who are skeptics usually don’t have an understanding of cgi, or even regular science. They are people who come up with conclusions then try to get evidence, instead of using evidence to come up with conclusions.
if there were multiple light sources(like studio lights), then there should have been multiple shadows per object if there was one light source then your gonna need on dam giant studio light
Same as being out on a spacewalk in low Earth orbit in the sunlight, where the temperature range in low Earth orbit is -250 F in the shade up to 250 F in the sun.
Although huge temperature variations occur on the Moon, the astronauts were never actually exposed to them. The maximum temperature on the Moon is +260F at lunar noon but with no atmosphere this refers to surface temperature not atmospheric temperature. Every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise. One lunar day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly 15 Earth days, and the astronauts were only on the Moon for a maximum of 3 Earth days, so they weren’t there long enough for the Sun to be at its highest and hottest.
Haha at least people are now waking up. We can’t even go 1% of the distance right now in 2022. Here is first hand proof it was faked. ruclips.net/video/1uKFjkHYuHM/видео.html
@@albertroundtree8546 An extremely thin one that hardly registers and makes it negligible, hence my comment about the Moon has no atmosphere to hold heat as on Earth.
Neil landing? Assuming you mean the photo in this video... Two astronauts landed on the moon during each mission, where the photo in this video is of Buzz Aldrin (the second man on the moon) taken by Neil Armstrong (the first man on the moon). I hope that helps :-)
Not only that, the sun's illumination is over 125,000 lux (and that's unfiltered without an atmosphere), which is much brighter than even the brightest indoor lights. I'd say that light they used for the set up would have hardly given them 500-1000 lux. That astronaut would have been much brighter with the sun shining.
Had they tried to fake the sun,the single sourced light would have melted everyone on the sound stage.LOL How did they create the darkness of a vacuum/ space.We see no walls,ceiling yet the brightness matches the Moons low gravity, vacuum environment. Lets see Hollywood fake this.ruclips.net/video/boFZ3cAws20/видео.html
Why should they? They didn't need a flash at all. They were there in bright sunlight (at the moon morning) just as you would be when you walk out on a sunny morning on some sand beach and take photos. No flash needed. A flash would have added additional weight to the misson and you would have needed additional batteries to operate it. Besides: it would have been some additional source of failure. Pretty simple: you don't carry anything to the moon that is not absolutely needed - every pound counts. And there is one additional principle involved: KISS - "Keep it simple, stupid!" Besides: As long as there is at least some light on something, you can brighten this area of the image up later in the dark chamber, as will everybody tell you who has ever actually worked in a dark chamber.
I guess all those scientists who do experiments must be taking the wrong strat too, since models or small scale situations are fake and can't tell you about larger scale or external phenomenon.
@@simplydifferent7712This photo they recreated was taken with a camera Neil Armstrong was holding while Buzz Aldrin climbed out of the LEM. The TV footage that was broadcast of Neil Armstrong climbing down came from a camera on the side of the LEM that was pointed at the ladder. It un-stowed and began recording when Armstrong pulled a handle on the “porch” of the LEM before climbing down the ladder.
The Conspiracy theorist always gloss over that point. One thing the mythbusters forgot was to add the reflective coming off of Neil Armstrong's space suit, if that is added Buzz Aldrin is even brighter.
Grab a space laser of your own and find out for yourself. They are there, and the stupidity of moon hoaxers continues to astound me. Ps. Lolollolololololllol!!111!! roflcopter
toto wolf Actually, the Russian, Chinese, Indians(India), the European Space Agency, Japan, etc. have already pointed their space lasers there. Scientists from around the globe use it for lunar research. It is the best way to accurately measure the distance between the Earth and Moon. If they did not get a return signal they would have reported it.
No no no clearly every single scientist from every country in the world, including ones who are enemies against each other, are all in on this massive conspiracy. Wake up sheeple! I'm sorry i could barely contain my laughter.
Gordon Schnick tbh there is a difference between ‘was’ and ‘is’... 7/11 IS still a part time job there is no was cuz it always will be a part time job. It was a joke one the less so who cares
yes,, they could easily shorten the video,,, too much drama to come to a conclusion . and now comes the next questions, how come only one camera shot /video of Aldrin , on his right back side ? what happen to the camera that videoed Neil armstrong, it was on his left front angle ? the film run out on the hasselblad videocam ?
Bob, They didn't mention Neils suit? It was like a light bulb in the sun of the Moon.. The white spacesuits reflected about 90 percent of the light striking it.
But by recreating this picture on earth with stuff we have on earth just adds to the fact that it could’ve been done on earth. Not saying I believe it was fake, just saying.
@@LetsMars - You said "*thus". Oh, so you want to be pedantic :-) Ok, here's the problem with your claim, there's a huge difference between still photos and video/film. There isn't a single photographed event in history (Apollo included) for which we cannot recreate the photos of that event in a studio, but... to this day, no-one has EVER recreated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972). Even the most modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes! That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to CGI (which wasn't available back in the 60s/70s). Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut fake footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it's possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth. :-)
If the moon missions were faked the USSR would have been the first ones calling BS. Also, if you don't know how things react in a vacuum or how light scatters and reflects, take some science courses and expand your mind a little bit.
No, what they need to do is actually live up to the experience for them to actually believe the science. Why not stick them in a vacuum chamber and see for themselves how their bodies react? That'll be beneficial for both sides.
What if there is complicity. Why rule it out. Why go by tv. Why not use common sense. Think out of that idiot box. Nobodys friend or foe nations. We all are greedy insecure and envious.
Vaccumm is another big BS. What divides the vac from atmo. Who has seen that divide. 11 thousand satellites up there. Get a live vid evidence. Also if vaccumm exists then by definition it must suck up entire mass if any. It cannot be allowing atmo or mass to resist. If it do so its not vaccumm. Its just another extended layer above atmo. # Vaaccumm hoax
@@MA-uf8ly Actually vacuum and atmosphere aren't separated.The atmosphere just thins up to the point where it seems no atmosphere is present but there is an atmosphere.This is why satellites need to be replaced or boosted back after a few decades or so.Also how does saying that no nations are friend or foe explain why the USSR wouldn't call bullshit if the US faked the moon landing?
@@sohanturtorial3856 theories n theories.... no satellites up there. Disprove me. Show live vid of sats from any other sat. Ok. Show me sats from telescope or any scope one can. If we can snap mars then y not our own sats. To believe is faith. To prove is truth. Complicity :: u scratch mine i scratch yours. Who would not "cooperate" if deception receives funding...
we talked about that in physics class, we also calculated the amount of gravity experienced where the video was taken and we got that it is around 1/6th that of earth which is what the moons gravity is. it could easily be faked tho by using a fake feather that would fall around the same speed as the hammer and a rope to slow the acceleration to 1/6th of gravity on earth, but i highly doubt it.
This is absolutely true: No one has ever been to the Moon. Yesterday, I was talking to Inspector Monk, who investigated the subject, and he said to me, as usual: "this is how it happened": NASA needed a sequence showing the astronauts walking on the moon, but they had to find a director capable of shooting this short film on Earth, in a credible way, and they asked Stanley Kubrick. He agreed, on the condition that the images be as realistic as possible. Some sequences were thus shot in the studio, and others outside. And, since he is a perfectionist, he asked that the outdoor shots be done on the Moon, so they discreetly took all the equipment, the cameras, the spotlights, and even the actors, to the Moon, in the middle of the night, so as not to be noticed, they shot the sequences they needed, and then came back down to Earth, with the recorded images. These were then broadcast on television news, without anyone noticing the deception. 😂😅😂
It's technically an Alan Shepherd, Dave Scott, John Young, Eugene Cernan figure, and the reason being is Neil Armstrongs suit did not have the commander stripes.
@@ziji6261 If we want to get super technical, Apollo 13's Commander Jim Lovell's space suit was the first to have the red stripes, unfortunately he didn't have the opportunity to walk on the moon.
If you were to watch the Earthrise movies that were shot from the moon, notice anything wierd? The moon is tital lock to the Earth so that one side can only face the Earth. So from the surface of the moon the Earth CANNOT rise.Apollo debunked in one paragraph.
Actually, Donald Ramsfeld said that Stanley had his private set to stage the landing in case mission was unsuccessfull but, the they just didn't need it. For whatever reason, Stanley never left his property ever after.
@@John-Doe-Yo if everyone was so sure what they knew was right wisdom would not be a word. instead of shaking your head have the courage to find the truth for yourself. That TV on the wall is no source for truth. it's purpose is profit and programing
Yes! NASA astronaut Don Petitt said " I'd go to the moon in a nano second but they lost that technology and it's a painful process to get it back!" It would be impossible to fool todays people the way they used to with a couple dollars worth of cheap black and white 35 mm film and a cheap projector. Nowadays that would require taking away independant information like the worldwide web and bringing people back to the days of completely controlled radio and TV airwaves like we had in the 1960s. Now we have to hire dishonest people to work for the worldwide military industrial complex to do psyops on youtube videos, news programs. It works but very, very hard. We simply dont have the technology at this time.
@@inharmonywithearth9982 _NASA astronaut Don Petitt said " I'd go to the moon in a nano second but they lost that technology and it's a painful process to get it back!"_ Yes, he did. Your point being? It's not strange in the least. What do you imagine happens with hardware of a project that's been cancelled? _It would be impossible to fool todays people_ Not so - with CGI, it would be easier than ever. _Nowadays that would require taking away independant information like the worldwide web_ As opposed to taking away independent information from other countries, organisations, and foreign scientists? Your "completely controlled radio and TV airwaves" excuse doesn't work here.
@@Jan_Strzelecki 1967 MY GUY, WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE COLOR TV'S, HUMANS CAN'T GO THROUGH THE VAN ALLEN BELTS, IMPOSSIBLE, SPACECRAFTS THROUGH THOSE BELTS WOULD GET DESTROYED FROM HIGH RADIATION
Any event or scene in history can be recreated in a studio with a single photograph, but the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour and hour of Apollo footage can't be recreated in a studio.
1967 MY GUY, WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE COLOR TV'S, HUMANS CAN'T GO THROUGH THE VAN ALLEN BELTS, IMPOSSIBLE, SPACECRAFTS THROUGH THOSE BELTS WOULD GET DESTROYED FROM HIGH RADIATION
Space debris would tear the craft to pieces. There’s more debris out there than mentioned. Not only that , earth is frequently bombarded by small meteorites that burn up in atmosphere. Yet satellites stay up there for years unscathed? Yeah right, internet can actually work without satellites because it uses waves. I don’t believe we got satellites in space. Genuinely we are being lied to badly
As much research as they tend to do, it was odd that Adam started off with an error. Apollo Mission Commanders had Red stripes on their helmets, sleeves, and legs to differentiate them from the Lunar Module Pilots in photographs and videos from the Lunar Surface. The error is that the stripes were a solution to a problem that was discovered while analyzing the Apollo 11 photographs and trying to figure out which photos were of Neil and Buzz. There were no Command Stripes on Armstrong's Apollo 11 mission suit.
From Apollo 13 onward, the Commaders had arm, leg, and helmet stripes on their suits so that they could be distinguished from the LMPs in mission photographs.
Also odd that they neglected a major light-reflectivity-related component of Luna, which is the lack of atmosphere. They didn’t do this in a vacuum, which would slightly alter the way the light behaves, and didn’t even seem to mention it
In free documentary 'American Moon' from Massumo, (youtube) they debunk the debunkers. All Lunar pictures and videos Are staged on Earth. Not any single doubt.
If you were to watch the Earthrise movies that were shot from the moon, notice anything wierd? The moon is tital lock to the Earth so that one side can only face the Earth. So from the surface of the moon the Earth CANNOT rise.Apollo debunked in one paragraph.
