Debunking moon landing conspiracy theories | QI - BBC
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 06. 2023
- Subscribe and 🔔 to the BBC 👉 bit.ly/BBCCZcamsSub
Watch the BBC first on iPlayer 👉 bbc.in/iPlayer-Home
Why do people doubt the moon landings? 🧑🚀 #QI #iPlayer
Stephen Fry asks unanswerable questions about hoaxes, with Sean Lock, David Mitchell, Danny Baker and Alan Davies. #QI #iPlayer
All our TV channels and S4C are available to watch live through BBC iPlayer, although some programmes may not be available to stream online due to rights. If you would like to read more on what types of programmes are available to watch live, check the 'Are all programmes that are broadcast available on BBC iPlayer?' FAQ 👉 bbc.in/2m8ks6v. - Zábava
the best argument is honestly that the soviet never even bothered to call it fake
because they want to use the same lie against their own people. just like how rival gangs don't publicly expose eachother: they're both trying to avoid bringing attention to themselves.
@@rumfordc How does that make any sense though? It would benefit the Soviets greatly to say "we were the first and only genuine cosmonauts, we sent out Yuri Gagarin before your faker Neil Armstrong" rather than weakly admitting that an American was the first one on the moon and even put up a flag of the USA there.
It would've been great propaganda for the Soviets, to say that the Apollo 11 moon landing was faked, but they admitted it was real.
Wonder what that says about the Statesians who refuse to believe it, despite the hundreds of people involved and all of the people who physically saw the rocket launch and all of the radio signals received from the moon by parties other than NASA.
They were deadly rivals, and yet they were willing to be co-conspirators to help each other look good. Because that’s how world domination works?
@@rumfordcparanoia does not make a person special.
@@Plethorality who cares? that is a superficial concern
Worth mentioning that Buzz Aldrin was very polite to that man until the man called him “a liar and a coward” whilst positioning his face within punching distance.
I'd ve hit him aswell
Well firstly, Sibrel has a face that everyone would want to punch and the man is such a detestable human being, like Apollo 11, Buzz did it for all humankind. Secondly, having been abused, stalked and harassed for several years, can you really blame him?
@@yassassin6425 Buzz was a hero going to the moon, And was to be applauded punching that ignorant stalker crazy.
Worth mentioning that buzz Aldrin was an alcoholic before he was an astronaut. NASA love degenerates 😂
Because if you can't defend your position with words, defend them with violence!
My favorite conspiracy is the US government tasked Stanley Kubrick with faking the moon landing. He was so dissatisfied trying to create it in a studio that he opted to shoot it on the moon itself for the most accurate depiction possible.
🤣🤣🤣
The joke is that he was so dissatisfied that he decided to shoot on location.
My favourite conspiracy is that steel framed skyscrapers can drop at freefall speed solely due to fire.
@@CraigNiel The joke is that he was so dissatisfied that he decided to shoot on location.
@@fiddlecastro1453 And planes crashing into them idiot...
That's Tremendous, I have always felt compelled to pursue knowledge and power in order to contribute to the betterment of humanity. Been seeking a means to be influential and find out more knowledge about the human race and about the things not everyone is destined to know. I wish to fulfill the goal of enlightenment passed down by our forebears~
I can totally relate to your passion, if all that is what you desire then i think it's achievable. Joining the Illuminatus Brotherhood can lead to the enlightenment you seek and more. I am well aware that the idea of this group may sound mythical but it is possible to join.
@@Margart526 Hi, isn't the brotherhood a myth? I mean sometimes i just feel like it's just a conspiracy theory.
@@ddirtdid Yeah I acknowledge that misunderstanding can occur when people encounter what they don't fully grasp, especially in this internet era. The Illuminatus advocates for the acceptance of all religions. You can look up "Anthony Szymon". Will give you clarity and answers to any questions you might have.
@@Margart526 oh really, i just saw his website, which is interesting. I will leave him a message.
Yeah i do sometimes feel that too, prolly not exactly but i can totally relate.
I watched Apollo 11 take off from Cape Kennedy (as it was then) and so I know that the launch part was absolutely real. There are people (including every last person running the service desk of my local hardware store) who mock me for believing that rockets can work in a vacuum, which they say proves that space flight is impossible, therefore the moon landings couldn't have happened. It's the old nonsense about "there's nothing for the exhaust to push against" and they just laugh if you try to explain about conservation of momentum because "that's book-learning, why would you believe those lies when your own common sense tells you it's wrong, you sheep?" Idiots!
Just ask them one major technological invention or contribution these science deniers have made in the last 50 years..
@@entangledmindcells9359, what an excellent idea!
It baffles me that people can understand the idea of exhaust pushing against something, an idea I've never heard of before, but not basic laws of physics. I struggled so badly in physics in school, but I still understood that bit. "An object at rest will remain at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an unbalanced force," says Newton's first law of motion. How much more is actually needed? Maybe it works a bit differently than I imagine (like I said, I was terrible at physics), but common sense and that law combine to suggest that a rocket relies on the momentum it built up before exiting Earth's atmosphere to sustain flight in space. Even if that's wrong, it's still better than the idea of exhaust pushing on something. Come on, now, guys! (Not you guys of course; the idiot deniers, including the service desk folks)
My favourite response to conspiracy theorists is to just not take them seriously and toy around with the ever-deepening conspiracy.
"Oh, you think the moon landing is fake? You're a sheep, clearly the moon itself is fake!"
@@ThatFoxxoLeo, dude that's amazing 🤣
The New York Times infamously published an editorial in the early part of the Space Age, claiming that space travel couldn’t possibly work because, in a vacuum, the rockets would have “nothing to push against” (Newton’s Third Law of motion notwithstanding).
It was several decades, I think long after the Moon landings, before they published a retraction.
It's simple if Soviets accepted the moon landings it isn't fake.
That wouldn't convince a religious nut though. Most people who deny the moon landing are flat earth religious fanatics.
The fake moon landing conspiracy theories began in 1976 by the American, Bill Kaysing. At that time it didn't even cross the mind of the Soviet's that it might be fake.
What about the fact that they wanted to fake landing there too. They couldn't say USA were lying and they were telling the truth.
And they had an automated lander that would have picked up a rock and gone back ahead of the Moon landing, it crashed but obviously they were watching and they published a story about the landing in Pravda. BTW the Mythbusters debunked every argument against the landing scientifically, it is amazing to what lengths they went to test everything perfectly.
unless the whole "cold war" narrative was part of the manufacturing
The incident of Buzz Aldrin punching a conspiracy theorist is worth watching - it wasn't just that he was tired of these people, but the guy in question (Bart Sibrel) came up, yelling and insulting him while he was with his daughter. I think it was less a case of Aldrin satisfying honour, more self-defence against a guy who appeared to be crazy and possibly violent.
Woe betide anyone who accuses you Jago of persisting the hoax that Charles Tyson Yerkes existed.
Ignorance. He was neither crazy or violent.
Oi, stop your dillydallying and get back to Yerkes.
@@loveserendib04 OK, but if you're the guardian of a child and someone goes up to you shouting and screaming about the moon, you'd rightfully be concerned over the situation.
Those aren't the actions of someone willing to take things slowly and reasonably in the moment.
The judge certainly seemed to agree with Aldrin.
During WW2 if the French resistance could only use a radio for more then a couple of minutes or the Germans would locate it. I think the Russians would be smart enough to tell whether the video broadcast was coming from a film studio in Texas or the moon.
They are all in on it - it’s not called a world government for nothing. You only have to watch the ‘handshakes’ when they meet to know it’s all rigged.
There were six manned moon landings (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17), not just one. Each mission brought a different pair of astronauts to the lunar surface; each mission required the launch of a huge and very expensive non-reusable and impossible-to-fake Saturn V rocket; each mission placed scientific instruments along the lunar surface and brought back to Earth ever-increasing quantities of lunar rocks; each mission was covered by the media and could be monitored from the ground by independent observatories and radio amateurs, including the Soviet ones. This is enough to close the debate and understand, once and for all, that man really went to the moon.
Where did you get the silly idea that Flat Earthers, Bible Thumpers, or members of the Landing Denial Cult are rational?
@@viclimited9081 List some of your "evidence".
Crickets.
@@viclimited9081 My point is, if they really faked Apollo 11, why the heck would they make the same hoax for others five times? It doesn't make any sense: they would only needlessly increase the risk of being discovered. And why did they fake even a failed mission like the Apollo 13? Even this doesn't make any sense! And what about all the preparatory missions before the landing? There were Apollo 8 and 10, which sent astronauts around the moon; Apollo 9 and 5, which tested the Lunar Module in Earth orbit; Apollo 7 that tested the CSM; and Apollo 4 and 6 that tested the Saturn V. Not to mention all the missions of the Mercury and Gemini programs. When exactly would the real missions end and the hoax begin? Even better question: why would they make all these preparatory missions if the moon landing really was all fake? No conspiratorial theorist can ever answer that. Can you answer that?
Yes. Neil himself said you can’t get past the ferment
@@solryder7131 Source?
Of course not. Just another pathetic lie.
Every top youtube search for “moon conspiracy theories” being debunking videos - especially this one by the “BBC”, makes me disbelieve the landing even more TBH
Ignorance noted.
So what has you possibly convinced that Apollo did not happen as told?
My favourite conspiracy theory is the lunar module was made from curtain rods and tin foil. Oh, wait...
