Debunking Apollo 11 Fake Window cutout claim
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 11. 2023
- Head to www.squarespace.com/davemckeegan to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code davemckeegan
Please consider supporting the channel by making purchases through my Amazon affiliates: geni.us/Affiliate
PATREON: / davemckeegan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Music by Bensound.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#globe #science #flatearth #ISS #NASA #fakeISS - Věda a technologie
This is the only debunking channel I can watch anymore. The rest...I understand why they do it and support them, but I just can't take the stupid from the conspiracy theorists anymore. This channel is different, there is actually educational material present and I find myself learning new details rather than just debunking the idiots.
Yes same here👍
Debunking lol
Exactly the same feelings. I love what they're doing but I simply can't take it. There desperately needs to be balance aka just a small amount of idiocy from the flerfs and deniers, but more explaining. Listening to the unscientific and illogical nonsense that the conspiracy theorists propagate is extremely draining because of how stupid it is. It genuinely enrages me. I really hope that Sci Man Dan ends up giving more thorough debunkings because I love the topics he covers and I love his humour, but the theorists annoy me so much that I always need to pause the video to explain out loud why they're wrong.
Well said. "Debunking" doesn't work anyway, because the village idiots will never and would never accept anything that contradicts their nonsense. The fools just move the goalposts in the hopes they can somehow bamboozle other gullible village idiots.
I see these vids more as entertainment with educational value for people interested in photography and film technology.
@@manslaughter3180 do u have a picture of earth with satellites around it
There are contemporary independent records that Apollo went to the moon. A group of amateur and semi professional astronomers found they could see Apollo 8 most of the way to the moon. They then set up an observing line from the Midwest USA to northern south America and determined position and velocity using parallax of the craft until the glare of the moon was too great. They tracked Apollo 11 to the moon and back. They had nothing to do with NASA but were contacted by them during the Apollo 13 disaster to provide independent positions and velocity on return to earth which enabled NASA to have a second opinion as to whether they were on track with reentry.
Also, an amateur in the USA built a directional antenna in his backyard and picked up radio transmissions from the moon of the astronauts conversations. These matters were reported contemporaneously in science magazines at the time and can be found as a matter of record.
Further, the astronomers tracking Apollo 13 found the dot they were observing turn into a fuzzy ball at the exact time 13 had an explosion and outgassed thus confirming that something had happened .
And those are just the American sources. People all across the world were tracking the Apollo launches, including a nation known as the Soviet Union who would have very much loved exposing NASA as frauds.
@@robdavison3828 People who believe in these conspiracy theories believe that everyone who provides independent observations are in on it and paid actors
These conspiracy theorists believe even Russia is in on it, so I don't think you can convince them any American is independent from NASA
@@robdavison3828i remember reading about that in sky & telescope.
So the whole conspiracy was accidently revealed because NASA didn't realize that their live broadcast from Apollo 11 was, in fact, a live broadcast and not pre-recorded?
Yes. NASA is Schroedinger's Conspiracy Org; simultaneously Machiavellian enough to craft a hoax so complete most people believe it, but simultaneously so stupid that a taxicab driver with a camera can deboonk them.
According to the moon-landing deniers (is there a term for them... I mean, other than "idiot"?):
NASA's plan to fake the footage: "Turn off the camera."
What actually happened according to the deniers: "The Apollo 11 crew did not switch off the camera. Ground control saw this but did not tell Apollo 11. They also recorded the footage. They also published the footage."
_Yeah... right._
Yup, the same people who are allegedly maintaining a millennium spanning, world wide conspiracy through carefully curating information people have access make all these bumbling mistakes that experts miss but ignorant science drop outs are keen to. Smh. Peak arrogance and delusion.
...AND they forgot to erase the tape before broadcasting it to everyone...
Don't you know? NASA have the most cutting edge CGI artists you've ever seen, and have done since before CGI even remotely looked good enough to cut it, who regularly forget to remove the wires and bubbles from their videos and photos. Who make absolute rookie mistakes constantly leaving in things they should have cut out in order to cover up the conspiracy. Who can put a tin can full of folks into low earth orbit, but can't then push that thing into low lunar orbit. Etc etc etc...
/s obviously
Always love how you patiently explain and demonstrate these concepts. I've learned a lot about photography just watching your videos.
A common refrain on debunking channels is the question: Why are you even giving these theories attention? And the answer is that these theories encourage sloppy thinking. The best debunks desloppify (so to speak) such thinking, and Dave’s stuff is right at the top of that.
@@Bnio
Actual flat flat Earthers that really believe it are a very special kind of stupid. Beyond stupid. I reckon their "thinking" is pretty much undesloppifiable. I know there's been the odd success in turning some, but I wonder if they were ever really flat Earthers, or did they just think there may be more money in flat Earth debunking channels.
@@Bnio Explain how Neil Armstrong states that the only window with a view to the earth is filled up with the tv camera? Nobody can debunk that piece of information. That information is vital to the argument this channel presents.
Neil Armstrong clearly states that the only window that has earth visible has a tv camera completely filling it up. Oops. I suppose that why this channel completely leaves that portion out his argument.
@@rilenixxThe TV camera INSIDE the spacecraft is a PORTABLE device. When they were using it to take a picture of the earth, they were holding it up close to the window and it blocked the window. And that's when Neil made that comment. But they simply moved it back out of the way later in that same broadcast. It's not like it was permenantly fixed in the window, always blocking the astronaut's view.
@@mikefochtman7164 If that is what you choose to believe that is your right.
Fifty years ago and NASA claims to send man through space almost half a million miles and back.