@@pchead except that Buzz Aldrin admitted to an eight year old girl on camera, that the moon landing never happened, it was faked, and the look on his face when he said that, was priceless, he felt like a lying fraud and was obviously distraught. Your knowledge can't replace the truth!
@@xavierlopes9204 You good, mate? You just said "eight year old girl". Of course he would lie, she's just a small child! Buzz either didn't want her to risk her life by becoming an astronaut, or he didn't want that child to be confused. God bless astronauts.
Ikr NASA knew they would’ve been caught in the future if they faked it so they didn’t besides if that was the case someone would’ve leaked it by now. We’re going to the moon in 4 years on the Artemis mission and they’ll show the site where Neil and Buzz once step on unless people want to claim that the astronauts going there put those “props” there
Similar Hasselblad camera, but they didn't have the same photographic film and so they used a digital sensor at the back of the camera to capture the image. But it doesn't matter because the conspiracy claim is that the astronaut is in the shadow of the LM and therefore should be just a silhouette with no detail seen, and so all anyone needs to do to debunk that claim is to prove that the astronaut can be seen inside the shadow of the LM :-)
Yeah that makes sense with your logical fallacy. More like "I believe we went to the moon over 60 years ago, over half a century and havent returned because NASA tells me that it's too hard and a Painful process to try to rebuild the technology. And it just so happens to be the only technology that has become less efficient over the course of 60 years". But sure, keep on believing a bunch of people, including NASA who use green screens and have more foul-ups than Harlem globetrotters game.
@@YdOntYaCryAboutIt69 Actually one shift of the flag is convincing enough. The astronaut quickly rotates the flag with a sharp movement, and the corner of the flag quickly and gracefully swings above the cross bar. That can't happen in our gravity, and couldn't be emulated or faked. That was a result of .17g, they were on the moon. Done. Your welcome.
@@TheJollyGreen Oh ofcourse, I forgot, You've been to space, you've experienced .17g and you are basing ALL of what you're saying and believing on the information given to you by the very people who write the textbooks, want you to believe what they say and you've given up on your own physical senses to justify an invisible force. But sure, I can tell by your retort that you haven't looked into the excessive number of NASA inconsistencies across the last 60 years, Haven't learned your history when it comes to why an agenda such as faking space missions would exist, along with believing that space bubbles exist too. Can you explain how bubbles occur in space?? Please enlighten me, because as it stands NASA spokepeople state it is debris and NOT bubbles, but then they proclaimed astronauts needed snorkels in space. As it stands now, NASA has been losing support steadily due to their MAJOR greenscreen failures, the regular failures and inconsistencies regarding space, a vacuum that never sucks away earths atmosphere and a constant requirement to base everything on Gravity and your main basis for evidence is a flat moving while you're watching a video which was filmed in a slower speed in order to generate an odd look so people such as yourself will defend it as being "the moon bc it looks different and we dont know what the moon would be like". Let's not forget that these "AstroNOTS" cannot utilize the gravity of the moon properly and reach heights of more than 12 inches when jumping, when they should be jumping upwards of 4 to 6 feet with Zero issue physically. But they aren't on the moon, they are utilizing cables, have a pretty good budget and have been deceiving people for nearly 70 years, so theyve become pretty efficient and yet still they are fouling up on an almost daily basis. Just look into The Moon crossing the earth and watch how pathetic the footage is, it is sad, cringy and shows how little they think of us as a civilization. Anyway, I'm happy to believe what I Know, tou keep on believing scientism founded by some Nazi rocket scientists who even proclaimed upon their final death marker( gravestone) Psalms 19:1, just look into it, why would the father of Rocketry do such a thing? hmmmmm.
A flag will wave a lot easier on the moon as there is no atmosphere to remove energy from it. The flags only waved when the astronauts moved them. Take care.
" the flag was waving" It wasn't. "and there's no sound in space " The Sound travels through the space suit. "in space Hollywood forgets it all the time" Hollywood has nothing to do with the moon landings.
That's how science is done indeed. You try to figure why something occurs. Once your explanation doesn't contradict itself or the rest of what you know of the world you try to setup an experiment that is as accurate as possible and then compare its reproducible results to the phenomenon in question. If it fits you can represent it to the world as THE explanation as long as nobody comes up with an explanation that fits the afore mentioned criteria better. Nobody has, and NONE of other factors and parties that are/were sincerely involved contradict the historic event of the moon landing so that we, social media consumers, exposed to more dis- than real information, especially by exchanging so called information with our semi-informed counterparts on the web, can SAFELY ASSUME, WE FUCKING INDEED MADE IT TO THE MOON. So suck it!
I'm not saying we didn't go to the moon but the camera was positioned in the shade which would block sun glare so this experiment needs to be redone correctly.
+jtuno122 the camera wasnt in the shade and it was in a similar place with the original camera (angle) not only that but there was no light glare in the original photo try agaim
RUclips blocked or hid any video challenging the Apollo missions, enough said. Do the math, if they had nothing to hide, you would think they would want it all out there, instead of hiding all of it.
Funny how I can find all those videos challenging Apollo and yet you can't. Seems YT introduced the equivalent of "2+2" and hence only those capable of working out the answer can find those videos ;-) By your logic, the Earth must also be flat! Right? :-)
@@scoobtube5746 You deniers are the same. Let's just skip the next few bits of dialog and skip to the end. RUclips videos are not "research", you don't see stars because of basic camera exposure settings that you don't understand, yes we can, and did navigate the van allen belts, it wasn't really that hard, Buzz Aldrin never said that we didn't go to the moon, the flag didn't blow in the wind and there are no multiple shadows from more than one light source. You people don't sound smart, you didn't figure things out that millions of scientists, engineers, mathematicians and researchers missed.
There was a second light source which they did not take into effect. Neil Armstrong took that picture, and a small amount of light was produced from the reflection of the sun off of his white pressure suit and onto Aldrins - enough to brighten Aldrin a bit and make him stand out more from the shadows.
Nonsense. Light reflected off his suit wouldn't light up the shadow side like Times Square. Nvida's computer model was designed to achieve the desired outcome - another bogus explanation for the extra illumination.
@@jonsmith3945 , And you are basing that statement on what, exactly? What evidence to you have to the contrary, other than "I don't believe that is true?"
@@pattonpending7390 It's based on my experience with lighting and photography. And I know that computer models can be tweaked to give any desired result, so I don't trust them. I understand the reason for your question, but it's akin to asking me what evidence I have to debunk your claim of owning a pink unicorn. There's no 'evidence to disprove Nvida. I just don't buy it. And, even if it's legit, it only address one anomaly out of hundreds. It doesn't sway me towards believing the landing were real.
@@rtbt12 There's no credible evidence that Kubrick was involved. In today's world, we're told more lies than before, because of all the previous lies they got away with.
@@rtbt12 : Do you actually believe that? If so, you may want to seek help. Why would a top secret, "Let's lie to the world" government project hire a civilian to do this? How many people would have to be involved in this, all of whom have NEVER spilled the beans? Why did the Russians not expose this while they were closely monitoring all traffic and tracking the module - wouldn't they have jumped at the chance? How is it that ALL the thousands of people involved in the project keep their mouths shut and not a shred of evidence is available to support this? I truly hope you are joking and just regurgitating the old joke about Kubrick with out adding the "..but he insisted on filming on location" ending. Seriously, aside from a few crackpot you tubers there is absolutely no proof of this! Do you also believe in Flat Earth? SMH
technically there was a 2nd light source but most people don't know that its actually Neil Armstrong in his spacesuit as the suit he wore reflects about 80% of the sunlight and he's directly in front of buzz aldrin (hence how he took the photo)
he is not a magnifying glass directing the light towards the other astronaut. rather dispersing incoming light in all directions not enough to be noticed by anything rather than just illuminating himself.
There is a reflection on the boot of the descending atronot, which has been used to trace the height and position of the secondary light source. If the light was reflected by the suit of the second astronot, it would light other darker parts of the photo, since it would be reflected all over the place, and not be focused.
Notice how Jamie wears a white shirt while they put all black around them basically him ruining the experimment. This exact experiment was recreated by others and proved that his white shirt contributes greatly to light reflection. Mythbusters failure.
And yet all who have recreated that same experiment in multiple ways have all arrived at the same result, i.e. the astronaut in shadow would be illuminated by reflected light.
Remember, the conspiracy theorists claim is that the astronaut in shadow is not in the sun and therefore should be completely black, which has never been demonstrated by ANY conspiracy theorist :-)
@@robotube7361 - Again, the astronaut would not be completely black as claimed, which is why every recreation of that scene with actual models, sets, computer simulations, night time locations, with sunlight and artificial light, etc, have ALL proven that the astronaut would be illuminated by reflected light. Therefore please direct everyone here to your source of that scene being recreated and yet the astronaut appears black, given that you appear to claim it's been done, so you have no excuses :-)
Correct....I saw the unedited clip and it was a FAIL for Mythbusters UNTIL Jamie brought his white shirt in the picture. Even then the "illumination" is about 20% of what the NASA photo was.
Always loved the Mythbusters. Never saw this episode. My thoughts on Moon Landings always revolved around the fact that In the 1960's Russia and China were in a cold war with the USA and if they had sniffed out any kind of BS with the moon landings they would have exposed it and told it to the world. They were watching the US efforts closely. It was a series of space races that the US and Russia each won different events in (first animal into space, first human into space, first to orbit, first to the moon) but once all the events had been completed they stopped pushing one another - the space race was over. We need a new modern day space race to push humanity again.
Our allies and unaffiliated countries were also watching... and so were third party organizations and civilians. Schools watched it with telescopes, hell, amateur radio operators triangulated it's position the entire mission.
daddy, David Groves has opined that the picture of Buzz Aldrin descending from the Lunar Excursion Module onto the moon's surface was illuminated with artificial light. David Groves has a BSc Class 1 in Applied Physics and has a PhD in Holographic Computer Measurement. he is also a Chartered Physicist and a member of the Institute of Physics. he founded Quantec Image Processing in the U.K. Dr. Groves has 25 years experience analyzing photographs. he uses photographic computer techniques for analyzing images and obtaining three dimensional information from two dimensional photographs. he used those techniques to analyze those famous photograph of Buzz Aldrin descending the LEM's ladder to the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 moon mission. his crack team of experts noticed a number of anomalies in the photograph that indicated that it was illuminated with artificial lighting. the moon landings were faked. Show less
@@robertpunu7624 You do realize there was no good CGI back in 1969 right? You also realize that the moon reflects light correct? Some people will just cling to their bs beliefs in spite of any evidence. Smh just as bad as creationists.
)@@cigarettesister I am talking about today's CGI that NASA uses to fool the public. of course, I know there wasn't any CGI during the faked moon landings of the 60s and 70s. and the moon doesn't reflect the light of the sun, it has its own light which is actually colder than sunlight. if you have a laser thermometer, you can test when the moon (full) is out. you'll notice that the shade in moonlight is warmer while the temperature outside of the shade is colder by a few degrees. and here is video proof that the moon isn't 240,000 miles from earth in deep space but is actually in our atmosphere as the moon is moving between the clouds. there is also video of clouds behind the sun. ruclips.net/video/JUmqTjCBk_I/видео.html some people will just cling to their BS belief in spite of any evidence.
@@robertpunu7624 The moon does not emit its own light source my guy. Why are people still bringing up that whole laser thermometer BS? That's not hard to debunk. I saw that video where a guy tries to "confirm it" but all he does is measure cold temperature in the direct moonlight, but the shade he measures is near a building, which is clearly gonna be warmer than the open ground. As for the video, try using your brain, a bright object is gonna shine through clouds. I mean, what else is there to say? You do realize that it's still brighter when it's cloudy during the day than when its night. The moon literally cannot be in our atmosphere else gravity send it crashing down. By all means, show me even one scientific peer reviewed paper that refutes the mountains of evidence that supports a basic fact like the moon being a celestial body orbiting our planet. So how do you explain tides? Tides happen because of gravitational interaction between the Earth moon and sun, this is literally third grade science class shit. But I'm willing to bet that you don't actually believe it you just wanna be the edgy conspiracy theorist who ignores anything that doesn't confirm what they want to see.