...you think that it was?
@@yassassin6425 Well, I've seen more convincing school projects.
@@hairylittlewombat
Have you? So you, like the entire field of aerospace engineering worldwide, are fully familiar with the schematics and the technical specifications of the lunar module - and despite forensic scrutiny of every nut, bolt, switch, rivet, wire, circuit, and finding no anomalies or irregularities whatsoever, you however are "not convinced". Perhaps you should point out what they've been missing for over half a century? - and don't forget to mention that the University of You Tube sent you. Alternatively, is it just possible, that there are people on the planet that have greater expertise, knowledge and insight than a random, non-achieving gullible, Dunning Kruger afflicted conspiracy believer on the comments section of a video entertainment platform?
Just a thought.
@@yassassin6425 Don't waste your words on me, mate. Save it for the fanboys.
@@hairylittlewombat
You mean other equally dim conspiracy believers?
Also amateur radio operators were able to listen to the communications.
Yep, thousands of them, in fact. Also, an independent radio dish was used in Australia to help NASA/Apollo with communications.
Why not, NASA sow people might have broadcasted on the wave air - there was no internet to spread the lies, like today
That's like saying "I saw it on the tell-a-vision, therefore it must be true"
@@derp8575 No it isn't.
True or false: The government can lie over radio waves? God y'all are stupid. @@wisteela
David Mitchell himself did a sketch about faking the moon landing. If you're going to have to launch the massive rocket anyway, then... you might as well just go? Everything else is mainly catering. (That Mitchell and Webb Look - Moon Landing Sketch)
Mitchell is wrong. The launch was probably the easiest part of the project. Nazi Von Braun had lots of experience launching rockets.
Launching a rocket is one thing, going to place that you can’t physically get to is another…
The fact is that they didn't land on the moon or anywhere near it. They would struggle to get there and back safely with today's technology (see space shuttle disasters some 34 years later). They faked it for two reasons. One - they wanted to beat the Russians. Two - the US Government had invested so much money in the space program that they could not risk failure. So, they filmed it in a studio. Aldrin, was challenged to swear on the Bible (that he had walked on the moon) and punched the guy asking him. If I am right, Neil Armstrong was offered $1000 for his chosen charity if he swore on the Bible. He failed to do it as well. The gormless sheep will believe any nonsense they get told. Case closed.
@@richardsmith273 "going to place that you can’t physically get to"
Proven wrong.
@@redrick8900 proven wrong? Where…?
If you believe we went to the moon... You're still fast asleep..
I believe that you have provided zero evidence.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth The fact is that they didn't land on the moon or anywhere near it. They would struggle to get there and back safely with today's technology (see space shuttle disasters some 34 years later). They faked it for two reasons. One - they wanted to beat the Russians. Two - the US Government had invested so much money in the space program that they could not risk failure. So, they filmed it in a studio. Aldrin, was challenged to swear on the Bible (that he had walked on the moon) and punched the guy asking him. If I am right, Neil Armstrong was offered $1000 for his chosen charity if he swore on the Bible. He failed to do it as well. The gormless sheep will believe any nonsense they get told. Case closed.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth Explain how they got past the Van Allen radiation belts.
@@Alosipher The Van Allen Belt's are not the insurmountable obstacle that some moon landing deniers seem to think. "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." Dr. James A. Van Allen.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth NASA fund the flat earth society
You're welcome
Excellent quote from the comedian who wears the white shirt on the RIGHT of screen. "we are in trouble as a civilization if people don't actually believe things that they can't do themselves." If they could do it, then they believe. wow.
Twenty five percent of Brits also believe that they invented Chicken Tikka Masala.
you think in the heart of mumbai, they're all eating chicken tikka masala?
RIP Sean Locke :(
I didn’t believe it until
I became an engineer.
Half the conspiracy theories say they faked it , the other half say they had to air brush the aliens out of the pictures.
The aliens being air brushed is definitely the more interesting theory at least lol I kind of hope that's true 😆
I love that some people somehow believe both...
That there were real lunar landings, but they were secret and found aliens, and that what we saw was all staged lol
The fact is that they didn't land on the moon or anywhere near it. They would struggle to get there and back safely with today's technology (see space shuttle disasters some 34 years later). They faked it for two reasons. One - they wanted to beat the Russians. Two - the US Government had invested so much money in the space program that they could not risk failure. So, they filmed it in a studio. Aldrin, was challenged to swear on the Bible (that he had walked on the moon) and punched the guy asking him. If I am right, Neil Armstrong was offered $1000 for his chosen charity if he swore on the Bible. He failed to do it as well. The gormless sheep will believe any nonsense they get told. Case closed.
there is another group of conspiracy people who say we didn't go to the moon....BUT THE NAZIS DID....! Seriously.
My favorite part of this is David’s sincere disappointment at those figures. He encapsulates my own feelings on the subject.
So you’re vaccinated ( faux) I take it?
@@piplee1439 Ask dead skiba about vaccines...
exactly. it blows my mind hearing people and even some friends say they believe the moon landing is fake. and they are educated people but how can they believe it is fake?! one even suggested the did launch the rocket with the astronauts but they came back without setting a foot on the moon and possibly aliens had something to do with it. thats not a joke! he is serious about it!
Agreed.
A shame that more people haven't caught on to the ruse.
Facebook will not allow you to share this link. Now that is the proper conspiracy
One of the best explanations of the moon landing being real because all the conspiracy theorists were taught when they were stranded on an island and they went mentally insane.
my father worked for NASA in the 60s and 70s he always said, "if the moon landings were faked they would have looked better !"
Nonsense.
My favourite conspiracy theory was that there was a child trafficking ring ran by rich and powerful people 😅
What conspiracy theory? Child trafficking rings are depressingly prevalent across all echelons of society and the entire world. Of course there are going to be wealthy and powerful people who involve themselves in it, just as such sections of society commit fraud, homicide, spousal abuse and participate organised crime like the rest of society.
And that the jab would cause heart attacks and stroke.
And chemtrails are not condensation
@@piplee1439
*_"And that the jab would cause heart attacks and stroke."_*
And meanwhile of course Covid 19 doesn't? Maybe talk to the family of Windham Rotunda (Bray Wyatt).
Death has occurred at a rate of approximately 5 cases per one million vaccine doses administered. This includes cases of anaphylaxis, a severe type of allergic reaction that can occur after any kind of vaccination. To put this into perspective, there are 120 deaths per million in road accidents per year in the USA. Presumably, you don't drive or allow yourself to be driven?
*_"And chemtrails are not condensation"_*
That's precisely all they can be. Chemtrails are a physical and mathematical impossibility. Unless of course you can identify this mysterious material that can not only linger for hours without dispersing, but expand and increase in mass vastly exceeding the MTOW of the aircraft producing it?
Over to you.
@@piplee1439 Yes, it's all true. Yesterday's conspiracy theory is today's fact. I'm glad you're catching on.
Good one 👍
With all the proof the landings happened, if people can't accept it, how are the able to breathe unaided lol
In a vacuum 🤣🤣🤣
What proof? There is none. Not the retroreflectors, not the alleged Moon rocks...nothing!
More proof it didn't but people don't want to talk about it 🥱
@@Xernive There's evidence that the landings were faked, but no proof.
.....lol....I first read that with *never* inserted and gave a thumbs up 👍
The reflecting panels experiment is used all the time, and the data is highly accurate and reproducible.
The truth of everything being a stage scares people so much they tend to disbelieve or just stay ignorant.
What?
@@yassassin6425
This:
"[...] there is a tremendous reluctance among the American people to let go of the notion that we sent men to the Moon. There are a couple of reasons for that, one of them being that there is a romanticized notion that those were great years - years when one was proud to be an American. And in this day and age, people need that kind of romanticized nostalgia to cling to. But that is not the main reason that people cling so tenaciously, often even angrily, to what is essentially the adult version of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. What primarily motivates them is fear. But it is not the lie itself that scares people; it is what that lie says about the world around us and how it really functions. For if NASA was able to pull off such an outrageous hoax before the entire world, and then keep that lie in place for four decades, what does that say about the control of the information we receive? What does that say about the media, and the scientific community, and the educational community, and all the other institutions we depend on to tell us the truth? What does that say about the very nature of the world we live in? That is what scares the hell out of people and prevents them from even considering the possibility that they could have been so thoroughly duped. It’s not being lied to about the Moon landings that people have a problem with, it is the realization that comes with that revelation: if they could lie about that, they could lie about anything. "
- David McGowan
This text can be obviously extrapolated to everyone who believes that fairytale, not just the American people. I just to believe it too, until I started asking myself important questions and stopped being scared of the fact that we are living in a lie.
McGowan, whose books can be found in bargain bins everywhere.
Try again.
@@S1L3nCe
*_"This"_*
Dave McGowan? - are you actually attempting to be serious?
Bro took that one Shakespeare quote literally.
If they really went to the moon, how come their boots weren't caked in cheese?
Explain how they went through the van Allen Belts unscathed?
The radiation has become such a big bugaboo when really it was not that much of a challenge. There is a lot of documentation about how Apollo went through the belts. I would also suggest looking up the comments from Dr. James Van Allen. Yes that Dr. James Van Allen, the Van Allen the belts are named after. Read what he had to say about Apollo going through the belts named after him. That it was not an issue for Apollo.
Explain why they would not have done.