2024 and NASA can only put man nearly 358 miles above Earth. If that doesn't make you pause and wonder what will?
How about the computer they used in 1969. 72 KB of ROM. How can anybody believe this fish tory. We are not talking about RAM but ROM.
A computer less powerful than what calculators in he 1980s possessed. But people choose to believe the lies.
How much money NASA pocketed is astronomical. They stole from American tax payers and got away wit it because people do not want to accept they were duped.
Oh. So these conspiracists actually believe we went into low-Earth orbit. How enlighted of them.
and they're apparently quite comfortable with the idea of a vehicle orbiting (!) a flat earth.
Cherrypicking and cognitive dissonance is part and parcel of the Flerfer mindset. @@RozzmanLists
@@RozzmanListsWell these guys aren’t flerfs. They are moon hoaxers that flerfs have decided to reference their movie without actually thinking about what it says. All they care about is that it says the picture was staged nothing more.
That’s the only conclusion a person coming in completely ignorant about the moon landings, flat earth and all the theories: The theories are wildly inconsistent while the history of the moon landings, for example, is super solid.
You can always rely on conspiracy nuts to contradict themselves. It's about the only consistency they have.
You do great work. It won't convince any of the conspiracy nuts, they're beyond hope. The true value of these debunks lies in the fact that young vulnerable minds who might be influenced by the conspiracists have a resource in these vids to let them hear what the voice of reason sounds like.
Well said
He tells you what you want to hear. You won’t accept a decade earlier operation Fishbowl and Dominic proved something much bigger. You’re to damn lazy to investigate on your own.
Wernher von Braun’s tomb stone.
I have been hearing the nonsense since probably 1970 and have always assumed it was a matter of believing the tape, or not. I happened to know, because my dad worked at the Cape and I saw a ton of behind the scenes stuff (I actually got to try to fly the LM simulator in the VAB when I was 10!) But I never realized there was SO much hard evidence to be found in the video images themselves. You are very, very good at this!
Great story! I watched the Apollo missions from Miami but my family's two visits to Kennedy Space Center were between missions and I never got to see a Saturn V on the pad or launched. Good for you to fly the LM simulator. Do you happen to remember the name of the simulation supervisor during the Apollo days? I got to interview Robert Pearson in 2019 in the run up to the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 but he died soon after. He trained all the Apollo astronauts on the lunar landings at KSC and had to power up and calibrate the LM simulator each day before the astronauts entered. He said; "I landed more times on the surface of the moon than anyone else! Even if they were just simulations".
Wow! Getting to fly the LM sim! That’s awesome! I’ll bet that was fun!
@@aerospacematt9147 It was amazing, but I was 10 or something, so I didn't get to mess with it much. It works better as a memory than it did as an experience. ;)
Even better was that they had a complete capsule sitting there, as a trainer, and I got to sit in the seat and look at the hundreds of knobs and dials. It wasn't turned on, but it was still the greatest place I've ever sat in my life. Neil Armstrong sat there! :D
What caught my attention more than the silliness of a window cut-out, was the claim that the spacecraft was in low-earth orbit, while communicating with the ground. Apparently, this was to fool everyone because the transmissions could be proven to come from space. Except...if a spacecraft is traveling to the moon, then all transmissions from it would reach the side of the planet facing the moon (give or take a few degrees). A spacecraft in low-earth orbit would be on the side of the Earth opposite to the moon every 90 minutes. How do they explain ground stations on the "far side" of the planet receiving signals, not stations facing the moon?
By paying no attention to the man behind the curtain? You should never ask why to these folks. It'll just leave you with a headache.
@@stephanweinberger they do. What they're saying is that relative to single point on the face of the Earth, the moon appears to go around us once every 24 hours (roughly) but a ship in LEO would do so every 90 minutes. Or approximately 16 times in that same period.
So multiple times during that day the ship in LEO would be on the wrong side of the planet to the moon, thus making impossible for all the people watching who weren't NASA to not notice the fact the signal, not only wasn't coming from the direction of the moon, but from entirely the wrong side of the planet several times a day for the duration of the mission.
Including countless regular joe's tracking this stuff in their backyard all the way to Russia, who would have taken any opportunity to point out a lie here and claim superiority in the space race.
@@tyrannicpuppy I was confused by @skmiller94's last sentence and thought he's in the hoax camp. I think he meant to write 'How do they explain +no+ ground stations on the "far side" of the planet receiving signals' (like they would have every 90 minutes, if the mission was faked in LEO).
@@stephanweinberger All good. It can often be hard to tell legit loons from sensible people being sarcastic in the comments on such topics. We often forget the little /s tag or word a legitimate response a little poorly. Or we just misread a thing. I do that a LOT. Stupid faulty brain, lol.
@@stephanweinberger Yep. Poorly worded on my part. "They" in my last sentence was NASA. What I was meaning to say is: If the conspiracy claim is correct - that the spacecraft was in LOE and not heading to the moon - then ground stations on the opposite side of the Earth (from the moon) should receive signals every 90 minutes. With many other countries and amateurs also listening in, NASA would have had to explain why those stations received signals from a spacecraft going to the moon. Of course, they didn't have to explain because no one received such signals, because the spacecraft was not in LEO. Your rewording of my comment, though, is still much clearer and conveys the same intent!!
The first person I ever met who was certain that the moon landing was faked in Hollywood was a patient at a psychiatric hospital where I worked many years ago. This was at the time when Apollo 11 landed on the moon. I never could have imagined that such an idea would almost be mainstream many years later.