What annoys me about the secondary light source theory that never seems to get mentioned is that there would be shadows from that source but there never is. You only see one shadow per object or person.
There were multiple light sources in the warehouse lighting seeing as they never done it in darkness and taken a shot from a single spot light to see how that camera handles exposure but shows exactly the same as the nasa photo. I’m neither say it was real or fake but this doesn’t debunk any argument.
@@hoofhearted1102 Are you suggesting any light spill from outside the test area is significant enough to reflect more light than the control light inside the blacked out area?
If you were to watch the Earthrise movies that were shot from the moon, notice anything wierd? The moon is tital lock to the Earth so that one side can only face the Earth. So from the surface of the moon the Earth CANNOT rise.Apollo debunked in one paragraph.
Here it is. They went to the desert 4 hours from L.A and here's what went down. They said they couldn't use the sun because it was night time so they used a single light to shoot heaps of footage. So, why didn't they wait a few hours for the sun to come out ? They wouldn't address that question. When questions started to arise about the authenticity of the whole thing, they compared the moon tapes to the ones shot in the desert to prove that they are authentic... Get it ? But the ones shot in the desert were done using artificial light. The shadows are all wrong but so were Apollo's so they must be real, right. So they actually proved themselves as liars with their own evidence. All of this is now proven and part of history as is the fact that no human has been through the Van Allen belt...but you probably don't care if you are a believer. Good luck.
Because it is already proven that the moon landings are real it is not the purpose of the video. "then it should also be reflecting off the Luna Module." As it obviously is.
Correct!!! Thousands saw the LAUNCH. Would "you" KNOW if they were on the Moon or not?? Or were they just orbiting Earth until the fiasco of the Moon walk was over. *(you don't know WHO was in the spacesuits, no faces could be seen)* *CHECK OUT HIS VIDEO LINK* and give me your opinion ruclips.net/video/EsN3ojP4xpo/видео.html Its very difficult to tell a *LIE* to millions of people.
At one time, there were some very impressive videos on RUclips, with people challenging the narrative of the Moon Landings. They were well produced, and raised some very interesting issues. None of these are now available anywhere. If they were a load of tosh, produced by idiots, why would you need or wish to ban them? Think about it - if you don't have access to a range of views, you are not FREE.
Nonsense. I have been discussing and debating Apollo hoax claims for OVER 10 years online, especially here on RUclips, where I've seen practically EVERY Apollo hoax documentary (English language that is) ever broadcast on TV and EVERY main Apollo hoax video here on RUclips, especially the so-called 'well produced' ones. ALL are still available, many mirrored across multiple channels, where NONE have been removed except either by the uploader deleting the video or deleting his/her channel. I know because I have a great many still in my conspiracy playlists, and for those that I find are gone over time I simply search for them and add the link from another channel. That's how I know for a fact that what you're claiming here is simply not true. Anyway.... in ALL those videos, not a single Apollo hoax claim has ever stood up to scrutiny, instead they ALL fall apart upon close examination without exception :-)
Agreed. Truth is censored. People need to wake up! My next door neighbor told me it was faked when I was 8 yrs old, and I didn’t believe him. Now I believe him. Media censors opinions they oppose. What are they afraid of?
It's still interesting to test ridiculous theories. So it's not a complete waste of time. Though I agree there is no convincing people that will believe bullshit no matter what evidence they see.
The USA sent men to the moon 9 times from 1968 to 1972, landing on the moon during 6 of those missions. How many times did they need to go before it would have been enough for you? Besides, look up unmanned Artemis 1 mission in 2022 and the manned Artemis 2 mission set to launch next year (but more likely 2026).
@@ApolloKid1961 12 astronauts in total, but only 4 (Armstrong, Aldrin, Conrad and Bean) before the end of the 1960s, which had been Kennedy's deadline. The other 8 walked on the Moon in 1971 and 1972 (none in 1970 due to the Apollo 13 accident).
The earth is as much of a light source on the moon as the moon is on earth during daytime. They did forget one huge secondary lightsource though; the astronaut behind the camera, who's white spacesuit reflects A LOT of light.
Actually, there was a "fill light" they failed to take into account. Neil Armstrong was standing in bright sunlight with his Hasselblad, reflecting photons a-plenty toward Buzz Aldrin.
Then why do the astronauts suits act as a fill light for dozens of other photos? For example there are many photos of the astronauts standing by shadowed objects, but they are not lit up as you see here. While you’re at it, how can you explain the moving flags? (No astronaut is touching the flag at all)
Why not show the landing with the dust flying around. That a film crew a with tripod took, that were already on the moon. I cannot find the dust flying video anywhere?
"That a film crew a with tripod took" Not sure which is worse, your ignorance or your English! But if you really want to see dust flying around, try the film taken from the LMP's window in all 6 landings: ruclips.net/video/nrKHtXxYlkk/видео.html
We can do it now, but there are other factors we need to take into account. 1. The moon landing was a flex of power. Both the United States and The Soviet Union were racing to get there. It was an intellectual war. Both sides were throwing everything at it. There isn't any real power now for the United States to compete with. It's basic competitive economics. The United States has the monopoly on global power, at the moment, that is. 2. Due to the competitive nature of the moon landing, the United States and the Soviet Union threw a hell of a lot of money at the projects. Referring to my first point, the US government could in now way justify doing it again today. People are just not as patriotic as they were in the mid 20th century and really, the US have nothing to prove. 3. The US was basically better off in the 1960s. They still are the single global power. However, referring to point 1 and 2, they couldn't justify doing it, especially when the country is poorer. Put it this way, Baby Boomers could, in general, afford bigger houses than todays young adults. Using your logic, today's generation would be able to afford even bigger houses. In conclusion, it all comes down to money and power. Technological speaking, we could easily go back. Financially speaking, it's much harder.
Go to school without a teacher trying to convince me I was born the wrong gender. Stand up and pledge allegiance to our American flag in our classroom.
@@coolperson962you hit the nail on the head. The money just doesnt make sense. Especially because we havent tripped over 1. a life form threatening or non threatening to make research and resources worth it. 2. We also havent discovered a vast amount of resources nor has our planet started to run dry of most elements needed to sustain life.
this is stupid, you guys clearly showed rubbing the reflective surface dust on the astronaut which means that obviously he'll be appearing bright...also the actual picture shows Neil equally as bright as the "moon" surface but in this test the astronaut isn't equally as bright as the "moon" surface so obviously something is wrong here...i'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm just stating whats wrong in this test and how the results aren't similar...since the astronaut in this test isn't equally as bright as the surface that means the the conclusion you guys claim is false...need a better testing method...
Reflectiveness of a surface doesn't make object appear brighter, it just makes the reflection clearer. And by the way, it's not like 100% of astronaut's surface is dust - you can still see clearly suit's patterns. Also, you can't compare brigthnesses of astronaut and lunar surface on the original photo, because they are both out of camera's dynamic range.
That's not what MBs are addressing here my friend. The hoax claim says the astronaut in shadow should be completely black because the sun is the only light source and he's not in the sunlight. So all anyone has to do to debunk that claim is show that the astronaut in shadow would be lit by reflected light, and MBs achieved that :-)
Why is that required for MBs but not for conspiracy theorists my friend? The conspiracy theorists claim is that the astronaut in shadow is not in the sun and therefore should be completely black, which has never been demonstrated by any conspiracy theorist. In contrast, all who have recreated that same scene with models, sets, computer simulations, night time locations etc have all arrived at the same result, i.e. the astronaut in shadow would be illuminated by reflected light.
That proves it, the moon is flat
Ayy Oh Kayy THE SUN IS A FIDGET SPINNER RUNNING AT LIGHT SPEED CREATING HEAT FOR US!!!
Sansirow Jesus christ are you actually stupid? The sun is just a huge piece of paper that is attached to the underside of a plane and it flies through the sky I mean are there people who believe in the sun???? Dont be sheep
VanquishElite IMMA CALL MAH MOTHER N SHE LL DESTROY DAT ABERRATION THAT YOU CALL FACE!!!
lol xD
Ayy Oh Kayy LOL
oh god watch out for the comments section on this one
betotrono i was thinking the exact same
betotrono I
betotrono right 😂😂😂😂
betotrono Thanks for the warning
betotrono i
The moon was a paid actor
emmm!! Actually I thought it was a star!
teter wells16 the moon isn’t paid squat and this is real
teter wells16 the moon will win the oscars next year
Lol
Lol
they wanted to make the moon landing so realistic that they actually filmed it on location
We must totally trust Nixon and that Werner von Braun dude: he looks like a decent, honest fella....
@@bdleo300 Good point. Only Nixon said they went. And German Scientists are known for being incompetent. With solid proof like this everyone will be thinking moon hoax any day now.
😂BS@@bdleo300
Cannon Air force base in Mexico, thats hte exactly location when they film, the moon landing is fake..
I bet you still believe in Santa too😂
I kinda expected a 5 sec video of Jamie and Adam saying "No" together and video ending.
Aviv Metz why though? That would be ignorant of them
The Blue Blur no it wouldn’t. It’s ignorant to think something which makes no sense
Spaceman yes it would, the conspiracy exists and it makes people believe things that may or may not be true. And like the flat earth theory (which is stupid) there are some "proofs" so if they just said "no" that isn't going to persuade shit, people want facts and proof
+The Blue Blur There is no proof for the Flat Earth theory, nor is there any justification for it existing in the 21st century. At least the Moon Landings conspiracy theory actually has legitimate questions to ask about the official narrative.
The Blue Blur you live in a level realm. Its science fact. No space at all.
I hate it when people say the cow jumping over the moon was a hoax
Oh dear the cow did jump over the moon....
I like you Jones. Good one...😂😂😂😂😂🐮🐮🐮🐮🌔🌓🌒🌘🌖🌙🌛🌜
@@1dgoose ...I know that's rught!!!!
@@bdavis4075 🐱🎻🐄🌝🐕⚪🥄
The cow didn't jump over the moon. The flying pig told me.
To all the people who believe in these super intricate conspiracy theories, remember that the government can't even unlock a fucking iPhone.
+FlyntofRWBYNation And when they do, they find out that there was nothing incriminating on it.
+game4brains ' Actually, some guy dropped water on it when celebrating.
+FlyntofRWBYNation UGH!!!! Maybe you should rethink that statement. They didn't go through all that to unlock a freakin IPhone. They were using this simple ploy and looking at the big picture to enact laws to take away all encryption rights.
They were in actuallity, incredibly clever
Open Your Eyes Your evidence for that statement iiiiiiissss, where?
Open Your Eyes I know they were trying to pass the encryption law so that they could have a back door to every iPhone possible. That still doesn't prove that they were purposely "having trouble" unlocking the phone so that they could pass that law.
Actually they do get one thing wrong here. That model isn't Neil Armstrong as it has the red commanders stripe on the helmet. That wasn't added until Apollo 14, since in the first two landings it was hard to tell the two astronauts apart on video footage (Apollo 11 only had black and white video anyway so a red stripe wouldn't have been seen easily).
Hah I’m also a nerd but for planets
If you were to watch the Earthrise movies that were shot from the moon, notice anything wierd? The moon is tital lock to the Earth so that one side can only face the Earth. So from the surface of the moon the Earth CANNOT rise.Apollo debunked in one paragraph.
Maybe he knows that. But it looks like he already had that astronaut way before this video and just decided to use it and explain the stripes but new he don't have it before.