Explain why you believe NASA and Dr. James Van Allen when they tell you that these belts exist?
@@williammann9176why is Artemis sending Mannequins to test radiation levels if it's no concern? If the suits from Apollo worked, why was Artemis delayed for not having functional suits?
@@travisn346 Valid question. The answer is at your fingertips. Yes Artemis 1 used mannequins to test protective gear. No Apollo mission lasted longer than 12 days. For that amount of time Apollo had all the protection is needed. Most Artemis missions are going to be a lot longer. For that it is felt the radiation protection needs to be upped for Orion. The depay of Artemis 2 has nothing to do with radiation. It is to redesign improvements into the heat shield mainly. The answer to your questions are literally at your fingertips.
You didn’t cover all the film recordings where lose by NASA
No "film recordings" were lost by NASA - only some magnetic back up data tapes pertaining to Apollo 11 which were reused. So why should they mention it?
Because that a a conspiracy lie.
You claim that NASA lost all the recordings on a video literally showing the recordings.
I don't think it gets any dumber than that.....
I didn't know Melchett got his own tv show, nice
Zontar here... Yes, believe talking humans. Many humans on your Moon. Not staged. Thank you. We come in peace 🕊️. Tuesday.
Kneel before Zontar!
Thank you Zontar , we await your arrival 😁
It says a lot about the truncated nature of the Apollo Program that there's still threads to pick: had it been the first step in a continuous manned expansion into space, every detail would be preserved for its monumental importance; but it ended with little more than 'been there, done that, got the mission badge' and vital records were misplaced, lessons forgotten.
But there are no "threads to pick". The Apollo Programme is fully accountable and the scientific, technological, historical and independent evidence in support of its veracity, manifest. Those that "pick threads" are conspiracy theorists and their followers with no actual knowledge of spaceflight of the programme itself. Precisely what records were misplaced? What are you referring to?
In respect of lessons learnt, I am in complete agreement. The siloed nature of NASA's management that contributed to the Challenger and Columbia disasters during the Space Shuttle Programme is a far cry from, and complete anathema to the open culture of communication engendered during Apollo. I also think that Project Artemis could heed much from the execution and the engineering philosophy associated with the Apollo Programme.
The pyramids must not exist since nobody can explain how the massive stones were cut, moved, and stacked without modern machinery.
Wow
Yes we can. It's not hard if you have unlimited slave labor. You can see CZcams videos of people doing it now.
This is Stephen taking four minutes off of comedy just to make sure everyone knows they landed on the moon.
Aldrin has admitted on 2 occasions since: "We never went."
Source???
Of course not. What was I thinking? You freaks never have sources or proof.
No, he never did. Looks like you got fooled, not once, but twice.
Liar! He did say it. @@randyschissler5791
He assaulted one guy for asking him to swear on the Bible (that he had walked on the moon). Neil Armstrong was offered $1000 to go to his chosen charity if he swore on the Bible. He failed to do it as well. The gormless sheep will believe any nonsense they are told. It was filmed in a studio. Case closed.
You admitted on 50 occasions that you made that up.
I saw another scientist point out that the TOTAL cost of faking EVERYTHING to do with that landing, eg designing the rockets, drawing the plans, building everything, etc, would have far exceeded the cost of actually sending the three astronauts there and back
I believe we didnt go to the moon,not because we didnt have the will or resources or drive to do it but because we realised we as humans will never be able to leave or inner space and venture into the outer spaces,thats when it dawned on whose clever foxes in nasa,if its impossible to go for us then its impossible for every other country,thats when the apple landed on the lap and they came up with hey lets fake it,nobody will be able to prove it because nobody can go there so its true until proven false,those sad astronauts before they went they were so gappy and joyful and when tgey came back there faces were sunken and sad like they been lied too and now there scared just incase they say something off script,
Do you have the video name? I've been trying to find it for a while
Neil degrass Tyson said it I think
@@bradsmith97 Neil degrass 'just take the shot' 'follow the science' Tyson! haha that guy is such a grifter! What would he know?!
@@count69 don't shoot the messenger
Werner Von Braun's 'Epitaph' (Psalms 19:1) "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the Firmament sheweth his handy work" ✝️
Indeed, he was a Christian and a rocket scientist, so a highly apposite choice.
That’s nice. It’s totally irrelevant to the fact that the Apollo missions occurred, of course.
Von Braun's intent was probably allegorical, not literal. He spent 20 years before his death criticizing people that rejected science for religion and visa versa, trying to merge them and promoting space flight as the way to explore God's creation because he believed there was more out there than just us.
What is the firmament? @@yassassin6425
Do you always make excuses for nazis?@@kevinskinner4986
How did they record the footage of the lander taking off?
Ask yourself how those Ring doorbells can see who’s at the door, and send the video feed to a mobile in another country, then feel embarrassed that you asked such an obvious question.
The camera was operated by R. E. Mote, the cousin of the well known Kilroy of WWII fame. Like his illustrious cousin, he's been everywhere, at the bottom of the ocean, inside nuclear reactors, driven on the Moon and on Mars, flown by the outer planets and out of the solar system.
He operated the camera to film the takeoff of Apollos 15, 16, & 17, under the direction of Ed Fendell who was in Houston.
The camera on the lunar rover. The first ones weren't recorded.
@@inlee99 you think it was a “valid point”? Well then you’re as wilfully ignorant they are. How pitiful.
You're jabbed, aren't you?@@Mark-Stone
It seems silly that such videos need to be made, but thank you Stephen
Or we could just go back.
@@derp8575 'I can tell you nobody's going back to the Moon except for commercial reasons.' 1998.
Pete Conrad, Commander Apollo 12. They're getting round to it 25 years later.
@@gunternetzer9621 He forgot to tell Artemis. Enough excuses.
I mean... atop 3000 tons of rocket fuel, where else could they have been heading when they blasted a bunch of astronauts into space? Frankly I think the moon is probably the most believable destination.
Why is it then that we can’t go back to the moon rn ??????
3000 ton rocket? Impossible but ok chatbot 😂
@@rowen7643 Artemis 2 mission launches next year to have a manned flyby of the Moon, then Artemis 3 takes place the year after for a manned landing.
@@rowen7643 Uber is planning trips to the moon.
Mars. They faked the moon landing...on Mars.
Stephen finally correctly says Moon landings in the plural. There were 6 of them. A fact that experts who have done their own research seem to overlook. My favorite comeback from a conspiracy-addled friend was, "The *first* one was fake! It was a rehearsal!" His puzzled look indicated he hadn't heard about the others.
No facts just ridicule! For Steven Frye this at first seem way beneath his intellect? But his sidekicks were an even match! The one who thought it was depressing to have a conspiracy theory of moon landings appeared not to be very aware of just what the moon landings were!
It's a light hearted panel show that's all. Alan Davies simply plays a part, whilst you'll find that David Mitchell is highly knowledgeable about the subject, as is Stephen Fry (note the spelling). It's simply pitched at those who don't necessarily know a great deal about it.
(RIP Sean Lock).
He did, that's why he finds the conspiracy theory depressing.
All they can do is ridicule.. and censorship..
Correction; all they have to do is ridicule. Believing that the moon landings were faked is ridiculous.
It's the same with Covid, Russia/Ukraine, etc. Idiots fear truth.
The Soviets in 1969: How the hell did Americans land on the moon?!
American scientists in 2021: How the hell can we land on the moon?!
They knew and know exactly how it was done. The objective today is to achieve it with modern technologies.
@@yassassin6425 And the challenge is for a new generation of astronauts and engineers to achieve it, at a fraction of the rate of funding that Apollo had.
And that for the huge number of people involved with the whole project, none of whom have let on - the cost to bribe all of them to keep quite would have been so expensive it would end up costing more than just going to the moon in the first place!
To me that is the main thing. Details of events like the killing of Osama Bin Laden were supposed to remain top secret - but it wasn't long before those involved were taking big money for "tell all" books or TV appearances. To suggest that moon landing fakery could remain a secret for decades in a society like the USA beggars belief. Yes, I know there are one or two people who claim to have been in on it - but such a fake would have involved dozens or even hundreds of people directly, plus the thousands of people at NASA and its contractors all on the project in some way. So, there would be a LOT more than the few that make this claim if it had any worth (beyond making a few people a lot of money from advertising revenues on their conspiracy theory YT channels).
100,000s have worked for NASA from all around the Earth yet these facts don't matter.
And none of these people have ever come out about any hoax and people working for NASA today would’ve called them out on the bs if it was hoax. Russia would’ve exposed our ass long ago. This is waaay too big to fake.
You committed a logical fallacy and 18 other people thought it was logically sound... *sigh*
@@Ddotkay You committed a logical fallacy and no one else thought it was sound.
Did not have the technology to *Fake* it back then. No CGI, no Green screen, no Digital cameras, no Editing software, etc..etc..😮
That's admittedly the best argument that it happened of all. :)
They didn’t have the technologies to go to the moon back then if u think of it like that
@@Laufeyson_Loki All the things listed above were dependent on the microchip revolution of the 1980s. The technology that took man to the moon was largely mechanical, save for some radio equipment and the crude, heavy computers of the 1960s that could only handle fairly basic calculations (certainly not the kind of processing power capable of generating graphics)
@@Laufeyson_Loki Rocket technology has been around since the 1930's. Slide rules were used back then. Atomic reactors and bombs were designed and built without computers as well. You can do a lot of things with an 8bit operating system, but *Graphics* isn't one of them.