I have pointed out before the sheer incredible amount of people that would have needed to keep that secret before. They responded by saying that they just didn't tell all the builders about the secret, to them they were just doing their job. So I said that these builders were the mist intelligent of the intentelligent as far as doing their job is concerned . The only way they could have successfully faked that is if they had them build a rocket that was actually capable of doing what they said it could do. Because they would have immediately known if it obviously was going to work.
To fake the moon landing they would have needed to build a rocket that was capable of sending people to the moon, at which point there'd be no need to fake it.
Please make it make sense
To be fair - none of us really know what a moon capable rocket should look like - even me and I am quite aware of many things aeronautic - flown a biplane, a helicopter, been up close and personal with several fast jets and guys that fly them. My career choices took me in different directions but I always kept up an interest in Space Stuff! Can remember comments from the time about the LEM - how flimsy it appeared and all the reasons why - all from people who should've known more than me. However; conspiracy has become a business and the Interweb has given it wings.
@@alanclark639 The scientists who built that rocket would have known if the rocket WASN'T capable. They would have known they were building a fake rocket
Exactly. And that also kills their claims that the LM doesn't look like they think it should. It was made by Grumman. Either they were in on it and made it look "bad" or they built a craft capable of landing on the Moon and their complaints are about the loose external insulative covering over the structure.
@@frenat I can actually explain why the LM looks the way it does in terms of loose external insulation. The answer is simple. The typlical heat shielding application at that time was far too heaving. So they used a few layers of mylar film and kapton foil. They didn't need all this great shielding because unline the CSM it didn't need to reenter and it had a significantly higher powered glycol pump and different coolant solutions than the CSM. Instead of an radiator glycol evaporator system it used a sublimator instead. It's whole coolant operation is actually significantly better than the CSM. Had it been in the CM shell it would have exceeded the cooling specs and froze.
Additionally, the LM did not have to be active during trans lunar coast. So the shielding is not that important because it's not always being hit by the sun like the CSM counterpart. Heck, even the CSM could barely stand it and needed to do a PTC. The LM would remain unpowered for trans lunar coast in all missions because of how power demanding the cooling operation would be in trans lunar coast.
The cooling just by being around the moon is so effective that the CSM has to switch from the radiators and PTC to an evaporator and a heat exchange system to actually warm up the radiators otherwise it would just freeze.
There have been conspiracy theorists claiming not going to the moon since _at least_ as early as the mid to late 70's. The difference is they always admitted that we had the tech in order to go (since they lived through it all and seen it all happening at the time), they just claimed that we did not actually go. Also the thing is that some of their arguments could easily fool some people more readily back then, as not everything was so readily available like it is with todays tech and internet we have today to easily debunk their claims. EXCEPT they also from time to time had news channels mentioning and debunking some of it. And they also did an entire documentary (around 1980 or so) to show that it would have been impossible to fake a moon landing and impossible to have filmed the video done on Moon anywhere on Earth at all. It debunked each and every single conspiracy claim. Dave even briefly mentioned about this documentary in his last video on this, mentioning how they showed it would have been impossible to film Moon video here on Earth. The funny thing is that since that documentary, I have not heard a single new claim since then. It is always all the same old rubbish that has been debunked now for decades, except a few rare outright lies here n there. But some idiot on YT sees some claim on how it was faked without realizing that has been debunked already decades ago.
Anyway the point is you can have some that admit we had the tech to actually go to the moon, just that it was too risky and so we faked actually going. Any one that spends any adequate amount of time researching the tech, will have to admit that it was capable. But just because we could does not mean we did. Of course looking at all other evidence, clearly we did, but just saying there was no need to keep a big secret from the builders and everyone involved. Just would have needed to be a secret with a select few and those directly involved such as astronauts and other few key people.
you explain things so well to the point that the only thing that concerns me is how stupid a person would have to be to believe anything else.
That's the point of the conspiracy claim - it's directed specifically at stupid people, because they are the easiest one to deceive and be convinced to part with their money.
Cognitive dissonance is a heck of a drug
All evidence indicates a person would have to be *intentionally stupid* to believe anything else.
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394
Do you have any actual evidence? Or just insults?
@allthings Did you watch the video?
If they understood how cameras actually worked that would help a lot, but as usual its their pure ignorance driving them forward with the idiocy.
And yet they claim to understand perfectly how the magical P1000 can "pull objects back" from over the horizon.
@@ChrisHinton1967 is that why they are so intent on that camera? I’m a amateur photographer so know a little bit about cameras and have always wondered why that’s their camera of choice.
@@kdhander Because it's a (comparably) easily affordable, 'high quality' camera any rando can purchase without being uber deep into photography stuff. That's literally it. It's not some $50, drug-store-dark-room-film-disposable camera for tourists, nor is it some $5k rig that requires fifty pounds of gear.
@@5peciesunkn0wn I bought my wife a Rebel for that reason. Every couple years I get her a newer version. Makes getting upgrades a lot easier since I don't know anything cameras.
@@kdhander Flerfer Grifters noticed that, because of it's incredible zoom range, they could find something like a buoy, zoom wide enough it becomes too small to see, then zoom in so it "magically" reappears. Thus was born the "pull back over the horizon" scam.
Most of this comes down to someone unwilling, or unable, to learn how things work and apply that knowledge to the question at hand. Almost a decade before Apollo 11 we had submarines powered by nuclear reactors that could withstand hundreds of pounds of water pressure on their hulls. The engineering skills existed, but most today cannot change a flat tire, much less build something remarkable.