🤓🤓🤓
but the pictures have color and there was a second camera inside the lem "filming" in color with like 1 fps or something. The coolest thing about that is it was on the same side where the black n white camera was, so they both had overlapping FOV so sometimes you could see the astronauts in both videos at the same time AND some pictures where taking, so you can see one position from 3 different cameras. That is so cool. Also one really funny thing is, you can see how Neil made the photo of his footprint in the lunar dust. Some conspiracy theorists claimed, that it would have been impossible, as the camera was on his chest, but you can clearly see how took the camera off and held it in his hand. How stupid can you be ... also alle the people who wonder who took the photo of neil exiting the lem. no you idiots, thats neil taking a photo of aldrin ... THAT is also visable in the camera!! AND also you can see how bright neil is. His white suite is perfekt for the sunlight to get reflected, additionally lighting the scene of buzz exiting AND explain the small reflections in his boots and some other places. No stupid "there had to be studio light" bs... :D PS: i am a conspiracy theorist myself, i just love to goo deep into things and ask questions, but i do that because i want to know the truth, not to fall for another lie. So far, most of the apollo fake claims were easily debunked by watching the videos and photos of the moonwalks :D
UP NEXT ON MYTHBUSTERS! DID BUSH DO 911?
WE'LL BE TESTING WITH THIS REAL SKYSCRAPER
This is science you dumb ass
Rolando Delarosa no shit dumbass
+Rolando Delarosa EXACTLY! 9/11 requires science obviously!
sirbutteralotIII yes
Mythbusters faked the moon landing
Stalker Delight yes
I expected to see someone who got jebaited into saying no lol
Yasss
Hahahahahahahajahaaaaaa!
WOW MYTHBUSTER PROVE IT WAS FAKED AS THEY RECREATE PERFECTLY THE FAKED LANDING AND FOOTAGE!!! WOW!!!
I'm more impressed with that cardboard model of the lunar module he made!
imagine what Stanley Kubrick could make with budgets of millions?
There was nothing that Savage couldn’t make. The man is a genius natural builder.
the lunar model is out of cardboard and aluminium foil
Okay. Let's start. Adam says that the astronaut figure is scale 1:6. Then I assume that the lunar lander is also 1:6. The only problem is that their sun is not in scale 1:6 or the distance between their model landscape and their fake sun is not 1:6 in relation to the parameters of reality. This is false propaganda and nothing else. Thanks so much. Im not a flat earther either.
@@oliverxvi4373 you're not a flat eather and you're also not smart
This does not prove the landings were real...or fake. Just some camera nerd stuff. The larger story and additional discrepancies are ignored. Exactly what one would expect from mainstream TV.
You said "This does not prove the landings were real...or fake. Just some camera nerd stuff"
That's not the point. The hx claim says that despite the moon being bright enough to cast shadows here on Earth, an astrnaut standing in the shadow of the LM should be completely BLACK with nothing seen in that shadow.
All anyone has to do to debunk that claim is to show that the astrnaut in shadow would be lit by light reflecting off the surrounding ground and surfaces, and that is exactly what they did.
So they've proven this ONE particular hx claim is wrong. Nothing more and nothing less.
You said "The larger story and additional discrepancies are ignored. Exactly what one would expect from mainstream TV."
So how many claims do you think anyone can cover in just 45 minutes?
This episode of MB was first broadcast in 2008, 14 YEARS ago, where they carried out experiments that NONE of the conspiracy theorists had done themselves!
To this day, no-one has carried out the same experiments as MB in this episode and yet arrived at different results, hence debunking the claims they tested.
Also, it doesn't matter which claims they selected because there would ALWAYS be many more which they couldn't test in a 45 minute programme :-|
@@yazzamx6380 No evidence for your wacky claims.
they dont debunk this... think better ... they have that guy with the white reflective tshirt stay right where you would need to put a reflective surface... they think they demonstrated the conspiracy theory false, but they actually proved it true... the white tshirt if put to real life scale wound not only be as big as conspiracists claims, but it would be giant compared to the lander and astronauts... aka more than capable of illuminating the astronaut in the shadow...
I think you're right. This whole video was a waste of time. You could put a Moon Landing-Denier in a rocket ship, go to the moon, and touch down on a moon. The Moon Landing-Denier would still say that the whole thing was fake, and probably that their experience was fake too. Or that NASA drugged them to think they went to the moon to concoct a plan to trick them to think that they landed on the moon. For some people, all of the evidence in the world still isn't good enough.
To get consistent results, they used the same set as they first did back in 1969.
hahahahaha
Probably not the same pool and water . Buzz and Armstrong would look like the Grey's if they would have survived getting passed the radiation belt, twice. 🤔🤔🤔. In the 60s we still had black and white Bulb TVs. But we had wireless video transmission to and from the moon and then it was accidentally deleted to record The Benny Hill show or a Barney Miller episode. Who the hell was in charge of the betamax or VCRs in NASA in those days. The greatest achievement of man kind and oops main footage was deleted. IDK but if I was in charge heads are gonna rolll, before the Eagle has landed.
@@wisegeeks Isn't he so right though? This doesn't bust any myth at all, all it proves is that 1969 used the same construct as Mythbusters did here!!
Wes Barnes lol that's funny.
Flat earther but yet, he doesn’t know his facts. Even as simple as the earth... ya... u do research haha. Gosh, this is what you expect from a flatbrain.
I call bs... we all know the moon is made of cheese.
I
Jaden LaFrance swiss
@@iswiftyfox8997 DISGUSTING
@@Janpeders24 you monster....
@iSwifty but Swiss cheese has holes in it
The comments are making my brain cells die, especially the newer ones.
You got that right
My brain is like a plutonium rod that overheated and melted. A warm pile useless shit on the floor
Yap. It gets more absurd. Just read the moon is a hologram now
@P. Spit lmfao you sure about that?
@@victoriannecastle LmFAO that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard
Didn't realize a 60s technology cameras film could resist 250+ degree heat .I couldn't get mine to survive being in the glove box of my car...impressive
It's not really 250° in the sense that it's a warm day on earth. The _surface_ is 250° (and only after the sun has been up for a week!!) Did you know there is no atmosphere on the moon?
Your camera didn't cost billions of dollars though. Obviously your camera won't have the same quality as billions of dollars of technology, scientists extensively testing and planning the entire thing and the best engineers to build the rocket.
@@fluffycorgi3695The camera they used on the moon didn’t cost billions of dollars, though. You can see in the alleged footage that the camera is the same commercial one you can buy at the store, but what makes it even more suspicious is the fact that there isn’t any insulation or anything to handle the massive differentiating of temperatures that would otherwise destroy a camera here on Earth with less extreme conditions.
EXCLNT CRITICAL THOUGHT: I NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT🤜🏻🤛🏻
@@fluffycorgi3695highly doubt the camera alone costs billions of dollars 😂
I think they just proved that an organization can create a moon landing.
But they're showing why it's not a secondary light source from stage lights. The moon reflects light, a lot of it. If it didn't, moonlight wouldn't be a thing, since moonlight is only reflected sunlight.
I understand the reflectivity of the moon, how else would there moonlight? Either way debunking the hoax based on the photo by recreating the landing in a garage is almost in itself recreating a studio landing...that's the point.
@Cheryl Jolly what about the fact that lights that advanced didn't exist until 20 years after 1969?
@@Tennoinu Yeah i don't understand people, like "ha got you!, it got recreated in 40 years time!" it's fake! solid evidence!"
@@sogrim4816 They discussed this in the aired episode.
Why didn't they just go to the moon?...
Steven English Ez myth solver
Steven English because NASA doesn't want people to go to Moon because if Allen life on moon
Hamish Mahoney Or because the aliens don't want humans near of them, the humanity have a lot of stupid people, cof you cof
Luis Enrique *cough* people who are blinded by their brain *cough*
@Hamish Mahooney Who's Allen and who cares if he lives on the moon?
You could put a conspiracy theorist on the moon and he would still think it was fake. Let them think what they want: They want to feel special by supporting an unpopular position.
halberthawkins Give then their tin foil hats
halberthawkins Exactly
halberthawkins so true lol
drumline guy this is why abortion is legal
halberthawkins yep
"Apollo Program"
Producer: Walt Disney deceased at that time.
Co-producer: Wernher Von Braun.
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Art Director: John Hoesli.
Writer: Arthur C Clarke.
Photographer: Geoffrey Unsworth.
Total cost = 169.51 billion current dollars.
What was 169.51 billion spent on? Lawn chairs on a go-cart, foil and curtain rods.
The director was more likely Kubrick's effects supervisor at the time - Douglas Trumbull - as he had worked in the past for NASA shooting training films.
BRUH. Reading these comments made me lose hope in humanity, we are fucking doomed if we continue like this, the education system is failing, fast.
Education is indoctrination! All you need is common sense. Trust your senses. Unlearn everything you were taught in schools. It's all lies, but the math works! everything else is pseudoscience, bullshit and unproven theories. Whatever you learn in schools is Masonic bullshit, indoctrination and lies.
Just ask yourself some questions like;
When has a nation ever made an innovation, (planted a flag on a new continent, made a scientific advancement) without any other nation following?
How was all the data and scientific research to accomplish the moon landing lost?
Why has the US not gone back to make a base?
Wouldn't it have been beneficial to fake the whole thing to be able to spend more money on the military budget, while the Soviets were actually wasting trillions on trying to get there?
@@yakovendelman7659 because the moon is a luminary that generates it's own magnetic energy and light, it's not terra firma like earth. An astrophysicist from Australia tried to warn NASA in 1965 not to go to the moon, because nobody is ever going to be able to land on it. He said the moon is made of magnetic plasma. The sun is electrical in nature and the moon is magnetic and they are luminaries. If you can't land on the sun, you can't land on the moon. Nobody ever landed on the moon and nobody ever will, if NASA or the president tell you otherwise, you know they are lying to us.
@@xavierlopes9204 ahahahahahahahahaha please provide a link to those documents.... or did u just hear them in a bar one night. If the moon was made from plasma we would all be dead
@@yakovendelman7659 what's the point in going back to the moon exactly, anyway india or China are going there soon so hold tight
Lmao y’all believe in the moon?
Hybrid_ Cuber can’t tell if your trolling or are for real
Hybrid_ Cuber well let me explain why we only see one side of the moon. Simply because the earths gravity is so strong that the moon don’t spin like other birds planets. Saturnus moon doesn’t spin either nor Neptune’s. And yes you do see the same stars it’s just that you can’t tell the difference
Hybrid_ Cuber and secondly the moon rotates the same speed as it revolves so that’s why
Hybrid_ Cuber I would recommend watching some videos about gravitation and how it all works. Everything in our solar system orbits the sun except the moons who orbits their planets wich in its turn obits the sun. The higher mass a planet have the bigger gravitational force it have wich is why the moons orbits the planets closest to them
@@ggurded2262 You're confused because you don't understand, not because you have any point whatsoever. You just don't understand. Study harder.
Anyone who has ever learned of how reflections work, should be able to realize why the astronaut is lighter than the shadow. How this myth came about in the first place, I really want to know.
mamberu because they have a partial understanding of how shadows work in space. see, in space, shadows are utter black with no gradient. it's why you can't see the dark side of the earth in space pictures. the reason is because there's nothing to scatter the light and break up the shadow, so light travels in straight lines, drawing perfectly straight edges to shadows.
problem is, that picture wasn't taken in space. it was taken on the moon, which has a way to scatter light and cut shadows, the regolith dust that coats it, plus it's own pathetic atmosphere of dust. what that means is that shadows on the moon are more similar to shadows on earth than in space, and if i stand in a shadow on earth, i don't melt into the dark and vanish from sight, you can still see me because of scattered light. it's the same here.
but conspiracy theorists only listen to the first half, completely disregard the second half and make up an explanation to suit their feelings ("there's only one light source". yeah, there's only one light source when i stand in an open field at noon too, that doesn't mean i could step in a shadow and be gone).