Hollywood?
My absolute favourite conspiracy theory was the video of the the Apollo 17 lunar module lifting off from the moon. The conspiracy theorist said that footage was impossible because they would have left the cameraman on the moon to die. 😂💀🌖
so alot of the conspiracy theory are false ? im not asking because i believe it i ask because some people believe every single one
@@Love-hx6nb yes, there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there that have been proven to be false. In many cases people with vested interests perpetuate these conspiracies for notoriety and profit. Many people believe these theories for their own reasons often to belong to a group or due to a deep distrust of any authority. Facts are dismissed as CGI, faked or dozens of contrived reasons often with no evidence or misinterpretation of facts. Elvis is still alive, Paul McCartney is dead, the earth is flat or the young earth. Many of these conspiracy theories perpetuate their religious beliefs or incredulity.
@@Love-hx6nbI'd say 90% are false, 9% have some truth, but are greatly exaggerated or miss something, and only 1% are real
@@jesusramirezromo2037 some people talk about bill gates letting out thousands of mosquito to let out a virus or the one about no wanting people to used their 3 rd eye did you hear about those conspiracy theory what do you think about them oh and that bill gates bought 80% of farms to plant foods with no seeds.can you help me prove there false? the ones that are false?
And you will NEVER specify which are true and false. Throwing out random numbers means nothing. @@jesusramirezromo2037
"We are in trouble as a species if people would refuse to believe in things that they couldn't actually do themselves", wise words, good narrative on the source of pandemics, vaccines, and the entire Trump circus as a whole...
Yes well said !!
Exactly...DNC pulls a complete Russian hoax...everyone just goes along with it. Leftists cry about Trump's hate speech...while comparing him to Hitler (an ultimate irony).
It does not take much to fool the masses.
@@JACKnJESUS Trump thought the moon landings were fake, The orange orangutan was the worst president in history, And a horrible person. Oh and his boyfriend Putin invaded Ukraine and is threatening the world.
Moon landings deniers are very low intelligence individuals, And so arrogant with their ignorance, Everything they claim has been debunked millions of times.
"the whole Trump circus as a whole". Excellent use of the English language. Stephen Fry would commend you for that.
A current domestic toaster has more computer power than Apollo!
No it doesn't. Did the ludicrous Apollo Detectives tell you that or Bart Sibrel?
The AGC was very compact and a brilliant piece of kit. What you people fail to understand is the fact that it was purpose-built, and did what was required incredibly well. It also could handle overloads by resetting itself without losing the instruction stack it had which was prewritten onto rope core memory, and would re prioritise those commands on the fly. IBM engineers also developed the mini integrated circuits that meant computers could be small enough to fit inside a rocket or spacecraft. It was a brilliant piece of technology for the time. You also likely had no idea that this was supported on the ground by the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. It collected, processed and sent to Mission Control the information needed to direct every phase of an Apollo/Saturn mission. It computed what the space vehicle was doing and compared that with what it should be doing. RTCC worked in real-time -- so fast, there was virtually no time between receiving and solving a computing problem. IBM 7094-11 computers were used in the RTCC during NASA's Gemini program and on the first three Apollo/Saturn missions. Later, IBM System/360 Model 75J mainframes, plus peripheral storage and processing equipment, were employed. Two computers were used during a mission: one was primary; the other operated identically but as standby. Why are you making what you assume to be authoritative comments about subjects that you have no knowledge of whatsoever?
@@yassassin6425 Are you being paid to do this or did they find your porn stash and blackmail you?
Those are the only 2 options, unless you're hopelessly in denial
There was nothing special about the material used in the flags. NASA added some thin metal rods sewn in horizontally to hold the flag away from the pole.
Confusion about space and a general mistrust of anything government is a symptom of an indoctrinated mind, usually because of falling for the flatearth prank.
Ok ChatGPT guy 😂
@@papalegba6796 Ah, I see my proof has arrived...
Laws of thermodynamics prove its all fake. You're not programmed to understand them 😂
@@papalegba6796 Do you always comment to yourself?
Do you always like your own comments? 😂
This is a short history of why the Lunar Missions stopped in 1972. Also why it is taking so long to get back.
Congress started cutting NASA's budget even before NASA got to the moon. 1966 was NASA's biggest budget year. They got approximately 4.6% of the U.S. G.D.P.. This is while they were still building the infrastructure for Apollo and they hoped an infrastructure to get them beyond the moon to Mars by 1981-2.
After 1966 NASA's budget went on a steady decline. Originally the first phase of Lunar Exploration was to go to Apollo 20. NASA had built in the infrastructure for a continuous supply of CSMs LMs and SaturnVs. Plans were in the works for upgraded CSM, LMs and SaturnVs. NASA even built prototype pressurized LRVs for use on planned Lunar Colonies. There were plans for more then 1 Skylab as a stepping stone for larger Space Stations. Original plans for the Space Shuttle were for a much more elaborate system to ferry astronauts and equipment to and from the ever expanding Space Stations. They were even looking at plans for making the Saturn V's first and second stages recoverable and reusable. Originally Launch Complex 39 was to have 5 launch pads. Then it got cut to 3, then only 2 were built. They built 3 mobile launch towers, but only 2 were ever used.
All the working plans and proposals are still there to be seen. With NASA’s budget being cut after 1966, bit by bit NASA’s ambitious plans started to dwindle. After Apollo 11 it was planned to have 4 Apollo launches a year till Apollo 20. This soon got cut to 2 per year and at the same time Apollo 20 was cancelled. In late 1970 future contracts to build more Apollo CSMs, LMs and Saturn Vs were cancelled. The remaining 5 CSM: 3 would be used for Skylab of which there would only be 1 Skylab now. One CSM was planned for the then hopeful Apollo Soyuz mission and the last CSM(now in a museum) was modified to hold 5 people as a potential rescue mission for Skylab crews. One of the remaining three SaturnVs would be used to launch Skylab, the last two are now museum pieces.
NASA’s budget continued to get cut and along with it Space Shuttle kept being scaled back from what NASA wanted. In 1975 NASA started to redo Pad 39A for the coming Space Shuttle. But NASA kept begging to get Apollo going again and maintained Pad 39B for Apollo and tried to maintain as much of the Apollo infrastructure and talent as they could. But by 1977 it was clear Apollo was dead. So NASA let the Apollo infrastructure and talent atrophy away.
Through the terms of Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama, NASA was pushed and pulled in many directions with start and stop goals given and taken away. All of them with plans to return to the moon. Bush 2 laid out the most promising plan for a return to the moon in 2004 with the Constellation Program. It called for a return to the moon before 2014. In 2010 Obama cancelled Constellation after a lot of money and effort had been spent. All with budgets nothing like the had in 1966. The current Artemis plans which rose out of the ashes of Constellation are 12 years old and moving at a snails pace on a shoestring budget. Another reason it is taking so long.
Go look up NASA’s plans and dreams. Would have been amazing had they been allowed to carry on. NASA was thinking exploration, human expansion and potential research science and resources to gain. The government thought, beat the USSR and not much more.
Excellently précis, and I learned a fair bit too.
But deviate will still insist that. ASA claims they lost the technology (probably down the back of the sofa).
One of the reasons it’s taking so long now, all the very real dangers of radiation exposure while passing through the Van Allen belts. Plus the need to pay greater attention to the risks of micro meteors, and the razor sharp lunar dust, which can easily rip through flimsy space suits. It seems unlikely that under current Health and Safety legislation, the original Apollo missions would have been allowed to go ahead. Although I am basing that assumption on British Health and Safety, not American, of which I know very little.
@@brianfileman Apollo missions were no longer then 12 days. For that the Apollo CSM had more then enough radiation protection going by the dosimeters the crews wore. The Artemis missions will tend to be a lot longer. Orion's 2 flights through the belts show that Orion is good to go through the belts. but the longer term exposure to deep space radiation is a bigger problem. Thus the sensored up mannequins in Orion on Artemis 1. Orion seems to be protected well enough that the next flight will be crewed.
The Apollo spacesuits were anything but flimsy. Again for missions the length of Apollo there worked very well. But again it will be the long term effect of the lunar dust on suits in longer missions that seem to be the issue.
Micro meteorites have always been a concern, but is all the years of crew space flight I think there has only been one confirmed strike. On the ISS a few years ago now.
@@williammann9176
It was micrometeorites hitting the moon that I meant. Apollo suits did suffer minor damage on the moon. Flimsy was meant merely as a comparative.
Your explanation is more accurate than mine anyway.
It's not short but definitely a story lol
You may need to revisit this question. Ask Bart Sibrel.
Right - because after all, nothing says informed, honest and accurate like a former cab driver and convicted felon, ex stalker and religious cult member, one time advertisement maker that managed to get himself ostracised by the entire industry and a proven liar and fraud turned conspiracy theorist with absolutely no specialist knowledge or scientific expertise whatsoever.
"Ask Bart Sibrel". This is about as dumb as it gets.
I wouldn't ask Bart Sibrel how to spell his own name.
You're kidding, right?