Dave, I know you're tired and it isn't fun or interesting anymore, but please, for us, keep it up buddy! I know it's hard but you're doing a great community service and I certainly appreciate it. I've never been a photographer or used editing software and I was total garbage in my junior high maths classes, but you've actually educated me. You're the Internet's private tutor! Hang in there, Dave!
PLEASE do, Dave! Thank you *so much* for this.
Please do, it's quite entertaining watching you perpetrating lies that you wholeheartedly believe in
@killerwolf7676 , did you actually watch his videos? Because if you did and you still believe what he said is a lie, then there is no helping you. As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
@@martinbaxter4783yes Dave please continue telling us we want to hear because the truth is something we won’t accept.
@@whiskeykilo2h429 truth? LOL, it's science, backed up by mountains of hard evidence, and these things called facts. You might have heard of them? You know, those things you don't understand, so can't accept.
Do try to actually watch Dave's videos, pay attention to them, and even take notes if necessary. You might even learn something if you do.
I noticed that their explanation of how they claim the footage was faked did not include a demonstration. Yours did.
That's one of the clearest signs. If someone isn't willing to demonstrate their own explanation of how something occurs then it usually can be discounted because they either _have done it_ and noticed it didn't work the way they described or aren't knowledgeable enough to be able to recreate it so don't know if it actually is a viable explanation or not.
Maybe they did try to reproduce it and didn't get the result they had concluded to get.
And then _accidentally_ lost the footage. 😏
@@simond.455 That is indeed an "interesting" possibility.
@simond.455 , that has basically happened twice before. There were some flay earthers trying to prove the earth was flat, except all their data ended up being exactly what it should have been if it was a globe. They just dismissed it completely. Luckily for us, it was all caught on a documentary that anyone can watch.
Well on my channel I demonstrated how to film something outside an aircraft by placing the camera lens next to the window and adjusting the shutter until a good image was captured, I certainly would not have held the camera at a distance from the window as that would massively restrict what could be seen.
I very much appreciate how photography can be used forensically. Even as a photographer, I didn't think it could be a scientific tool to challenge biased beliefs. The technical side of image capture can show so much.
that photo captured two light sources. two 90 degrees shadows. its irrefutable evidence. the shade is opposite to the light source. any 5 year old know that.
The Apollo windows were coated with a blue tinted Magnesium Fluoride to mitigate UV rays.
And if the crews stayed in LEO for a week or two, every Astronomer professional or amateur would have seen the CM orbiting every 90 minutes, and at twilight the craft would have brighter than Venus. Thx Dave!
I have actually learned quite a bit about photography because of these debunking vids... Thanks Dave
100%. It's such an informative channel. Not sure anymore how I found it, but I am so glad I did. I've learned so much.
I just don't understand how the film didn't get fogged from the radiation since the cameras never had radiation protection.
@@Sarah34438what radiation do you think they were subjected to?
what film are you talking about, here@@Sarah34438
See how easy it is to sucker people. You all got suckered.
it's almost like they think we completely missed that if they wanted to make the earth look further away, all they needed to do was use a shorter lens, instead of playing games with cutouts and putting the camera all the way on the other side of the module.
No amount of lens distortion could ever hope to correct the perspectives though. It's impossible to fudge that shot without compositing images.
Although that might be a little more convincing than a cut out, you'd still have the problem that earth subtends an angle of about 170⁰ from LEO, so for it to appear as a small disc in the middle of the frame, the lens would need an angle of view of about 300⁰! Also, the perspective would be all wrong because you'd only be viewing about 1000km of the earth from left to right, rather than almost the whole hemisphere.
By acknowledging that the camera is showing the actual earth (and not, say, a picture of it stuck to the window), the idiot who made the documentary dug his own grave, because the _only_ way it could appear as it does in the footage is with the spacecraft much further from earth than LEO would allow for.
@@PeteC62are you kidding? LEO would never allow any of this, he’d call it “tosh” and “pantomime” and assume that made his argument convincing. Oh, wait, you meant something different by “LEO” didn’t you?
They always seem to make it out like everything “faked” on these missions was haphazardly put together with makeshift “deceptions” where stupid mistakes where made for them to “figure it out”, but then they make it seem like so much complex planning went into every detail and perfect mass manipulation. It’s always with these type of people that these conspiracies are created by bumbling idiots, but these idiots have all the power and the smartest people in the world on their side, kind of like how fascists always believe that “the enemy is always weak and inferior, but are strong enough to control the world”. They think NASA have this unbelievable magnitude of power to stage all of this, but then they say “they forgot they were recording” or “they didn’t take into account that the flag was waiving” or “the reflections don’t LOOK right here” or any other thing that would be an obvious mistake if they were faking it. They would have needed to photoshop every image, create perfect replicas with perfect physics to make it seem like they were on the moon accounting for every little shadow, angle, shit ton of work to set up a “fake moon” in an massive studio while hiding the studio crew while taking 360 degree photos and videos, and every little detail that could give it away even down to somehow perfectly simulating moon dust in a vacuum in low gravity, and also have the power to silence 100,000’s of people that worked on it, build the worlds largest rockets and actually launched them where everybody could see and somehow hid every part of the rocket with trackable radio signatures after it launched which would have still cost billions even if they didn’t go past LEO. They never consider if maybe they don’t know enough about what they’re talking about, or never think their ideas through besides what LOOKS wrong to them. There are real conspiracies out there, countless examples of governments doing fucked up things and covered up - and if you know anything about them you would know how difficult it is to cover up or fake any operation involving more than 1000 or
even a 100 people
@@joeschmo3844Haha, yeah that particular LEO is a lost cause, I'm afraid.