Because they can't accept that they are wrong.
people who believe it are dumb, that's why their 'explanations' are dumb
Moon Landin aint real 😭😭😂 why would we not go back? Cuz we fkn cant😭😂
People who lived in the 60s/70s know how crude technology was then. When I say crude I mean really crude in comparison to today. Its hard to believe they went to the moon when you take a good look at 60s tech. Especially when they say they don't have that tech anymore and are unable to reproduce it. You would have thought that with something so important and groundbreaking that every little piece would have been kept and the whole thing massively documented right down to the smallest nut, bolt and rivet as this is meant to be man's greatest achievement. Why didn't they do this.
this video is basically a demonstration about how easy it would be to fake photos of the moon landing
That's how an idiot's brain works. Pathetic.
Ya it's easy to fake a lot of stuff, no surprise. Moon landing happened tho don't get that wrong
Hence why they only focused on this single photo and didn't touch the waving flag, etc, etc
@@snellavision…they did a waving flag mythbuster as well.
yea but if you gonna fake a photo, then why make one that will make all the retards question its legitimacy
Ironically enough, this goes to show how east it was to re create the “‘moon landing”, even though it was 1/6 scale it still goes to show how easy it was to take an almost identical photo as NASA’s
of course it would be easier to re create it 41 years later
@@kneesurgeryenthusiast6915 its not like they usding cutting edge tech not available 40 yrs ago.... especially nasa big budget
@@sandermez3856 not really
@@mocapcow2933 really? This video of mythbusters laying down sand, making a mock up model and coverng a building to make it as dark as possible is cutting edge and could not be done 40 years ago?
@@sandermez3856 they took pictures, you know how much hard it would be to create this, to real life scale, and record it all? No, cause people who are skeptics usually don’t have an understanding of cgi, or even regular science. They are people who come up with conclusions then try to get evidence, instead of using evidence to come up with conclusions.
Hah! You think the moon is real?
Kristen Cantu earth aint real either
Neither are we
Neither our solar system
Neither is the universe
Kristen Cantu yea. Duh! 🙄
if there were multiple light sources(like studio lights), then there should have been multiple shadows per object
if there was one light source then your gonna need on dam giant studio light
Can you shut the fuck up? Please, and thank you!
@@epsilon_el_naught you don't understand his comment. he is agreeing that the landing was real
@@rocker761001 I didn’t tell him to shut up because of his comment it’s just because i hate people with that pfp
@@epsilon_el_naught can he shut up more like CAN YOU SHUT UP
@@epsilon_el_naught I don’t like people with YOUR PFP
Imagine standing on a surface that is 250°F in the direct Sunlight.
Same as being out on a spacewalk in low Earth orbit in the sunlight, where the temperature range in low Earth orbit is -250 F in the shade up to 250 F in the sun.
Although huge temperature variations occur on the Moon, the astronauts were never actually exposed to them. The maximum temperature on the Moon is +260F at lunar noon but with no atmosphere this refers to surface temperature not atmospheric temperature. Every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise. One lunar day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly 15 Earth days, and the astronauts were only on the Moon for a maximum of 3 Earth days, so they weren’t there long enough for the Sun to be at its highest and hottest.
Haha at least people are now waking up. We can’t even go 1% of the distance right now in 2022. Here is first hand proof it was faked. ruclips.net/video/1uKFjkHYuHM/видео.html
@@Ruda-n4h The moon has an atmosphere?
@@albertroundtree8546 An extremely thin one that hardly registers and makes it negligible, hence my comment about the Moon has no atmosphere to hold heat as on Earth.
The comment section is a disaster
Why
Another troll saying nothing. :-)
Why
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 another troll saying dumbass shit :-)
@@baizuo_6246 well, you can always stop! lol
The moon is actually a sausage and the earth is a bread. Hence we make a hotdog.
And the sun brings the mustard
@@sixela2268 😂
Hide it from Obama 🌭 🤫
Real astronaut washed his space suit with tide just before landing he is shinier than your experimental astronaut.
Who was there to take the photo of Neil landing?
Neil landing? Assuming you mean the photo in this video... Two astronauts landed on the moon during each mission, where the photo in this video is of Buzz Aldrin (the second man on the moon) taken by Neil Armstrong (the first man on the moon). I hope that helps :-)
As stupid as this question is, I'm laughing at the image of Neil Armstrong just descending from space down to the lunar surface on his own.
Not only that, the sun's illumination is over 125,000 lux (and that's unfiltered without an atmosphere), which is much brighter than even the brightest indoor lights. I'd say that light they used for the set up would have hardly given them 500-1000 lux. That astronaut would have been much brighter with the sun shining.
I've always thought about that. How did the sun not burn their eyes.
@@solangelalebron1348 they had visors
@@solangelalebron1348 they had tinted visors as the other guy said
Had they tried to fake the sun,the single sourced light would have melted everyone on the sound stage.LOL How did they create the darkness of a vacuum/ space.We see no walls,ceiling yet the brightness matches the Moons low gravity, vacuum environment. Lets see Hollywood fake this.ruclips.net/video/boFZ3cAws20/видео.html
The moon doesn't have much atmosphere supposedly why they couldn't see the stars
Lmao what if the camera just used flash
Why should they? They didn't need a flash at all. They were there in bright sunlight (at the moon morning) just as you would be when you walk out on a sunny morning on some sand beach and take photos. No flash needed. A flash would have added additional weight to the misson and you would have needed additional batteries to operate it. Besides: it would have been some additional source of failure.
Pretty simple: you don't carry anything to the moon that is not absolutely needed - every pound counts. And there is one additional principle involved: KISS - "Keep it simple, stupid!"
Besides: As long as there is at least some light on something, you can brighten this area of the image up later in the dark chamber, as will everybody tell you who has ever actually worked in a dark chamber.
Then there wouldn't be that dark of a shadow behind the lander
Nikerio Hey dumbass, yes they did.
Nikero there were flashes wayyy earlier than 1960
Nikerio they have had flashes since the first cameras where Invented
The sheer irony in recreating moon landing footage on set to "prove" its wasn't done on set lmao
Er, since when is a photograph the same as footage? :-)
I guess all those scientists who do experiments must be taking the wrong strat too, since models or small scale situations are fake and can't tell you about larger scale or external phenomenon.
Shows how utterly delusional you flerfs are
Cry harder Flerf.
Lol forreal tho 💀
When I saw the "moon landing," I thought the 1st person on the moon must have been the photographer.
And what photographer would that be? Dumb comment.
There were cameras on the module that captured it??
@@Zack_Euler
The cameras were out of reach of the module.
Your assumption is actually correct. Neil Armstrong was the photographer who took this photo of Buzz Aldrin climbing out of the LEM.
@@simplydifferent7712This photo they recreated was taken with a camera Neil Armstrong was holding while Buzz Aldrin climbed out of the LEM. The TV footage that was broadcast of Neil Armstrong climbing down came from a camera on the side of the LEM that was pointed at the ladder. It un-stowed and began recording when Armstrong pulled a handle on the “porch” of the LEM before climbing down the ladder.
They faked the myth busters.
Proof!
ruclips.net/video/ZOKcmSY-MZQ/видео.html
Next up on mythbusters: did the mythbusters fake the moon man?
Way easier way to bust this- just point out the reflective panels that they left on the moon that scientists still use today.
The Conspiracy theorist always gloss over that point. One thing the mythbusters forgot was to add the reflective coming off of Neil Armstrong's space suit, if that is added Buzz Aldrin is even brighter.
Christian Caisley lol there are no panels Lololol...prove it
Grab a space laser of your own and find out for yourself. They are there, and the stupidity of moon hoaxers continues to astound me.
Ps. Lolollolololololllol!!111!! roflcopter
toto wolf Actually, the Russian, Chinese, Indians(India), the European Space Agency, Japan, etc. have already pointed their space lasers there. Scientists from around the globe use it for lunar research. It is the best way to accurately measure the distance between the Earth and Moon. If they did not get a return signal they would have reported it.
No no no clearly every single scientist from every country in the world, including ones who are enemies against each other, are all in on this massive conspiracy. Wake up sheeple!
I'm sorry i could barely contain my laughter.
7/11 was a part time job
@That Guy James I don't see any reference to 9/11 i just see that 7/11 is a part time job, I agree with him.
I work at dunkeroil
Gordon Schnick tbh there is a difference between ‘was’ and ‘is’... 7/11 IS still a part time job there is no was cuz it always will be a part time job. It was a joke one the less so who cares
9/11 = Tisha B’Av
100% fictionalized Apollo missions
FACTS
Didnt you think about camera having flashlight turned on??
XD
A. Hdh. Didn’t you think about that a flashlight wouldn’t just light up the astronaut but the shadow too??
XD
No u
Lol Lol unless it was concentrated just on the astronaut then not so much
Madmarty there as no way it could have been just on the astronaut there would still be light surrounding the astronaut
Lol Lol yea I guess but anyway it's not because of another light we all know that
They could have just said: A secondary light source would have created a further shadow and saved 4.03 minutes of our time
yes,, they could easily shorten the video,,, too much drama to come to a conclusion . and now comes the next questions, how come only one camera shot /video of Aldrin , on his right back side ? what happen to the camera that videoed Neil armstrong, it was on his left front angle ? the film run out on the hasselblad videocam ?
Have you never watched myth busters before?
Bob, They didn't mention Neils suit? It was like a light bulb in the sun of the Moon.. The white spacesuits reflected about 90 percent of the light striking it.
But by recreating this picture on earth with stuff we have on earth just adds to the fact that it could’ve been done on earth. Not saying I believe it was fake, just saying.
I always loved this episode. They proved the moon landing happened by proving it could faked.
Nope, they simply debunked a specific hoax claim, hence myth busted :-)
@@yazzamx6380 *thus
@@LetsMars - You said "*thus".
Oh, so you want to be pedantic :-)
Ok, here's the problem with your claim, there's a huge difference between still photos and video/film.
There isn't a single photographed event in history (Apollo included) for which we cannot recreate the photos of that event in a studio, but... to this day, no-one has EVER recreated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even the most modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to CGI (which wasn't available back in the 60s/70s).
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut fake footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it's possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth. :-)
@@yazzamx6380 lol
@@LetsMars - In other words, you have no counter arguments :-)
why is he looking at the picture in lightroom then?
???
If the moon missions were faked the USSR would have been the first ones calling BS. Also, if you don't know how things react in a vacuum or how light scatters and reflects, take some science courses and expand your mind a little bit.
No, what they need to do is actually live up to the experience for them to actually believe the science. Why not stick them in a vacuum chamber and see for themselves how their bodies react? That'll be beneficial for both sides.
What if there is complicity. Why rule it out. Why go by tv. Why not use common sense. Think out of that idiot box. Nobodys friend or foe nations. We all are greedy insecure and envious.
Vaccumm is another big BS. What divides the vac from atmo. Who has seen that divide. 11 thousand satellites up there. Get a live vid evidence. Also if vaccumm exists then by definition it must suck up entire mass if any. It cannot be allowing atmo or mass to resist. If it do so its not vaccumm. Its just another extended layer above atmo. # Vaaccumm hoax
@@MA-uf8ly Actually vacuum and atmosphere aren't separated.The atmosphere just thins up to the point where it seems no atmosphere is present but there is an atmosphere.This is why satellites need to be replaced or boosted back after a few decades or so.Also how does saying that no nations are friend or foe explain why the USSR wouldn't call bullshit if the US faked the moon landing?
@@sohanturtorial3856 theories n theories.... no satellites up there. Disprove me. Show live vid of sats from any other sat. Ok. Show me sats from telescope or any scope one can. If we can snap mars then y not our own sats. To believe is faith. To prove is truth. Complicity :: u scratch mine i scratch yours. Who would not "cooperate" if deception receives funding...