People say the light in the photographs is at the wrong angle for the Sun rays but they forget that the actual spacecraft might have had artificial spot lights
This Fry chappie should be shown the “modified” Hasselblad camera that the still photos were taken with - and reminded, too, of the properties of the Kodak film - again, the film was “tweaked” - but not a whole lot - used in the Hasselblad - 100 degrees plus centigrade temperatures in unshaded places - and, of course, the vacuum of space which a school goer could demonstrate - using a vacuum chamber - is seriously detrimental to the photo chemical qualities of film (unless special precautions are taken which demonstrably weren’t if you look at NASA info) - that and other considerations lead informed people to doubt the authenticity of the Hasselblad photos - we all know Fry is a clever chappie - a bit of research by him on these particular points might, however, result in a humbling experience for “our Professor”.
*_"we all know Fry is a clever chappie - a bit of research by him on these particular points might, however, result in a humbling experience for “our Professor”._*
Er - right. Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours?
Firstly, heat and temperature are two different things. Heat is concerned with thermal energy, whereas temperature describes molecular kinetic energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy, whereas temperature is a property the object exhibits and describes the motion of molecules. Since the moon is essentially a vacuum there are very few of these to be excited So temperature is essentially a measurement of how excited air molecules are. The higher the temperature, the more frenzied molecules become and the more they bounce off each other-and this interaction between particles is what creates heat. The surface of the moon is virtually a vacuum. There are very few particles, and what particles are present are spaced far apart. This is why temperature is meaningless. In the absence of an atmosphere there is no convection whilst conduction is limited. Therefore the main source of thermal energy transfer is radiative heating from the sun - and the film was shielded from this. The temperature extremes that you mention are surface temperatures - extremes. Objects take time to build up to their equilibrium temperature and the length of the lunar daytime is 15 earth days. This is why all of the Apollo moon landings were timed to coincide with the lunar dawn. The temperatures that you mention were never experienced.
Contrary to your claims, Hasselblad *_did_* significantly adapt and modify their 500EL cameras for the Apollo missions by removing the viewfinder, modifying the shutter, replacing the usual plastic black outer surface with reflective silver body, the internal plastics were removed and using special lubricants resistant to vacuum and high temperatures. They also collaborated with Zeiss to produce a custom lens for the lunar cameras. The lens couldn't be used on a regular camera because Hasselblad removed the mirror mechanism and the viewfinder, The moderate speed and low sensitivity film types that were used were well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. Also, as explained, heat transfer is not significant in the absence of convection.
Regarding the film itself in more detail - firstly radiation. X rays, which can be destructive to film vary in their energy. By way of example, a CT scanner will be 60KV, and airport baggage scanner 80KV - where in comparison the radiation produced by the sun is less than 5KV. Anything less than 10KV can't penetrate anything greater than 1mm of aluminium. 5KV can be stopped by a piece of paper. Kept within a metal container, the X rays from the sun simply weren't strong enough to damage the film. The only time that they would present a risk to film is during a solar flare/CME/SPE - and in that scenario, the main concern would have been the safety of the astronauts. The radiation dosage for a year on the moon is between 110 mSv and 380 mSv. On Earth, that dosage is 2.4 mSv, or higher, depending on where you are exactly. Bottom line, the few days in Lunar orbit and on the surface would have aged the film due to radiation between 50-150 days/ day in orbit maximum, thus it would be the equivalent of film that was aged a few years at most. The environment at the Moon is more likely to have high energy effects, and there actually *_are_* signs of radiation in some of the images, if you look carefully.
Regarding vacuum. A fallacious and flawed experiment found on the conspiracy website Aulis and frequently shared and referenced by conspiracy believers attempted to demonstrate the effect of this upon the film used by the Apollo missions...except is wasn't. The Kodak ektachrome used E-100 is off the shelf, whereas Apollo used ektachrome EF (S0168) and ektachrome MS (S0368) both of which were developed expressly for use in space utilising different emulsions due to higher UV and eliminate blue haze. In the 'experiment', the E-100 film was tested in a vacuum chamber for four days, before being pressurised and then a vacuum again. Yet if we take Apollo 11, the film would only have been in a vacuum for the duration of the EVA, which was around two and a half hours. The longest total EVA was Apollo 17 at 22 hrs for the three performed. The experiment also neglected to contain the film. The heat extremes that it was subjected to were as explained, never experienced. They also used the E6 process to develop the film as opposed to the E3 process used by NASA and ignored the fact that a calibration chart was used for adjustment at the end of the process, to correct for issues with the colour. The conclusion of the experiment actually illustrates that the colour shift was compromised not due to vacuum itself as they claim, but pressurisation cycling between a vacuum and atmospheric pressure and extreme heat which the Apollo film never experienced. Also, the LM and CM were pressurised by pure oxygen to 4.7 psi as opposed to the 14 psi nitrogen/oxygen that we experience on earth. The most absurd thing about this 'experiment' is that is was conducted by three people - the ludicrous self-appointed 'Apollo Detectives'. They set out to prove that film won't survive in a vacuum - but when you factor in all of their inaccuracies, it proves exactly the opposite.
It sounds like you've mistaken watching a Gary Fong video on You Tube for actual research.
The reaction of photography is 2 AgCl(s) + hν → 2 Ag(s) + Cl2(g). None of that requires exposure to air.
Yawn. The usual claptrap from the Cult of Willful Ignorance. The moon rotates about once every 28 earth days, relative to the sun. 14 earth days are spent in daylight and 14 in darkness. It takes several days of sun to warm the lunar surface from the low of nearly 300 degrees below to 32 degrees, and another 7 or 8 days to reach the 200 degree mark. The astronauts always landed while the temperatures were still below freezing and left long before the temperatures became dangerous.
There is no atmosphere on the Moon to efficiently ‘bind’ lunar surface heat to devices that are not in direct contact with it. The camera film was derived from the ones used for high-altitude photo reconnaissance, which were designed to withstand temperatures from 490°F down to - 40°F, and they were housed in aluminium magazines covered with reflective passive optical coatings. The radiation exposure level on the Moon from the distance of space was not enough to damage the film. It was much less than that of an airport x-ray machine’s direct radiation from a distance of less than a few feet. It had the same effect equivalent to leaving the film on a shelf for six months on Earth. And, in 1969, film was often left on shelves for far longer in many cases and still used. Furthermore, there are signs of radiation contamination in some of the images, if you look carefully; for example, lines running through the film, bright spots and a decrease in contrast and colour response. These effects are not easily detectable to the untrained eye and without access to the original material.
Sean never got to go to the moon and meet the Soup Dragon.
Oh? Soviet never said it was fake? Fun fact: You guys know about “Operation Paper Clip”? All the scientists and engineers from ww2 were captured and brought to the u.s to work either for military or for the industry. All of their war crimes like forcing jewish to live in concentration camps just to name one were expunged from their record so america could build trust with them. It was U.S vs. Soviets, but all of the technology indeed came from the Germans as did this modern world we know today. Another fun fact, America and everywhere else WANTED TO BE HITLER. They all looked up to him even to this day. Tell the citizens of america THAT before you try to teach them about Hitler or the moon landing.
So they had really good experienced rocket engineers?
Whatever you say. antisemite. @@TexMex421
There seems to be a fair percentage of flat earthers in the U.K. as well.
People are waking up to the lies👍
@@Thest-qu9ly No, they just don’t know how things work. They’d rather embrace CZcams conspiracy videos than learn.
@@xavierharding8938 I don’t want to wind up like a coworker, got sicker and sicker…finally said f**k it, I need to go to the hospital. Dead two days later.
Guy could bench 500 lbs but was into all that conspiracy sh*t. Left a wife and two children, and a lot of upheaval with his job.
I only got one jab tho. Got the virus but it was no worse than a bad cold. Oh and yea…..masks reduce exposure. Don’t be selfish and not use them if directed.
That's just sad.
"Why do people doubt the moon landings?"
Because they are not gullible idiots. Next question, please.
Said the online conspiracy believer.
Because they are not gullible idiots? But they did believe the 3 YT videos they saw claiming it was fake.
@@TexMex421Fr. Guy I know saw one video and has started telling everyone he knows about this shit. Infuriatingly dumb
Because they are totally ignorant of science, and the procedures and equipment used. They just make a series of conjectures and assumptions that have no basis in scientific or historical fact.
There are three types of conspiracy theorist:
Type 1 do not know much about science or the subject but when presented with scientific fact and evidence, can be reasoned with.
Type 2 just aren’t very bright; they can’t work out who held a camera and why an astronaut looks bored at a press conference, and are easily taken in.
Type 3 like to think that they have some sort of special insight that experts don’t have, and whatever evidence you present to them they will just dismiss it as impossible or lies, and the more you argue with them the more entrenched their views become, because for them it is a matter of belief. I also suspect that a lot of this type know that the moon landings were real but get a perverse pleasure out of being bloody minded.
@@gunternetzer9621 You don't need a science degree to spot fakery.
Buzz punching that lunar-tic Bart Sibrel was one of the highlights of his career! Forget the moon landing, I'd sooner watch that any day!
The year 2024 and people still don't believe how far we've gotten. How can they? When all they do is stuff their faces with donuts and criticize everything.
Ohhhhh why one foot print darling ha ha ha ,,,( laughing at my own joke is so serious)
The only conspiracy theory is the official one, which says man went to the moon
? That's the general idea of this conspiracy theory and precisely what it alleges genius. And all you have done is mindlessly plastered the same cut and paste, obligatory junk conspiracy theory across this comments section that has been parroted over and over and over and over again, and has been comprehensively debunked and dismissed on innumerable occasions. Do you have anything that even vaguely resembles an original thought or observation even occasionally entering your vacuous cranium? Perhaps you could share it?