It always amazes me that the Flat Earthers use 'they didn't know they were filming' or 'accidentally caught so and so'.. if that were ever the case.. why wouldn't they just delete that 'accidental' footage? Seems crazy that if this were never meant to be seen, to then chuck it into the broadcast for EVERYONE to see..
Look at it this way. If they're stupid enough to believe the Earth is flat, they're stupid enough to believe or claim anything.
The conspirators have to be staggeringly brilliant, and dismally stupid, at the same time.
In addition, they have unlimited resources, and yet always cut corners.
It this was done by flat earthers, they've made a massive self own: claiming that filming was done in low earth orbit 😉
Remember: All the lunar film work was faked by Stan Kubrick and was done was so masterfully and with such a massive budget and absolute op-sec that it fooled everyone on the planet, but had so many flaws that even people with no experience in photography, cinematography, physics, or any other science can poke such certain holes in it.
@@gunnern1 No, some of the other commenters note that this guy is not actually a Flat Earther, just an Apollo denier. One belief does not require the other, I guess.
The Artemis missions are coming up soon. Get ready for the deluge of theories that they never happened. Somebody crowdfund an outside seat for these clods!
Oh, they already have with Artemis I.
They’ll deny it happened like the Virgin Galactic trips, e.g. “it’s just TV monitors behind the windows “…
What I like about this conspiracy theory is that it's basically accepting that 90% of the effort is real, and they did effectively another 50% of the work to fake the last 10% rather than just doing the last 10%
😂
Explain how Neil Armstrong states that the only window with a view to the earth is filled up with the tv camera? Nobody can debunk that piece of information. That information is vital to the argument this channel presents.
Neil Armstrong clearly states that the only window that has earth visible has a tv camera completely filling it up. Oops. I suppose that why this channel completely leaves that portion out his argument.
@@rilenixx “ that information is vital”
As opposed to the mountains and mountains of physical evidence that 6 missions landed humans on the moon. All of that PHYSICAL/SCIENTIFIC falsifiable evidence would just _disappear_ if old Neil had said something about a window? (I haven’t a clue about that BTW, but it’s irrelevant to my point)
@@tubecated_development Mountains of evidence? You have to be joking.
I wonder why the astronauts couldn't jump six times higher on the moon? They jumped the same distance as they would on earth.
Or why the dirt being kicked up by the wheels of the rover reacts exactly how it would on earth. Certainly the dirt would kick up six times higher as well.
Or how when you speed up the astronauts walking on the moon to double speed you can clearly see them hopping along normally on purpose as they were directed to do.
At double speed they are behaving in the same exact manner a person on earth would behave. There is no 1/6 gravity ever shown on any moon walk.
You can't dispute that. If you try you will only look foolish. Fifty years has passed and technology has developed quantum computers. Yet no manned mission to the moon.
You believe that NASA sent three men to the moon using a 4 KB rom computer? Now that is less powerful than a calculator.
I am sure you will respond with the same excuses NASA tells everybody. If so just don't respond. It really is not that difficult to use your eyes and see that the men claiming to be walking on the moon are not.
@@rilenixx I don't know of any comments like that from Armstrong. Without being able to investigate it myself, I have to assume that you are most likely misconstruing it in some way. Even if you aren't and Armstronf meant exactly what you claim, that just means that Armstrong was mistaken as we have clear video evidence of the Earth through the Apollo 11 window.
Oh I'm sure they will ignore all that and find something else to nitpick on, which they will claim it debunks everything forever.
Always shift the con when its called out !
If all that doesn't help, they say "uh-uh you're a NASA shill" and carry on.
I would say The Soviet Union confirming it says all anyone needs to know
My grandfather was part of a team that tracked the progress of the capsules going to the moon by both radio signals and radar. He was always amazed by the ignorance of the moon mission deniers.
And this is a prime example of the value of experimentation to verify a hypothesis. The narrator thoughtfully explains how the "hoax" works, but at no point do they actually verify it with a demonstration of principles.
Mr. McKeegan DID do a practical demonstration, and it unequivocally shows that while the Moon landing hoaxers had an interesting hypothesis, once it gets genuinely tested, the hypothesis turns out to be wrong. Once again science shows why you need more than a wild guess to get things right, you also have to test the guess for accuracy. And their absolute best guess, like all of their other guesses, was demonstrated to be wrong.
I like that this channel started as photography tips and moved towards debunking flat earth in order to teach more about photography. Well played to gain more audience.
A man convinced against his will, is of the same mind still.
Go Dave.
"Explain this!"
_Explains it_
"Awfully convenient you would neglect to explain this other thing."
_Explains other thing_
"nananananananana"
rinse and repeat...
@@stephanweinbergerhey
Didn't explain how earth could be visible from two windows that are different direction. Pretty stupid.
Incredible. By simply _behaving like normal humans,_ the astronauts managed to create perhaps a more thoroughly rock-solid case against future conspiracy theories, than if they had been intentionally trying to prove conspiracy theorists wrong.
You work very hard on your videos Mr McKeegan.
Your knowledge and physical proof that you demonstrate, are undeniable.
Keep up the good work.
My fav Bart Seibrel video is when Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin popped him in the face, for accosting him😂
The other fun Sibrel video is where he records himself jumping on a woman's car because she parked legally--just in his favourite spot. He lost in court over that one too!
In other words, NASA "cleverly" faked the appearance of a distant Earth by using a technique that wouldn't have fooled anyone who thought about it for more than 10 minutes.