Make a Feather and Hammer drop at the same time and land at the same time with 1960 Tech, then come back to me and say it was faked
we talked about that in physics class, we also calculated the amount of gravity experienced where the video was taken and we got that it is around 1/6th that of earth which is what the moons gravity is. it could easily be faked tho by using a fake feather that would fall around the same speed as the hammer and a rope to slow the acceleration to 1/6th of gravity on earth, but i highly doubt it.
Moh_mmed What the fuck are you on about?!
Divyesh he was saying they couldnt have faked the moon landing what dont u understand?
Aiden Drake im not sure if they had the technology to make a vaccum chamber that big in the 60s lol
Well actually they did that in the episode. But decided to cut it.
Is everything a conspiracy theory nowadays?
IWantToDie Yes.
Herr Doktor the worst one is either the lizard people in the government theory or the “chemtrail” theory.
No flat earth has got to be the worst. ;)
Imagine bumping into a moon landing, chemtrail, flat earth, anti vax, lizard conspiracy vegan
I have a conspiracy theory
We will all die
This is absolutely true: No one has ever been to the Moon. Yesterday, I was talking to Inspector Monk, who investigated the subject, and he said to me, as usual: "this is how it happened":
NASA needed a sequence showing the astronauts walking on the moon, but they had to find a director capable of shooting this short film on Earth, in a credible way, and they asked Stanley Kubrick. He agreed, on the condition that the images be as realistic as possible. Some sequences were thus shot in the studio, and others outside. And, since he is a perfectionist, he asked that the outdoor shots be done on the Moon, so they discreetly took all the equipment, the cameras, the spotlights, and even the actors, to the Moon, in the middle of the night, so as not to be noticed, they shot the sequences they needed, and then came back down to Earth, with the recorded images. These were then broadcast on television news, without anyone noticing the deception. 😂😅😂
aint noone reading allat
Adam personifying the Neil Armstrong figure with the little ‘Quindar’ beep is absolutely adorable.
It's technically an Alan Shepherd, Dave Scott, John Young, Eugene Cernan figure, and the reason being is Neil Armstrongs suit did not have the commander stripes.
@@pnwdiver1734 ah i see you are a man of culture as well
@@ziji6261 If we want to get super technical, Apollo 13's Commander Jim Lovell's space suit was the first to have the red stripes, unfortunately he didn't have the opportunity to walk on the moon.
@@pnwdiver1734 yeah
If you were to watch the Earthrise movies that were shot from the moon, notice anything wierd? The moon is tital lock to the Earth so that one side can only face the Earth. So from the surface of the moon the Earth CANNOT rise.Apollo debunked in one paragraph.
**Sponsored by NASA**
Lol Sponsored by NASA to expose their fake moon landing
Dude with what money
Gu3stn0t3v1l lmao not
NASA : Never A Straight Answer
They don't have the money for that.
The CIA hired Stanley Kubrick to fake the moon landing but he was such a demanding director that he would only fill on location
Before I finished reading your comment I was shaking my head then by the end I started laughing. Lol good one.
Actually, Donald Ramsfeld said that Stanley had his private set to stage the landing in case mission was unsuccessfull but, the they just didn't need it. For whatever reason, Stanley never left his property ever after.
@@John-Doe-Yo if everyone was so sure what they knew was right wisdom would not be a word. instead of shaking your head have the courage to find the truth for yourself. That TV on the wall is no source for truth. it's purpose is profit and programing
10 idiots repeating exactly the same dumb joke
Strange how they “lost” the 1969 technology to get back to the moon.
"Strange" how? What do you imagine happens to a tech of a program that's been cancelled?
Yes! NASA astronaut Don Petitt said " I'd go to the moon in a nano second but they lost that technology and it's a painful process to get it back!" It would be impossible to fool todays people the way they used to with a couple dollars worth of cheap black and white 35 mm film and a cheap projector. Nowadays that would require taking away independant information like the worldwide web and bringing people back to the days of completely controlled radio and TV airwaves like we had in the 1960s. Now we have to hire dishonest people to work for the worldwide military industrial complex to do psyops on youtube videos, news programs. It works but very, very hard. We simply dont have the technology at this time.
@@inharmonywithearth9982 _NASA astronaut Don Petitt said " I'd go to the moon in a nano second but they lost that technology and it's a painful process to get it back!"_
Yes, he did. Your point being? It's not strange in the least. What do you imagine happens with hardware of a project that's been cancelled?
_It would be impossible to fool todays people_
Not so - with CGI, it would be easier than ever.
_Nowadays that would require taking away independant information like the worldwide web_
As opposed to taking away independent information from other countries, organisations, and foreign scientists? Your "completely controlled radio and TV airwaves" excuse doesn't work here.
@@Jan_Strzelecki 1967 MY GUY, WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE COLOR TV'S, HUMANS CAN'T GO THROUGH THE VAN ALLEN BELTS, IMPOSSIBLE, SPACECRAFTS THROUGH THOSE BELTS WOULD GET DESTROYED FROM HIGH RADIATION
@@leelunk8235 Except that we did have colour TVs in 1967, and the radiation in the Van Allen Belts isn't as high as you were misled to believe.
What people need to realise is that they made the exact same picture but they weren’t on the moon
Do you... think the Moon landing photos' veracity were predicated on the idea that it's impossible to build a scale model of something?
Absolutely agree ..a replica but not the real thing.. no real proof
But doesn't that prove that there is clearly a way to achieve that effect without actually being there?
Any event or scene in history can be recreated in a studio with a single photograph, but the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour and hour of Apollo footage can't be recreated in a studio.
1967 MY GUY, WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE COLOR TV'S, HUMANS CAN'T GO THROUGH THE VAN ALLEN BELTS, IMPOSSIBLE, SPACECRAFTS THROUGH THOSE BELTS WOULD GET DESTROYED FROM HIGH RADIATION
@@leelunk8235ok prove that mathematically
@@yazzamx6380that is where the devil is,1/6 gravitational force but not zero.There were methods that could levitate objects or even dust.
Space debris would tear the craft to pieces. There’s more debris out there than mentioned. Not only that , earth is frequently bombarded by small meteorites that burn up in atmosphere. Yet satellites stay up there for years unscathed? Yeah right, internet can actually work without satellites because it uses waves. I don’t believe we got satellites in space. Genuinely we are being lied to badly
it's real, I'm the moon
No I’m the moon, and I’m lactose intolerant
No im the moon and I'm allergic to ppl
Somebody please moon me!
@Donald Trenton great one
It’s the cameraman
As much research as they tend to do, it was odd that Adam started off with an error. Apollo Mission Commanders had Red stripes on their helmets, sleeves, and legs to differentiate them from the Lunar Module Pilots in photographs and videos from the Lunar Surface. The error is that the stripes were a solution to a problem that was discovered while analyzing the Apollo 11 photographs and trying to figure out which photos were of Neil and Buzz. There were no Command Stripes on Armstrong's Apollo 11 mission suit.
To be fair he doesn't say it's how it looked on that particular mission, just that he can tell it's Armstrong based on the stripes.
From Apollo 13 onward, the Commaders had arm, leg, and helmet stripes on their suits so that they could be distinguished from the LMPs in mission photographs.
Also odd that they neglected a major light-reflectivity-related component of Luna, which is the lack of atmosphere. They didn’t do this in a vacuum, which would slightly alter the way the light behaves, and didn’t even seem to mention it
In free documentary 'American Moon' from Massumo, (youtube) they debunk the debunkers.
All
Lunar pictures and videos
Are staged on Earth.
Not any single doubt.
If you were to watch the Earthrise movies that were shot from the moon, notice anything wierd? The moon is tital lock to the Earth so that one side can only face the Earth. So from the surface of the moon the Earth CANNOT rise.Apollo debunked in one paragraph.
the reason why buzz was lit was because the light bounced off the surface and also bounced off niel armstrong because his suit is white
finally someone who have knowledge
moon works like a mirror and it bounces the sun light to other directions.
@@pchead except that Buzz Aldrin admitted to an eight year old girl on camera, that the moon landing never happened, it was faked, and the look on his face when he said that, was priceless, he felt like a lying fraud and was obviously distraught. Your knowledge can't replace the truth!
He was lit because he blazed a huge doobie before he put the suit on
@@xavierlopes9204 You good, mate? You just said "eight year old girl". Of course he would lie, she's just a small child! Buzz either didn't want her to risk her life by becoming an astronaut, or he didn't want that child to be confused. God bless astronauts.
His suit was bright against the darkness of space
1:12 pls lets take a moment of silence to appreciate the beauty of this mans mustache.
Gay
@@epsilon_el_naught how
@@OsamaBinLackin_ satafu ya prick
@@epsilon_el_naught n8ggà
I’m pretty sure you’re like “What The Fuck”
I challenge somebody to give me evidence that it was faked that cannot be proved wrong
Ikr NASA knew they would’ve been caught in the future if they faked it so they didn’t besides if that was the case someone would’ve leaked it by now. We’re going to the moon in 4 years on the Artemis mission and they’ll show the site where Neil and Buzz once step on unless people want to claim that the astronauts going there put those “props” there
ruclips.net/video/fMcpKJ18nmo/видео.html
Was the moon landing done with the same camera too?
Similar Hasselblad camera, but they didn't have the same photographic film and so they used a digital sensor at the back of the camera to capture the image.
But it doesn't matter because the conspiracy claim is that the astronaut is in the shadow of the LM and therefore should be just a silhouette with no detail seen, and so all anyone needs to do to debunk that claim is to prove that the astronaut can be seen inside the shadow of the LM :-)
People are really dumb.
Ikr
*Always has been*
Right? The believe anything the government, including NASA, tells them!
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 my oh my.
@@justnoah2073 i'm sayin! lol.
I quit believing in the moon landing when I realized 2001 was just a movie.
herbalgerbil I hope I get woooshed and this isn’t real
It's not a movie it's a episode of F.RI.E.N.D.S
@@cvf1660 no it's not it's a 26 page essay about frogs
2020 is just a movie
Balls so big like planets
It's quite simple, really. People who can't accomplish anything don't understand how other people can.
It's science not life or success
Yeah that makes sense with your logical fallacy. More like "I believe we went to the moon over 60 years ago, over half a century and havent returned because NASA tells me that it's too hard and a Painful process to try to rebuild the technology. And it just so happens to be the only technology that has become less efficient over the course of 60 years". But sure, keep on believing a bunch of people, including NASA who use green screens and have more foul-ups than Harlem globetrotters game.
@@YdOntYaCryAboutIt69 Actually one shift of the flag is convincing enough. The astronaut quickly rotates the flag with a sharp movement, and the corner of the flag quickly and gracefully swings above the cross bar. That can't happen in our gravity, and couldn't be emulated or faked. That was a result of .17g, they were on the moon. Done. Your welcome.
@@crispbacon3763 Yeah, I did.
@@TheJollyGreen Oh ofcourse, I forgot, You've been to space, you've experienced .17g and you are basing ALL of what you're saying and believing on the information given to you by the very people who write the textbooks, want you to believe what they say and you've given up on your own physical senses to justify an invisible force. But sure, I can tell by your retort that you haven't looked into the excessive number of NASA inconsistencies across the last 60 years, Haven't learned your history when it comes to why an agenda such as faking space missions would exist, along with believing that space bubbles exist too. Can you explain how bubbles occur in space?? Please enlighten me, because as it stands NASA spokepeople state it is debris and NOT bubbles, but then they proclaimed astronauts needed snorkels in space. As it stands now, NASA has been losing support steadily due to their MAJOR greenscreen failures, the regular failures and inconsistencies regarding space, a vacuum that never sucks away earths atmosphere and a constant requirement to base everything on Gravity and your main basis for evidence is a flat moving while you're watching a video which was filmed in a slower speed in order to generate an odd look so people such as yourself will defend it as being "the moon bc it looks different and we dont know what the moon would be like". Let's not forget that these "AstroNOTS" cannot utilize the gravity of the moon properly and reach heights of more than 12 inches when jumping, when they should be jumping upwards of 4 to 6 feet with Zero issue physically. But they aren't on the moon, they are utilizing cables, have a pretty good budget and have been deceiving people for nearly 70 years, so theyve become pretty efficient and yet still they are fouling up on an almost daily basis. Just look into The Moon crossing the earth and watch how pathetic the footage is, it is sad, cringy and shows how little they think of us as a civilization. Anyway, I'm happy to believe what I Know, tou keep on believing scientism founded by some Nazi rocket scientists who even proclaimed upon their final death marker( gravestone) Psalms 19:1, just look into it, why would the father of Rocketry do such a thing? hmmmmm.