Why are you trolls incapable of consolidating your nonsense into one single comment?
Two examples of why we never went to the moon:
One.
It’s impossible to have a vacuum (space), next to a pressurised system (the earths atmosphere) without a physical barrier separating the two. This is a law of physics and cannot be broken (and don’t give me any rubbish about the ‘theory’ of gravity being able to magically side-step the fundamental laws of physics).
Two.
If we somehow in someone’s dream did manage to break the above law of physics, how is it possible for a man in a pressurised space suit to remain and look perfectly normal as though standing on earth when he is in a vacuum? The suit would expand like a balloon and he would look like an over inflated Michelin Man. The astronauts look like they are just walking across a park in their Sunday best - no sign of any effects of a pressurised suit fighting against the 100% vacuum of ‘space’.
The only people who believe we went to the moon are those that have never bothered to look beyond what their governments and propaganda arms (TV and news papers, etc), tell them.
QI, in this instance, is the perfect example of this. The renowned brain box, Mr Fry, is here telling you why we went to the moon without having any means of backing up his comments other than hearsay from other sources. You are expected to believe everything he says without question because of his reputation. I suspect that Stephen knows the truth but part of his job is to make sure you don’t.
*_"It’s impossible to have a vacuum (space), next to a pressurised system (the earths atmosphere) without a physical barrier separating the two. This is a law of physics and cannot be broken (and don’t give me any rubbish about the ‘theory’ of gravity being able to magically side-step the fundamental laws of physics)."_*
Conspiracy theorists and flat earthers that try to invoke the "laws of physics" whilst selectively ignoring "laws of physics".
Could you account for the decrease in pressure with altitude? Thanks
*_"If we somehow in someone’s dream did manage to break the above law of physics, how is it possible for a man in a pressurised space suit to remain and look perfectly normal as though standing on earth when he is in a vacuum? The suit would expand like a balloon and he would look like an over inflated Michelin Man. The astronauts look like they are just walking across a park in their Sunday best - no sign of any effects of a pressurised suit fighting against the 100% vacuum of ‘space’."_*
Because the internal pressure was only 4.3 psi whilst the near vacuum of of the moon's surface is simply the absence of matter. There is nothing to "fight against".
*_"The only people who believe we went to the moon are those that have never bothered to look beyond what their governments and propaganda arms (TV and news papers, etc), tell them."_*
Nope, that'll be entire branches of science such as astronomy and geology, related specialisms and cognate disciplines including aerospace engineering worldwide, Nobel Prize winning physicists, Pulitzer Prize nominated independent investigative journalists and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet to name a few. Also, known science is not a question of 'belief'.
Meanwhile, online conspiracy theory is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Ok then.
And at what point have you yourself "looked beyond" the conspiratorial nonsense that you consume and regurgitate?
*_"QI, in this instance is the perfect example of this. The renowned brain box, Mr Fry is here telling you why we went to the moon without having any means of backing up his comments other than hearsay from other sources. You are expected to believe everything he says without question because of his reputation. I suspect that Stephen knows the truth but part of his job is to make sure you don’t."_*
This is simply a light hearted and at times irreverent panel show. Everything that Fry says can be independently verified. The sole problem is that very simply, it isn't what you want to hear, just as you won't like my reply to you.
@@yassassin6425 If you want to believe we went to the moon, you carry on. My points above still stand as you haven't 'debunked' any of them.
@@richardsmith273Tell me, clown. If the earth's atmosphere is within a container, why is the pressure at sea level 14.7 psi while at the same time the pressure atop Mt. Everest is just under 5 psi?
Until you can answer that, just STFU.
The whole "vacuum next to a pressurized system" argument does nothing more than display your sheer and utter ignorance of how the Earth's atmosphere works.
The reason the air on Earth is under pressure is due to gravity. The closer you are to the surface, the more air there is weighing down on you - thus creating a greater pressure. The higher up you go, the less and less air particles there are to weigh down, so the pressure decreases. It decreases gradually more and at some point, you are virtually above all the air molecules. It's not like there is a vacuum directly adjacent to an atmosphere pressurized to 14.7 psi. That's not how it works. You're just embarrassing yourself.
@@richardsmith273
*_"If you want to believe we went to the moon, you carry on."_*
Known science is not a question of belief and at no stage have I mentioned either that or my own. Nothing to do with me, the evidence in support of the moon landings is demonstrable and incontrovertible so I'll go with that thanks.
*_"My points above still stand as you haven't 'debunked' any of them."_*
Your 'points' are simply ill-informed nonsense or pure conjecture on your part whether I or anyone else debunks them. On the subject of which, I addressed and summarised all of the content of your post, so let's see shall we?
Firstly you claimed it is impossible to have the vacuum of space next to the Earth's atmosphere, so from that I conclude that you are one of these deranged space deniers and flat earthers. In response, I asked you to account for the decrease in pressure with altitude. You failed to do so, so that's that.
Secondly, you asked how it is possible for anyone in a pressurised suit to "look normal" (whatever that means) insisting that "he would look like an over inflated Michelin Man". I pointed out to you that would not be the case as the A7Ls were only pressurised to 3.7psi (4.2psi current suits). I'd hardly call that "over inflated" would you?
You then insisted that "the only people who believe we went to the moon are those that have never bothered to look beyond what their governments and propaganda arms (TV and news papers, etc), tell them." To clarify again, in addition to entire branches of science and specialist fields/disciplines worldwide, the Apollo missions have also been examined with forensic detail by historians and investigative journalists whilst also bearing scrutiny from individual nations, independent third parties and each of the 76 other space agencies. In short, areas of expertise and individuals far more accomplished, skilled and clever than a random, insignificant, gullible conspiracy junkie that thinks that consuming and regurgitating junk online conspiratorial crap over the comments section of You Tube makes him sound significant, informed and knowledgeable.
Finally, you absurdly stated that Stephen Fry is unable to qualify his comments in spite of the fact that they are all independently verifiable, You then went on to say that part of his job is to make sure that people don't know the truth for which you have zero evidence in support of, so as the one making the claim, the burden of truth is incumbent upon you, not me.
Should you need any further clarification, then do not hesitate to ask.
My favorite moon landing hoax claim has to be the following. The old you know it's fake theory due to multiple double shadows. They seem to forget that the earth reflects sunlight.
1:28 - David’s face says everything you need to know!
I have always been interested in the moon landings and space exploration in general; I was born in 1964 and by the early 1970’s I was the right age to get hooked into it. I have spent the intervening years studying the subject and have read many books and seen many interviews and documentaries. When this nonsense really started to gain traction around the Millennium I was intrigued by it, probably because as I say, I have always been interested in the subject and I have tried to analyse what is behind it.
I have come to the conclusion that there are three types of conspiracy theorist:
Type 1 do not know much about science or the subject but when presented with scientific fact and evidence, can be reasoned with.
Type 2 just aren’t very bright; they can’t work out who held a camera and why an astronaut looks bored at a press conference, and are easily taken in.
Type 3 like to think that they have some sort of special insight that experts don’t have, and whatever evidence you present to them they will just dismiss it as impossible or lies, and the more you argue with them the more entrenched their views become, because for them it is a matter of belief. I also suspect that a lot of this type know that the moon landings were real but get a perverse pleasure out of being bloody minded.
Yes, he’s a c**t
@@gunternetzer9621 did you go ?
@@gunternetzer9621 good summary, it’s certainly a sign of the times, I agree.
The influence of social media certainly plays a big part, now everything is a conspiracy, almost nothing is just taken at face value.
Moon landings, 9/11… even the shape of the planet we live on. I also see it so much in sport these days, I’m a big F1 fan and these oxygen thieves have managed to infiltrate my beloved sport and are poisoning it with their nonsense too.
It’s a really disheartening time to be alive in some ways.
@@mitchdaytonam3for real. Knowing that these people live on the same earth as me fills me with a strange bittersweet feeling.
For one I feel dejected that my fellow humans have the capability to be so ignorant.
And yet, I feel proud of the fact that our technological progress in the past 250 years is so great that some ignorant fools refuse to believe our undeniably awesome achievements.
hearing these men try to sound intelligent is like nails on the chalkboard
I assure you, the combined IQ on that panel is an order of magnitude higher than your own shoe size/room temperature figure.
What is "nails on the chalkboard" is hearing intelligent individuals challenge the crap online junk sold to you by dumb internet grifters and conspiracy theorists that tell you what to think about a subject you have absolutely zero knowledge of whatsoever.
They sound like people of average intelligence. That's just smart compared to you.
Conspiracy theorists are just stoners with too much time on their hands.
yes, not like the rest of us intellectual youtube watchers.
No they are religious zealots who can't stand that things exist that aren't in the bible
Conspiracy theorists are paranoid people with no faith in the scientific process it seems.
@@rumfordc Also, who said we were intellectual? It doesn't take brains to look at someone who's spent their entire life dedicated to one thing and go "ah, they must know quite a bit about that one thing".
To do otherwise would be like not trusting a professional chef to cook something for you, despite their years of experience.
@@ThatFoxxoLeo indeed my fellow believer 🔎 who said that? these are the important matters we should be questioning, rather than moon landings and war and such. we should consult with a professional who-said-that-ologist, to be safe.