The good old "They are capable of orchestrating the biggest conspiracy in history, but are utterly incompetant at the same time" paradox
Lick lick lick oh Dave I love you lick lick lick
@@mattd6085 I seriously can't understand this paradox. Why would they deliberately leave clues like that if they're trying so hard to deceive people? Do they really think NASA *wants* to be exposed?
Or anyone with basic knowledge of how cameras work. If you're familiar with the technology of the era & especially with the way those cameras on the Apollo missions worked, then you straight up know that everything claimed by Sibrel here is total hogwash.
@@mattd6085😂 exactly! The flerfs/fake moon people can’t get their story straight at all
It’s very comical to see them fail so badly 😂
Your dog appearing as the aperture opened & the room became brighter was a moment of comedy genius 😊
Flerfs only ever question things they dont understand… now if only they listened to the answers.
In Bart Sibrel's film, after the view of Earth out of the side window (after we see Mike Collins), the camera pans across the interior of the spacecraft, and shows the exact same Earth out of the opposite side window. This was because the spacecraft was in what the astronauts referred to as the "barbecue roll", or PTC (Passive Thermal Control). The spacecraft would spin slowly to keep the liquid oxygen from boiling away when facing the sun. You can see the earth slowly move out of one side window and appear in the other side. Sibrel NEVER addresses this in his film, because he conveniently and cleverly edited that part of the shot out of his film. Hoaxers not being honest? Go figure.
You know, if you're going to be a conspiracy theorist, it helps to actually have knowledge about the thing that you are charging as a conspiracy.
I'd say the opposite. The only way these people can entertain their theories at all is by maintaining a total ignorance of the topics they're spouting off about. The moment they gained any actual understanding, their conspiracies would crumble before their eyes. (That doesn't stop them from _pretending_ to have an understanding though, of course. See Nathan Oakley, the "relative density" idiot etc.)
Ignorance is their superpower.
8:14 - "...the Apollo TV cameras didn't have those (start and stop buttons). Right, because - Portable, color, broadcast-quality video recording had not yet been invented. U-Matic, VHS, and BetaMAX all were invented in the 1970's, and were nowhere near small enough or rugged enough for this job. Ampex had the VR3000, a "portable" quad machine that could do 30 minutes on a reel of 2" wide tape, but it was the size of a carry-on suitcase and weighed something like 40 pounds. Besides a *lot* of power, it needed a vacuum pump to operate.
The camera they used didn't record anything. So, your comparisons are useless.
@@casanovafrankenstein4193reread what he wrote. He is pointing out that of course the camera didn't record, because portable recorders had not yet been invented. It is the clowns that made the "documentary" that claimed the camera recorded, and of course the "do your own research" types that believe that nonsense fell for it.
@@briansomething5987 Well, it's nice that some*one* got the point. I put in the stuff about the VR3000 because I thought someone would point out that portable video recording was possible in the late 60's. But you can tell from the video that it was recorded on RCA quad machines (and that the tape is falling apart). I think it was two TR-4's configured as a Doppler compensator.
im amazed how people transformed from rocket engineers to someone who think rockets doesnt exist and gravity is fake
Well the ones who think rockets are fake or can’t work in a vacuum never really had much of a chance to become aerospace engineers.
I have an Astrophysics degree but when it come to photography i am a complete idiot (What is F and why am I stopping it?) so this is a fascinating take on the evidence. If its a moon hoax person promoting stupid physics its obvious in a second. I can't shoot down an argument because its obvious the camera doesn't work that way. In this case we have video evidence analysed by someone who knows how cameras work. Its telling how often in both areas that the Apollo record matches the expectations of anyone who has put in the years of study and experience versus guy on the internet spouting 'common sense' etc
Apparently, few in the comments realize that Bart Sibrel (the subject of this video) _isn't_ a flat earther. He's an Apollo denier. While all flerfs are Apollo deniers, not all Apollo deniers are flerfs (same stupid, different delusion).
The woman narrator Sibrel uses sounds like the voice of the Combine Overwatch announcer in Half-Life 2.
Saying "the record button was unknowingly pressed" just demonstrates how ignorant and clueless they are on the subject.
If I were an Apollo astronaut who had been out to the Moon, and had walked on the Moon's surface, and then had someone like Bart Sibrel lie to me about why he wanted to meet me in person, then accost me and call me a liar if I wouldn't swear to it on a Bible, I know I'd get rather angry. Heck, I'd probably punch him out while video was being recorded of it, that people could even find online. Oh, wait...
( _Thanks, Buzz. Well done. You're a gentleman, and they don't let their honor go undefended._ )
And even better, then you'd get sued, and after the judge watched the video? The judge would ask you if *you* wanted to press charges!
Your dog is the true hero.
Came accross this when searching for comedy shows. Takes the prize. If the hypotheses are correct the Russians would have been falling over themselves to expose a scam.
Since Bart accepts they were in Earth orbit, he accepts Earth is a globe, yet his words are treated as gospel by flat Earthers - except with regard to Earth being a globe, which they ignore.
They use a globe Earth proof to try and prove space is fake, and that proof relies on space being real.
Thanks for doing this. I've repeatedly pointed out how ridiculous Sibrel's claims are in this video - going forward I will shared this thorough debunking rather than type yet again "BUT THE CLOUDS DON"T CHANGE!".
What links flat earthers and moon landing deniers is that whenever you explain properly some point they did not understand, they'll ignore your explanation and move on to another point they do not understand.
Either that or they still don't understand, because they're just not smart enough. At that point several things happen. They choose not to trust the wisdom of people who are more intelligent than them & somewhat separately from that they where they reject the notion that there are vastly complicated things that are beyond their understanding & simply insert a new one where those complicated things are just fake.