Dude the flag was waving in what air that doesn't exist and there's no sound in space Hollywood forgets it all the time and it drives me f****** crazy
A flag will wave a lot easier on the moon as there is no atmosphere to remove energy from it. The flags only waved when the astronauts moved them. Take care.
" the flag was waving"
It wasn't.
"and there's no sound in space "
The Sound travels through the space suit.
"in space Hollywood forgets it all the time"
Hollywood has nothing to do with the moon landings.
2001: A Space Odyssey budget = 10.5 million USD
Apollo 11 budget = 25.4 billion USD
NASA overpaid.
Is your premise here that the movie 2001 looks real?
No, my premise here is that the apollo movies look unreal. ruclips.net/video/Zcz0eL_bYsI/видео.html @@willoughbykrenzteinburg
@@ferruccioalderisi3753 Because you have no way to know what real looks like.
@@Agarwaen Are you claiming this looks legit? ruclips.net/video/Zcz0eL_bYsI/видео.html
Yeah plus 2001 looks much better lol
That's how science is done indeed. You try to figure why something occurs. Once your explanation doesn't contradict itself or the rest of what you know of the world you try to setup an experiment that is as accurate as possible and then compare its reproducible results to the phenomenon in question. If it fits you can represent it to the world as THE explanation as long as nobody comes up with an explanation that fits the afore mentioned criteria better.
Nobody has, and NONE of other factors and parties that are/were sincerely involved contradict the historic event of the moon landing so that we, social media consumers, exposed to more dis- than real information, especially by exchanging so called information with our semi-informed counterparts on the web, can SAFELY ASSUME, WE FUCKING INDEED MADE IT TO THE MOON. So suck it!
I'm not saying we didn't go to the moon but the camera was positioned in the shade which would block sun glare so this experiment needs to be redone correctly.
+jtuno122 the camera wasnt in the shade and it was in a similar place with the original camera (angle)
not only that but there was no light glare in the original photo
try agaim
www.techinsider.io/neil-degrasse-tyson-moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-2016-1
No they didn’t make it to the moon FAKE
Stop reading it after ur first sentence. Too boring
RUclips blocked or hid any video challenging the Apollo missions, enough said. Do the math, if they had nothing to hide, you would think they would want it all out there, instead of hiding all of it.
Yeah, funny you should say "do the math". We did the math, we landed on the moon.
Funny how I can find all those videos challenging Apollo and yet you can't.
Seems YT introduced the equivalent of "2+2" and hence only those capable of working out the answer can find those videos ;-)
By your logic, the Earth must also be flat! Right? :-)
@@stevetheveteran Except we didn't.
@@scoobtube5746 You deniers are the same. Let's just skip the next few bits of dialog and skip to the end. RUclips videos are not "research", you don't see stars because of basic camera exposure settings that you don't understand, yes we can, and did navigate the van allen belts, it wasn't really that hard, Buzz Aldrin never said that we didn't go to the moon, the flag didn't blow in the wind and there are no multiple shadows from more than one light source.
You people don't sound smart, you didn't figure things out that millions of scientists, engineers, mathematicians and researchers missed.
@@stevetheveteran Sounds to me like you are reciting a sort of religion belief.
There was a second light source which they did not take into effect. Neil Armstrong took that picture, and a small amount of light was produced from the reflection of the sun off of his white pressure suit and onto Aldrins - enough to brighten Aldrin a bit and make him stand out more from the shadows.
Nonsense. Light reflected off his suit wouldn't light up the shadow side like Times Square. Nvida's computer model was designed to achieve the desired outcome - another bogus explanation for the extra illumination.
@@jonsmith3945 , And you are basing that statement on what, exactly? What evidence to you have to the contrary, other than "I don't believe that is true?"
@@pattonpending7390 It's based on my experience with lighting and photography. And I know that computer models can be tweaked to give any desired result, so I don't trust them.
I understand the reason for your question, but it's akin to asking me what evidence I have to debunk your claim of owning a pink unicorn.
There's no 'evidence to disprove Nvida. I just don't buy it. And, even if it's legit, it only address one anomaly out of hundreds. It doesn't sway me towards believing the landing were real.
@@rtbt12 There's no credible evidence that Kubrick was involved. In today's world, we're told more lies than before, because of all the previous lies they got away with.
@@rtbt12 : Do you actually believe that? If so, you may want to seek help. Why would a top secret, "Let's lie to the world" government project hire a civilian to do this? How many people would have to be involved in this, all of whom have NEVER spilled the beans? Why did the Russians not expose this while they were closely monitoring all traffic and tracking the module - wouldn't they have jumped at the chance? How is it that ALL the thousands of people involved in the project keep their mouths shut and not a shred of evidence is available to support this?
I truly hope you are joking and just regurgitating the old joke about Kubrick with out adding the "..but he insisted on filming on location" ending. Seriously, aside from a few crackpot you tubers there is absolutely no proof of this! Do you also believe in Flat Earth? SMH
technically there was a 2nd light source but most people don't know that its actually Neil Armstrong in his spacesuit as the suit he wore reflects about 80% of the sunlight and he's directly in front of buzz aldrin (hence how he took the photo)
The reflected light is likely around 20% not 80% There are losses….shiney tin foil would be around 90%
he is not a magnifying glass directing the light towards the other astronaut. rather dispersing incoming light in all directions not enough to be noticed by anything rather than just illuminating himself.
Actually that was 1960's studio lighting.. on a film set. Nice try
There is a reflection on the boot of the descending atronot, which has been used to trace the height and position of the secondary light source. If the light was reflected by the suit of the second astronot, it would light other darker parts of the photo, since it would be reflected all over the place, and not be focused.
noble effort now try to explain why we never went back to the moon. or why no other countries followed NASA.
What if they did exactly what you guys did but on a bigger scale, with more moon dust and a bigger substitute sun?
Then you wouldn't be able to, from home, prove that we've been to the moon yourself... but you can.
Notice how Jamie wears a white shirt while they put all black around them basically him ruining the experimment. This exact experiment was recreated by others and proved that his white shirt contributes greatly to light reflection.
Mythbusters failure.
And yet all who have recreated that same experiment in multiple ways have all arrived at the same result, i.e. the astronaut in shadow would be illuminated by reflected light.
Remember, the conspiracy theorists claim is that the astronaut in shadow is not in the sun and therefore should be completely black, which has never been demonstrated by ANY conspiracy theorist :-)
nope, the astronaut is all engulfed in shadow when done with both men wearing black shits.
@@robotube7361 - Again, the astronaut would not be completely black as claimed, which is why every recreation of that scene with actual models, sets, computer simulations, night time locations, with sunlight and artificial light, etc, have ALL proven that the astronaut would be illuminated by reflected light.
Therefore please direct everyone here to your source of that scene being recreated and yet the astronaut appears black, given that you appear to claim it's been done, so you have no excuses :-)
Correct....I saw the unedited clip and it was a FAIL for Mythbusters UNTIL Jamie brought his white shirt in the picture. Even then the "illumination" is about 20% of what the NASA photo was.
Sort these comments by new if you need a laugh.
Thanks the best is here, same as the votes, those are rigged too.
Wait, you can sort comments?! FFS...
Always loved the Mythbusters. Never saw this episode. My thoughts on Moon Landings always revolved around the fact that In the 1960's Russia and China were in a cold war with the USA and if they had sniffed out any kind of BS with the moon landings they would have exposed it and told it to the world. They were watching the US efforts closely. It was a series of space races that the US and Russia each won different events in (first animal into space, first human into space, first to orbit, first to the moon) but once all the events had been completed they stopped pushing one another - the space race was over. We need a new modern day space race to push humanity again.
Our allies and unaffiliated countries were also watching... and so were third party organizations and civilians. Schools watched it with telescopes, hell, amateur radio operators triangulated it's position the entire mission.
daddy, David Groves has opined that the picture of Buzz Aldrin descending from the Lunar Excursion Module onto the moon's surface was illuminated with artificial light. David Groves has a BSc Class 1 in Applied Physics and has a PhD in Holographic Computer Measurement. he is also a Chartered Physicist and a member of the Institute of Physics. he founded Quantec Image Processing in the U.K. Dr. Groves has 25 years experience analyzing photographs. he uses photographic computer techniques for analyzing images and obtaining three dimensional information from two dimensional photographs. he used those techniques to analyze those famous photograph of Buzz Aldrin descending the LEM's ladder to the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 moon mission. his crack team of experts noticed a number of anomalies in the photograph that indicated that it was illuminated with artificial lighting. the moon landings were faked.
Show less
@@robertpunu7624 You do realize there was no good CGI back in 1969 right? You also realize that the moon reflects light correct? Some people will just cling to their bs beliefs in spite of any evidence. Smh just as bad as creationists.
)@@cigarettesister I am talking about today's CGI that NASA uses to fool the public. of course, I know there wasn't any CGI during the faked moon landings of the 60s and 70s. and the moon doesn't reflect the light of the sun, it has its own light which is actually colder than sunlight. if you have a laser thermometer, you can test when the moon (full) is out. you'll notice that the shade in moonlight is warmer while the temperature outside of the shade is colder by a few degrees. and here is video proof that the moon isn't 240,000 miles from earth in deep space but is actually in our atmosphere as the moon is moving between the clouds. there is also video of clouds behind the sun. ruclips.net/video/JUmqTjCBk_I/видео.html some people will just cling to their BS belief in spite of any evidence.
@@robertpunu7624 The moon does not emit its own light source my guy. Why are people still bringing up that whole laser thermometer BS? That's not hard to debunk. I saw that video where a guy tries to "confirm it" but all he does is measure cold temperature in the direct moonlight, but the shade he measures is near a building, which is clearly gonna be warmer than the open ground. As for the video, try using your brain, a bright object is gonna shine through clouds. I mean, what else is there to say? You do realize that it's still brighter when it's cloudy during the day than when its night. The moon literally cannot be in our atmosphere else gravity send it crashing down. By all means, show me even one scientific peer reviewed paper that refutes the mountains of evidence that supports a basic fact like the moon being a celestial body orbiting our planet. So how do you explain tides? Tides happen because of gravitational interaction between the Earth moon and sun, this is literally third grade science class shit. But I'm willing to bet that you don't actually believe it you just wanna be the edgy conspiracy theorist who ignores anything that doesn't confirm what they want to see.
What annoys me about the secondary light source theory that never seems to get mentioned is that there would be shadows from that source but there never is. You only see one shadow per object or person.
There were multiple light sources in the warehouse lighting seeing as they never done it in darkness and taken a shot from a single spot light to see how that camera handles exposure but shows exactly the same as the nasa photo. I’m neither say it was real or fake but this doesn’t debunk any argument.
@@hoofhearted1102 Are you suggesting any light spill from outside the test area is significant enough to reflect more light than the control light inside the blacked out area?
If you were to watch the Earthrise movies that were shot from the moon, notice anything wierd? The moon is tital lock to the Earth so that one side can only face the Earth. So from the surface of the moon the Earth CANNOT rise.Apollo debunked in one paragraph.