Soviets were the kind of people who would tell you with a straight face that sky is green and water is dry. They had no problem with lying about anything so if they said NASA landed on the moon it happened.
what? if liars said it happened it happened? or we just paid them off to keep quiet and they lied along with us to reap their own reward.
I’m not sure the comment about the crater underneath the lander is correct. If we’re talking about Apollo 11, watch the film coverage as they land. You’ll see that they didn’t turn their engines off until after they landed, as you can see the dust spreading once they touch down and then you hear “engine stop.“ I don’t recall what the explanation for this was.
JACK KNOPF By the time the LM was in the final phase of the landing it was in what was called helicopter mode. The engine is throttled way back and the LM is upright moving horizontally. So it is never over one place for any length of time. You do see the surface dust being blown in the film footage. Then there are the 3 probes sticking out the bottom of 3 of the landing pads. As soon as one of those touched the surface the engine stopped and the LM drop the last about 5-6 feet. So the engine is throttled back, the LM is moving horizontally so no concentrated blasting of one point on the surface. Below the surface dust was some pretty solid rock. Thus no crater.
@@williammann9176 Plus the fact that in a vacuum with no air, what dust was dislodged fell back to the surface almost instantly.
@@plymouth5714 Very true
@@williammann9176 Also, the thrust of the lunar module as it landed on the moon was not concentrated into a vertical "jet" of flame, like when you see a rocket leave the launch pad on Earth. It is spread out, just as the rocket flame spreads out into a wide plume when a rocket launching from Earth reach the thin atmosphere. Just as thin atmosphere allows the flame of the launching rocket to spread out, so does the zero atmosphere of the moon allow the flame of the lunar module to spread out.
@@ToEuropa Exactly
Stanley Kubricks best work
I'd say Full Metal Jacket. What's your point and how is this relevant?
He was so good he asked to film it on the moon
A camera strapped to the chest, with no view finder? And yet all the photos are perfectly framed and in focus?
Research the subject. The surface camera was modified to be used with gloves. The shutter speed was fixed at 1/250th of a second and the ISO rating of the film was calculated to properly expose the surface of the moon. The astronauts had a limited choice of aperture (f5.6, f8 & f11 depending on whether they were shooting down-sun, cross-sun or into shadow) and a choice of near, medium or far focus. The camera was fitted with a wide-angle lens to help with framing and had a larger than normal shutter release and an aiming arrow or paddle on the top of the lens barrel. The astronauts also trained extensively with them, even taking them on holiday. There are hundreds of over-exposed, under-exposed, out-of-focus, motion-blurred and poorly framed photos in the archive. Most of the photos you find in the NASA archive have been brightened and colour-balanced for publication. The famous ‘Man on the Moon’ photograph of Aldrin by Armstrong shows a clear tilt at the horizon, portions of the spacesuit are significantly over-exposed and there is clearly only one light source that is obviously at a large distance.
Yea! Like a go pro. No viewfinder. Nobody ever used one of those!
If you use a tight aperture, then the depth of field i.e. the range of distances that are in acceptable focus, gets larger. This is why your phone camera typically has almost everything in focus beyond 3 feet or so. The widest aperture on the moon camera was 5.6, which is still fairly tight. The astronauts were also trained in judging distances by eye, and the camera lens was marked with distances they could set it to to get good focus. Almost every camera you can swap lenses on has this feature, especially in the medium format realm. Most lenses even have markings to show how wide the depth of field is for a given aperture. Some street photographers use this 'zone focusing' method because it is quick, allows you to not worry about nailing focus and still get good results.
It was a situation of 'Bright scene, so tight aperture. Eh.... 25 feet?' Set the focus distance, hold it where you think you've got it in frame with a generous buffer on each side and press the shutter and hope for the best. Then do that hundreds of times. You'll get some crap images, but you can get amazing images as well.
You really haven't looked at the photos have you. There are some truly lousy shots.
@@smeeselfThese clowns never do any genuine research. They merely repeat whatever the last conspiracy guru whispered in their ear.
I blame the James Bond movie franchise
So where is all the data gone have they recorded all over it
It's there. Just the backup tapes were recycled. You ignorant nut cases have built an entire conspiracy around what was normal practice.
Only a few Apollo 11 tapes were reused, nearly all the data exists in backups, and we have complete records for the FIVE OTHER MOON LANDINGS.
Seriously, we did not go once and call it a day. There is easily found footage of driving a car on the moon. That was not brought along on 11, but it was for 15, 16 and 17.
Nah it's all gone 😂
@@papalegba6796
*_"Nah it's all gone"_*
Has it chatbot? What data precisely? Could you detail what you mean?
@@papalegba6796 I see that you are still lying, Maggot.
America's enemy... at the time...
That didn't age well
The USA placed the Communists in power in Russia.
The White Russians were winning the War following the overthrow of the Czar.
It is ONLY US military intervention that led to Lenin, Stalin etc. being in power in the first place.
What people dont get is that the footage they see are clips of hours long footage with 1000s of photos over the course a few hrs on the surface. However, the actual footage were really long. The benefit of filming movies is filming short shots and retakes. The actual footage is very long but has been edited for news programs and documentaries. If they faked it they had to do all the staged effects over long shots, which is borderline impossible. It would have been hard to fake it than to actually go, lol.
Shouldn't we have access to all the raw footage by now? Online and easily accessable?
The astronauts stated they never saw stars, either on their way or on the moon - one can always see star. Cameras lens opening/speed can be adjusted for pictures to the dark sky or to the moon or spaceship brightness
*_"The astronauts stated they never saw stars, either on their way or on the moon - one can always see star."_*
No they didn't. Michael Collins was questioned whether stars were visible in the sun's corona. Others were asked if they were visible from the lunar surface.
*_"Cameras lens opening/speed can be adjusted for pictures to the dark sky or to the moon or spaceship brightness"_*
Try that on Earth during the daytime - let me know how you get on.
What do cameras have to do with the astronauts seeing, or not seeing, stars?
Why hasn't any developed country fought to land on the moon in recent years, even though it was possible in the sixties?
They're not interested in doing so, obviously.
The percentage of our annual budget that was spent to get to the moon would have bankrupted any of the next 12 richest countries. It would have been at least half their total annual budget. That still is generally true, although in a couple of cases it would only be about 1/4 of their budget.
cause who cares. what is there you want to find? rocks? we've already got all the dirt and shit.
Because they are not dumb like USA and USSR. They are not planning to race against any other country and waste a huge amount of money for it.
@@guywithacreativename5134 Guess you have not been watching the NEWS the last few years. China, India and Russia are in the early stages of planning for going to the moon.
I just LOVE Stephen Fry!! Funny as a barrel of monkeys, and smart as a whip! One of my favorite humans, and that's a very short list.
Quick witted with humour maybe but hardly intelligent if he thinks man landed on the moon in 1969
@@MartinA-kp8xg Go troll someone else, DA.
@@craigcorson3036 I do like Steven fry myself he is funny, but they are all too arrogant and smug the moon landings in 1969 didn't happen, it's just safe for them to follow concensus, this how most successful people get on. I like him but not the closed minded concensus they all portray.
@@MartinA-kp8xg Anyone who thinks the SIX moon landings between 1969-1972 didn't happen is a gullible halfwit. I have been a keen observer of manned space shots since Yuri Gagarin's first orbits around the Earth, and I watched every moon landing mission very attentively. Absolutely no part of it was fake in any way. If you don't want to believe ME, ask the RUSSIANS, who had every reason to expose the USA to ridicule, but COULDN'T, because they knew it was real. Now as I said before, go troll someone else. Any further replies from you will be reported as the harassment they are.
Bet Mr fry has had his covid vaxx and 4th booster aswel........
Don't worry folks. Covids making a comeback on mid September. Masks will be mandated again. This time ffs. Resist!
Ha ha the 'Moon Lander' looks like something from Blue Peter you weirdos
*_"you weirdos"_*
Said the online conspiracy believer.
@@yassassin6425question nothing, obey the official narrative, good NPC.
@@deece1482
*_"question nothing"_*
Question everything - assuming that you're actually interested in listening to the answers.
*_"obey the official narrative"_*
Avoid official narratives - objectively look for evidence that supports any claims - scientific, third party, independent - it has a voice of its own.
Dumb online conspiracy believer.
@@yassassin6425 Go back to watching your telly dude, I'm sure they have your best interests at heart, oh, and by the way, don't forget your 6th booster either, you don't want to be classed as 'crazy' for not following the narrative do you?
@@MrCheswickMusic
*_"Go back to watching your telly dude"_*
I don't own one.
*_"I'm sure they have your best interests at heart"_*
Because meanwhile, online conspiracy theory is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with *_your_* best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
*_And by the way, don't forget your 6th booster either"_*
What a twisted and bizarre world we inhabit in which freaks like you actually use vaccination as a term of abuse. I haven't had any boosters. My Father who is 90 years old did though. Is that ok with you? I also haven't been vaccinated for Small Pox either...is there the remotest possibility that your tiny conspiracy addled brain can figure out why?
*_"following the narrative"_*
Said the dumb online conspiracy believer.
Gus Grissom.
Hero
Truth teller
Are you lonely?
Van Halen belts..
Guess they're gonna JUMP them...