It's a kind of coping mechanism I guess.
The denial is rampant though & it's becoming a serious issue. I mean, these days you can purchase a decent enough optical telescope that, on a clear night with a bit of luck you can see evidence of human activity on the moon. Not in massive, huge detail, but you can make things out & match them up to the NASA records. Yet you could take a denier, have them look through that telescope & see one of the Apollo sites with their own eyes & they'd still convince them self that it was a trick, there's something in the telescope projecting that fake image onto one of the prisms inside etc, etc...
People are free to believe whatever they want, of course. Seems like we've got a lot of cult like movements emerging though & it's all getting a bit sinister.
its easier to actually go to space instead of faking it
I love your videos. No longer attacking the physics (which has already been done to death) and now attacking how wrong flerfers are about how cameras and light work. Thats going for the core of their argument and I've never seen anyone be able to counter your points. (never seen them counter the physics either tbh)
When all it takes to debunk a fluffer is a dog in a room....
Friendly reminder: The more 'correct' term for a flat earther is "flerf" or "flerfer". Fluffer is a term of art used by certain portions of the movie industry.
@@docostler also known as a female pole polisher.
@@docostler yep, I was in full command of my words as I typed. Both are of limited use to society at large yet hugely stimulating to a niche portion of the population.
@@longlowdog Gotcha, well done.
Great video as usual. I'd be interested to hear supporters of Bart's "low earth orbit" debate with flat earthers who deny that space exists at all. Might be interesting?
Will never happen, at least in any intelligent dialogue. They don’t step where they can’t control the narrative.
I think that FTFF has a debate on his channel that fulfills that criteria. It's between Jarrah White (who claims that the Moon landings are fake, but Earth is round) and a flat Earther.
Also the ones who deny that gravity even exists.
I keep seeing comments from apparent Flat Earthers that "space (and occasionally gravity) is/are fake and ghey". Ghey? Ghey. WTF is "ghey" and how does space become ghey? Geez...
At least this particular conspiracy theorist isn’t claiming that space is fake. Given the insanity I’ve seen recently, I call that a win (which is kind of sad).
Did they think having someone with a British-style accent would make it seem more authoritative, like an Attenborough film? This is similar to the people who ask why the moon photos have a black sky but you cannot see any stars. They just have no idea how a camera works and how exposure changes based on the brightness of light sources. Here, the outside light source (the Earth) is basically over-exposed (when they pull back to show interior) so the camera can show the details inside the capsule as it is darker inside than outside. The window is super-bright because the amount of light coming in is way more than the interior lighting. Same with the starless moon photos. The cameras there were set for the lighting of the sun and reflected sunlight on the surface so there was proper exposure and the photos are not too bright or too dark. If they were to set the exposure to see stars in the sky, which are many times less bright than the moon's reflected light, then all the details of the moonscape would be over-exposed, or washed out, and you would not be able to discern much in the view. Plus they did not go to the moon to look at stars; they would look the same as from Earth or low-Earth orbit.
Great information as always, and I consistently enjoy how you step ever so smoothly into your sponsor spot.
By insisting they were in low-earth-orbit the flat-earthers are admitting that earth is a sphere which can be orbited :)
To be “fair”, Bart Sibrel isn’t a flat earther. He’s a grifter and a liar, but he’s not a flerf.
@@AM-rd9pu thanks for your correction; I didn't know that.
Flatties just borrow his nonsense to support “nasa lies…”, “they didn’t go to the moon…” narratives. Then, they take it a step further and use “second law of thermodynamics violation” to reject the existence of space and thus low earth orbits altogether.
@@michaellange6303 Flerfs love to bring this exact argument up though (and reference this "documentary"), so your point still stands.
Everything Bart Sibrel has ever said was debunked in this 15 minute video.
I really admire your patience. I would simply ignore the FLERFS. That's just beyond stupid.
These videos always remind me of Father Ted trying to explain small vs far away to Father Dougal. And just like Dougal - the people who need the explanation are never going to understand it . . .
So once again, flat earthers can’t comprehend image exposure. How can functioning adults be this dim?
It's almost like they have no idea how photography works...
One cannot debunk fools who want to be fooled. Truth, evidence and proof are not required when it comes to their beliefs. Their motto should be "I believe....therefore it must be truth".
The funniest one is when flat earthers use this as evidence of flat earth or fake space, despite the fact it talks about them being in low earth orbit and zero gravity.
It makes me very sad that people try to find any possible tiny detail they can find.
and then follow saying it has to be fake... completely ignoring all the rest of facts...
I guess it's true when people say ignorance is bliss
Lol i fell for that too 😅
Brilliant explanations and debunk 👏 💯🙂
It can often be hard to notice the flaws in an argument, especially if it supports one's own beliefs. It doesn't help when personal biases are combined with other people in a group that work to minimize or ignore the flaws and/or authority figures that might use their positions to convince people that _they_ know better.
Sometimes the hardest part of learning and growing is being able to admit to mistakes. I explored the conspiracy theory rabbit hole in my youth and had to crawl my way out of it. Glad to see you have been able to do the same.
I usually try to avoid making pedantic comments correcting people on grammar, pronunciation, etc. but you're an intelligent bloke and it makes me physically cringe every time you say "supposably" instead of supposedly. Please stop 😂
That is a very happy upside-down doggo ❤
The trouble with conspiracy theorists is they have no comprehension of physics.
Or of intellectual honesty. Or of good faith.
Bart Sibrel is a Richard head.