@@jokiklos7009 Link (google search phrase) to where we can find these “Earthrise movies” you speak of. Go ahead, we’ll wait. You’re an id*ot.
Here it is. They went to the desert 4 hours from L.A and here's what went down. They said they couldn't use the sun because it was night time so they used a single light to shoot heaps of footage. So, why didn't they wait a few hours for the sun to come out ? They wouldn't address that question.
When questions started to arise about the authenticity of the whole thing, they compared the moon tapes to the ones shot in the desert to prove that they are authentic... Get it ? But the ones shot in the desert were done using artificial light. The shadows are all wrong but so were Apollo's so they must be real, right. So they actually proved themselves as liars with their own evidence.
All of this is now proven and part of history as is the fact that no human has been through the Van Allen belt...but you probably don't care if you are a believer. Good luck.
This video does not prove the Moon landing was real. If light was reflecting off the astronaut, then it should also be reflecting off the Luna Module.
Because it is already proven that the moon landings are real it is not the purpose of the video.
"then it should also be reflecting off the Luna Module."
As it obviously is.
Wait but if we didn't go to the moon then how would we know what made the moon reflect in order to recreate the reflectivity of the moon's surface?
Meteorites
@@sinistermoon And telescopes with spectroscopy.
Because the fake thing is easy to remake. Or better said, to refake.
The thing is how is this fake if thousands of ppl saw the launch irl
Correct!!! Thousands saw the LAUNCH. Would "you" KNOW if they were on the Moon or not?? Or were they just orbiting Earth until the fiasco of the Moon walk was over. *(you don't know WHO was in the spacesuits, no faces could be seen)*
*CHECK OUT HIS VIDEO LINK* and give me your opinion
ruclips.net/video/EsN3ojP4xpo/видео.html
Its very difficult to tell a *LIE* to millions of people.
@@tumarbongrox6074 shut up
@@willg2111 😂😂😂😂👍🏻👍🏻
@@tumarbongrox6074 bruh, I said shut up. So shut up
@@willg2111 ok Ms.Will😊
At one time, there were some very impressive videos on RUclips, with people challenging the narrative of the Moon Landings. They were well produced, and raised some very interesting issues.
None of these are now available anywhere.
If they were a load of tosh, produced by idiots, why would you need or wish to ban them?
Think about it - if you don't have access to a range of views, you are not FREE.
Nonsense.
I have been discussing and debating Apollo hoax claims for OVER 10 years online, especially here on RUclips, where I've seen practically EVERY Apollo hoax documentary (English language that is) ever broadcast on TV and EVERY main Apollo hoax video here on RUclips, especially the so-called 'well produced' ones.
ALL are still available, many mirrored across multiple channels, where NONE have been removed except either by the uploader deleting the video or deleting his/her channel.
I know because I have a great many still in my conspiracy playlists, and for those that I find are gone over time I simply search for them and add the link from another channel. That's how I know for a fact that what you're claiming here is simply not true.
Anyway.... in ALL those videos, not a single Apollo hoax claim has ever stood up to scrutiny, instead they ALL fall apart upon close examination without exception :-)
@@yazzamx6380 lol what a wackjob you are. probably a chatbot tbh.
@@papalegba6759
Agreed. Truth is censored. People need to wake up! My next door neighbor told me it was faked when I was 8 yrs old, and I didn’t believe him. Now I believe him. Media censors opinions they oppose. What are they afraid of?
same with 911 videos and videos of doctors against the vaccines.
I thought Why Files said, humans can't travel past a radiation belt, outside earth, which is between earth and the moon.
The radiation beltS are not a problem to pass through in a few hours :-)
_Why Files_ says a lot of stuff.
Why files asking the real questions.... why files? Why not something else? Maybe some sandpaper, or a good coil-bound?
@@yazzamx6380 Thanks!
Waste of time! People who don’t believe, will never believe. And the mythbusters certainly won’t convince them.
It's still interesting to test ridiculous theories. So it's not a complete waste of time. Though I agree there is no convincing people that will believe bullshit no matter what evidence they see.
I know nobody will see my comment but sometimes when I’m bored I go to the garden,cover myself with soil and pretend am a carrot 🤣
Someone saw your comment🤣
thats some great shit i respect you
I sometimes cover myself with sand alone on the beach and pretend to be a shell
26 people saw it
@@aosman2484 Now 30
The amount of people who think it is fake show how legendary of an accomplishment it is!
Yea
Plus there were live witnesses watching the original launch in 1969
Let me guess you believe in Jesus Christ also 😅😅😅😅
@@coltendoyle7589 wtf?
@@AdamSelvig live witnesses lol!
Why has there been no more moon landings?? I think that answers the question.
The USA sent men to the moon 9 times from 1968 to 1972, landing on the moon during 6 of those missions.
How many times did they need to go before it would have been enough for you?
Besides, look up unmanned Artemis 1 mission in 2022 and the manned Artemis 2 mission set to launch next year (but more likely 2026).
4 astronauts, not just 2, had walked on the Moon "before this decade is out".
@@fromnorway643 12 astronauts. Apollo 11,12,14,15,16,17.
@@ApolloKid1961
12 astronauts in total, but only 4 (Armstrong, Aldrin, Conrad and Bean) before the end of the 1960s, which had been Kennedy's deadline. The other 8 walked on the Moon in 1971 and 1972 (none in 1970 due to the Apollo 13 accident).
@@fromnorway643 You're right. I should have read it better.
NASA
Says the ignorant :-)
There are no such "acts" and there never were. Get a life.
Not a bad one. We can’t even go 1% of the distance right now in 2022. Here is first hand proof it was faked. ruclips.net/video/1uKFjkHYuHM/видео.html
FACTS FAKED
Like your ans..here's one nasa no aliens saw anything
Armstrong's highly reflective suit also provided an additional light source as well.
@Christine Ford is CIA what makes that inconvenient is all the astronauts that made it past the belt
Not to mention.. the moon reflects, yes. But so does earth.. people tend to forget earth is an indirect light source.
Absolutely. That's why you can see the rest of the moon when it's less than full; because of Earth's reflection.
The earth is as much of a light source on the moon as the moon is on earth during daytime.
They did forget one huge secondary lightsource though; the astronaut behind the camera, who's white spacesuit reflects A LOT of light.
So earth being a great light source and much bigger than moon, why isn't the moon blue then from all the light casting of the blue marble?
Soooo we say and believe that we have been to the moon, yet there is a list of places here on Earth that no human has ever been to. HOW??
I have been to St Louis but I've never been Paducah. HOW??
God i miss this show and how Adam always made fun of Jamie's mustache.
"Apollo 11 mission is fake!"
another apollo mission:
All apollo flights are fake, nasa is fake
Lol
Yeah it's
Yes its fake, because the location when they film is in cannon Air force base in Mexico,
Actually, there was a "fill light" they failed to take into account. Neil Armstrong was standing in bright sunlight with his Hasselblad, reflecting photons a-plenty toward Buzz Aldrin.
Kilgore Trout I don’t know what the hell you just said but I’m just going to agree with it.
@@softdrink-0 Neil, in his suit, was equal to a big white reflector, shining more light on Buzz.
Ah! Because the freak photo has far less shadow contouring... that’s explains it.
Then why do the astronauts suits act as a fill light for dozens of other photos? For example there are many photos of the astronauts standing by shadowed objects, but they are not lit up as you see here.
While you’re at it, how can you explain the moving flags? (No astronaut is touching the flag at all)
@@justinmadrid8712 Yes, i can explain every detail.
Why not show the landing with the dust flying around. That a film crew a with tripod took, that were already on the moon. I cannot find the dust flying video anywhere?
"That a film crew a with tripod took"
Not sure which is worse, your ignorance or your English! But if you really want to see dust flying around, try the film taken from the LMP's window in all 6 landings: ruclips.net/video/nrKHtXxYlkk/видео.html
Haha Here is 1st hand proof it was faked. ruclips.net/video/1uKFjkHYuHM/видео.html
Neil armstrongs suit never had the commander strips, NASA didnt start doing the commander strips until Apollo 13.
Probably just what they had in hand
@@sixela2268 yeah probably! But if it was more accurate, The figure would either be Alan Shepard, David Scott, John Young, or Eugene Cernan.
Is there anything else that we could do over 50 years ago, they we can not do now?
How about jump on a supersonic airliner for a flight across the Atlantic?
We can do it now, but there are other factors we need to take into account.
1. The moon landing was a flex of power. Both the United States and The Soviet Union were racing to get there. It was an intellectual war. Both sides were throwing everything at it. There isn't any real power now for the United States to compete with. It's basic competitive economics. The United States has the monopoly on global power, at the moment, that is.
2. Due to the competitive nature of the moon landing, the United States and the Soviet Union threw a hell of a lot of money at the projects. Referring to my first point, the US government could in now way justify doing it again today. People are just not as patriotic as they were in the mid 20th century and really, the US have nothing to prove.
3. The US was basically better off in the 1960s. They still are the single global power. However, referring to point 1 and 2, they couldn't justify doing it, especially when the country is poorer. Put it this way, Baby Boomers could, in general, afford bigger houses than todays young adults. Using your logic, today's generation would be able to afford even bigger houses.
In conclusion, it all comes down to money and power. Technological speaking, we could easily go back. Financially speaking, it's much harder.
Yesss music they couldnt produce good music now.
Go to school without a teacher trying to convince me I was born the wrong gender. Stand up and pledge allegiance to our American flag in our classroom.
@@coolperson962you hit the nail on the head. The money just doesnt make sense. Especially because we havent tripped over 1. a life form threatening or non threatening to make research and resources worth it.
2. We also havent discovered a vast amount of resources nor has our planet started to run dry of most elements needed to sustain life.
this is stupid, you guys clearly showed rubbing the reflective surface dust on the astronaut which means that obviously he'll be appearing bright...also the actual picture shows Neil equally as bright as the "moon" surface but in this test the astronaut isn't equally as bright as the "moon" surface so obviously something is wrong here...i'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm just stating whats wrong in this test and how the results aren't similar...since the astronaut in this test isn't equally as bright as the surface that means the the conclusion you guys claim is false...need a better testing method...
Reflectiveness of a surface doesn't make object appear brighter, it just makes the reflection clearer. And by the way, it's not like 100% of astronaut's surface is dust - you can still see clearly suit's patterns.
Also, you can't compare brigthnesses of astronaut and lunar surface on the original photo, because they are both out of camera's dynamic range.
Watch the full episode that's all I'm gonna say
But couldn't the original photo also be faked in controlled set?
That's not what MBs are addressing here my friend.
The hoax claim says the astronaut in shadow should be completely black because the sun is the only light source and he's not in the sunlight.
So all anyone has to do to debunk that claim is show that the astronaut in shadow would be lit by reflected light, and MBs achieved that :-)
All of the comments are complaining about the comments
He's actually lit by the reflection of Neil Armstrong's suit. That's Buzz coming down the ladder.
No that's fking stupid lmao.
@@JD_tcb How is it stupid?
When they talk about moon landing being fake, I always think about the Apollo 1 incident.
@@elijahhernandez3108 The Apollo 1 was the first rocket in the Apollo Program. What happened? The entire spacecraft was exploded.
@@ohmagod 😂
But we only have your word for it. There were not any independent witnesses to your production.
Why is that required for MBs but not for conspiracy theorists my friend?
The conspiracy theorists claim is that the astronaut in shadow is not in the sun and therefore should be completely black, which has never been demonstrated by any conspiracy theorist.
In contrast, all who have recreated that same scene with models, sets, computer simulations, night time locations etc have all arrived at the same result, i.e. the astronaut in shadow would be illuminated by reflected light.
Me after watching the entire video and reading the thumbnail again and saying “soooo is it fake???”
It's fake. It's impossible to land on the moon due to non-atmosphere
They just proved that the moon landing was real. Maybe you should watch the video again or just stay dumb I guess