Aldren has answered Bart on this, and it explains the strange prompts from Houston like "talk." Aldren said they were testing their eqpt in low orbit to make sure everything worked, and that they'd broadcast the footage if their broadcast failed, so a backup footage.
They saw the astronaut moving across the scene and were like ooohhhh looky it is a cut out when in all actuality it was the astronauts neck lining up with the window and moving across it. If they would watch with their eyes and not their little demons in their heads they would see clearly.
Great work. You make debunking personal incredulity look easy when you have your ducks in a row.
Great piece of work!
re the segment around 10:30, "the aperture of the camera being opened -up", and "the bright earth seen in the window", there is one additional factor - a significant one .
The window was constructed with a multilayered anti-reflection coating . one of those layers was bluish. The direction of the incident sunlight is obliquely from the upper left - EXACTLY what might cause the blue coating to give the window a caste.
I think that might be the major part of the explanation for the sudden appearance of Sibrel's "near Earth" at that time; opening-up the lens obviously would accentuate the caste.
You gotta go on rogan and debate Bart Sibrel! It would be ‘out of this world’
I have learned so much about how photography works from your channel! Keep it up!
I wonder what excuses these deniers will come up with next? Keep up the good work Dave.
You have by far the smoothest, perfect transition to your sponsors😊
Respect for that
"the stop button popped up and nobody noticed" that is completely backwards to how every recording device I have manipulated has worked. I think police body cams are the first that record unless manually stopped - nothing else wants to waste media on unintentional recordings, so you have to press the record button to start, and when stopped, it is the record button that pops up.
Man. I love your vids bro. I truly learn so much from them. Keep it up and cant wait to see more and not just debunking
Your videos are so enjoyable! Good facts,good explanations and Rusty!
Specially rusty❤
The guy needs his own channel
Please debunk the 'idea' that you can't get around the Van Allen belts.
It's on my to-do list
Anyone know how many times that's been debunked?
@@davebritton7648but Dave has the superpower of explaining stuff very well
@@davebritton7648 It's the one argument that Flatheads refuse to understand.
@@kfcroc18 One argument?
Great how you explain things and love how your dog always stays getting scritches in your video!
One of the best channels by far! Love your deep dives into the actual details.
Excuse me, but how could anything be in low earth _orbit_ on a flat earth?
Ah … wrong conspiracy!
It just amazes me everytime I watch one of your videos how thorough you are.
They're acknowledging that something was actually put into orbit though? Progress!
Bart Sibrel isn't a flat earther, he's an Apollo denier. Same amount of stupid, different delusions.
This particular clip from "... On The Way To The Moon" was one of the first things I ever saw on youtube. Being a former film & photography student I knew it was nonsense for the reasons given here.
Then I saw the videos of Siebrel being punched & kicked, found out about the various restraining orders against him etc. Then I discovered he was behind this highly questionable documentary & it all fell into place.
Last I heard of him he was a taxi driver, or rather I heard his taxi licence had been suspended after he tried to push his way into a parking space & assaulted the woman who was already pulling in to stop.
I hadn't thought of him for ages until this clip. I wonder what he's doing now? Whatever it is I sincerely hope he's found some kind of peace & is leaving people alone now, but given the recent rise in crackpot conspiracy theories it wouldn't surprise me to hear he's got something of a new following & is once again loving the attention.
I like astronaut Buzz Aldrins response to a conspiracy nut that was harrassing him. He punched him in the mouth.
The rest of them just have to accept being ridiculed in CZcams comment sections..
Join us in triangular earth, We have a point
Excellent video! I saw that clip about the cutout in the spacecraft window, and have always wondered what was going on with it. This is the best explanation of the video evidence because it has analogous camera demonstrations on Earth. They opened up the camera aperture! Makes perfect sense. Thank you!
Yeah. All the nonsense about zooming in and out while moving the camera and someone changing a cut-out in the window.... That falls apart as soon as you look at the arms, legs and equipment floating around in the capsule. Very likely the "cutout" was the camera cable floating past the window.
oh... no way! flerfs be totally oblivious regarding photography, exposure and all else!!? That'simpossible, not possible!!
Man youre doing sucha fantastic job of explaining well and easy to understand if people want to. Very educational, very impassionate and just good.
The second anyone cites Bart "Glass Jaw" Sibrel as their proof is the second you can disregard anything they say after that point.
He's a grifter, like Sargent and the rest of the tinfoil hat brigade.
Some people will never believe the truth no matter how many facts you show them because their reality is based on the misinformation and they mentally can't accept having their illusions destroyed. Even if they believe you, they can't admit it to themselves because that might require them to reevaluate everything in their life and that is a risk they can't accept.
The Earth is obviously a hyperdodecahedron suspended in interstellar oobleck
I personally can’t wait till Artemis 3 when all of this becomes a moot point.
People deny the existence of gravity. Do you really think they’ll magically accept Artemis III? They’ll deny it just like they deny everything else that shatters their fragile worldview.
flat earthers are pathological liars, and will lie about everything
@@AM-rd9pu Either way, it'll be entertaining seeing the flerfs scramble to try and make up excuses now that the newer moon landings will have more modern technology and cameras.
Sadly they've pushed that back to 2027 at the earliest. Personally I'm hoping they go back by 2030, and that I'm still here to see it.
And, if someone hasn't pointed it already, the "removal" bit is Micheal Collins moving in front of the window.
Space: *exist*
Flerfs: "Nuh huh"
You sir are the king of smooth ad transitions
How did they not hit the "dome", while achieving low earth orbit?
Because it doesn't exist
@@gabedrinkswater
Shhhh!!
Don't let THEM know that! ;) .