That's been addressed before; the amount of radiation the astronauts experienced passing through the VAN ALLEN belt was measured to be 0.18 rads total (each mission had different results with the highest around 1.14 rads). Lethality happens at +1 sievert (1 rad = 0.01 Sievert). So the radiation was limited because they chose a path through a weaker (lets call it thinner) part of the VAB. Also, remember, that exposure to radiation of +1 sievert ALL AT ONCE is lethal. The Astronauts experienced an accumulation of radiation much lower and that was exiting Earth, returning to Earth (both through the VAB) and not to mention all those solar particles once they were no longer shielded by Earth's magnetic field.
@@d454b sure....
sure it was..
More make believe.
@@BadAtTeaDude "Van Halen belts"...????????
@@BadAtTeaDude You know, actually, I think you're right. It WAS all faked. Thanks for helping me find the truth!
If it's fake, how do they explain moon rock?
petrified wood
Look at the little details, like how dust behaves in a vacuum. Example: the neat parabolic arcs thrown up by the rover wheels.
Another example: look carefully at the exhaust as the LEM lands--how all the dust is being blown radially out in straight lines from directly under the descent rocket.
On Earth, in an atmosphere, the dust would form billowing clouds that hang in the air for minutes at least. On the Moon, in a vacuum, it all falls to the ground as quickly as any rock.
@@rumfordcThe only thing petrified is your brain.
that rock they gave to the netherlands and turned out to be petrified wood?? 🤣
@@RedSampler No. Here is the story of your "petrified wood":
In 1969, US Ambassador J. William Middendorf II gave a specimen of petrified wood to former Dutch Prime Minister Willem Drees Jr. This was a personal gift, not an official act of the US government.
In 1970, the Nixon Administration presented the Dutch government with samples of lunar rock and a small Dutch flag that had been carried on the Apollo 11 mission. These were housed in the Rijksmuseum Boerhaave (Dutch National Museum for the History of Science and Medicine) located in the city of Leiden.
When Drees died in 1988, the sample of petrified wood was donated to the Rijksmuseum (Dutch Museum of Arts and History) in Amsterdam. The curators there failed to do their due diligence, and the petrified wood was labeled as a moon rock. Note that this is a different museum in a different city.
When the error was discovered in 2009, most of the news media jumped on the story without any background investigation. The conspiracy nuts all seized upon this tale, because it fit so neatly into their collective paranoia.
Today, if you go to the Rijksmuseum Boerhaave in Leiden, you can still see the actual lunar rocks, right where they have been since 1970.
Nixon’s call to the moon was real, too.
It was indeed - but you probably don't understand how that was done either.
You people are idiots. Nixon didn't place a call to the moon....and some telephone rang on the moon. The call was patched into the radio transmission. It's a pretty simple concept.
😆
@@yassassin6425 what's to understand when all you need do is have a little faith and believe?
@@DrCash7
Congratulations. You just inadvertently summed up the idiocy of online conspiracy theory in a sentence.
Where did the rover fit?
In a cargo compartment of the lunar lander.
@@marksprague1280 😆.....yeah and the 1st Rover had pneumatic tyres 😆
@@blaze1148 IIRC, it had the same wire mesh tires as the next two did.
But then I'm not surprised that a Limey or one of their rejects would think otherwise.
American Moon on Odysee is a good documentary going over what moon landing disbelievers think.
Have you ever thought to question precisely why it is in Odysee? (although I think it can be found on You Tube also).
If you have no knowledge about the Apollo programme or the science, technology and history of spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems superficially plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Amazingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam.
It was made by Massimo Mazzucco, a particularly vile breed of professional con artist and a cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments.
Seriously, why don't you independently and objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these charlatan's ludicrous and dishonest claims?
Really??? A very good documentary??? Do you even know what a documentary is?
There are lots of logical fallacies and yours here would be under ad hominem. Check out videos on logical fallacies for reference. Not addressing the issue in the statement or theory or argument but attacking the person. To clarify and be more succinct, my point of view is that American Moon is a good documentary for the outlining of some of the concerns some disbelievers have on the moon landing. That is my comment. Please tell me WHY you do not agree with it and we can go from there.
@@schrapnellcotton3413
*_"There are lots of logical fallacies and yours here would be under ad hominem."_*
Actually, no. Everything in my response is independently verifiable including Mazzucco's propensity for fraud and deceit. Read my post again. What would you like to contest?
*_"Check out videos on logical fallacies for reference."_*
I don't need to. I am fully aware of them and if you are so au fait with the latter then why to you choose to ignore the fact that Mazzucco's 'American Moon' is replete with them? I can list them for you if it helps, because evidently, you didn't spot them for yourself.
*_"Not addressing the issue in the statement or theory or argument but attacking the person. To clarify and be more succinct, my point of view is that American Moon is a good documentary for the outlining of some of the concerns some disbelievers have on the moon landing. That is my comment. Please tell me WHY you do not agree with it and we can go from there."_*
It does not outline "the concerns that some believers have on the moon landing" - it promotes them from an entirely biased and one sided approach. There is no objectivity, no balance whatsoever. Like Sibrel, Mazzucco absolutely knows this, because that is his target market. Conspiracy believers, with zero prior knowledge of the science, technology and history of spaceflight and the Apollo Programme, seeking instant gratification in the form of confirmation bias and reinforcement. Moreover, these claims are either deceptive, historically incorrect/disingenuous or based upon fundamentally flawed science. Furthermore, it's simply the same material that has been consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over again and debunked ad nauseum.
Perhaps you should select your singular and most compelling persuasive best example of one of the "concerns that some believers have on the moon documentary" and I'll demonstrate why this is so flawed...and we can go from there.
@@schrapnellcotton3413 Easy... it's not a good documentary. Documentaries are based on facts...
no one on earth has ever seen a flying nasa rocket
Nonsense. Over the years, millions have observed rockets launched. Due to an atmosphere anomaly, I and hundreds of others in Southern Oregon and Northern California witnessed live a stage separation of a rocket launched from Vandenberg circa 1970.
@@marksprague1280 so are you one of the "millions"?how come non of you have bothered to video these rockets and put it on social media for everyone to see?
@@MegaAtOh Tell us, halfwit. How many video cameras were owned by average people in the early 70s?
Answer: ZERO. Sony released its first camcorder in 1983. It was a heavy thing the size of a small suitcase.
TITUSVILLE - They came in camper vans and RVs, Oldsmobiles and Buicks, pitching tents along the Indian River to stake out precious viewing spots.
When there was no more room, they parked along the shoulder and median of U.S. 1 and other local roads. People sat atop their cars, eyes straining east toward Merritt Island and the John F. Kennedy Space Center.
The 363-foot Saturn V rocket lifted off from Launch Pad 39A at 9:32 a.m. EDT on July 16, 1969
@@tubecated_development too bad they didn't video any of that
I hear we somehow lost the technology to go back, and are unable to replicate it even 60 years later.🤔
Maybe lay off the conspiracy videos for a while, then.
They found it.
You can see the tech sitting in museums open to the public. The documents are all online. You heard someone say we destroyed the technology to rebuild Apollo infrastructure. And you and others changed it to "lost the technology". Which is sad and funny at the same time.
@bradleyrex2968 , I actually didn't hear that, or make any changes to the rhetoric.
@@Clowning_Myself OK well show me someone from NASA saying that they lost the Apollo tech, and are unable to replicate it. I'd love to see it. Give me links, or just name the title of the video. Make sure they say "lost" and use the word "Apollo" and say they are unable to replicate it.
The flag IS stiffened. Stephen Fry is wrong about saying it wasnt stiffened
It's interesting how there are two different explantions though. It just goes to show that just because an explantion makes sense, it doesn't necessarily mean it is true.
Best video
I wonder if anyone has managed to calculate the number of potential factors that would have caused enough problems for the 5 successful missions to completely fail or become problematic enough to have to abort . It must be an astronomic number given the millions of Technical , Natural or Human processes necessary to ensure success without taking into consideration unpredictable or unforeseen internal or external factors. The odds against all those dominoes lining up must be truly terrifying . Well Done Us . 👍
6
I don’t know the exact number of potential problems that could have led NASA to cancel a mission, but I have studied the transcripts. They show that every one of the *nine missions to the Moon had some difficulties. (*6 landings) One example is Apollo 13 aborted landing. Had the oxygen tank exploded in the service module on the return portion of the flight,the crew would have perished. Every mission had problems. Well-trained crews, redundent systems and luck were a huge factor in the success of Apollo.
For faking a moon landing?
Yes, let's look to a government controlled TV station for opinions about questionable mainstream events. That should be an effective way to get closer to the truth. 😂😂😂😂😂
Although in its inception it's early origins are from government initiative and intervention, the BBC is a statutory public broadcasting corporation. This is simply a light hearted and at times, irreverent panel programme. The scientific, independent and third party evidence for Apollo has a voice of its own.
The events you are referring to are not "questionable"; just because YOU question them doesn't make them questionable.
What exactly does the British government have to gain from covering up an alleged American 'hoax'? Why wouldn't the Soviets, their literal space race rivals, call out the moon landing as fake if there were any reason to believe it was?
Dear lord you lot are just desperate to feel important, aren't you?
Noo, instead we should trust conspiracy theorists on their podcasts with their half-baked arguments about how birds aren't real 😂
@@officialpigeons9921still not as farfetched as going to the moon 😂 a smart man admits what he doesn’t know. A dumb man acts like he knows the answer to everything.
I bet Sean is up there now mooching around looking for a Soup Dragon. RIP
With hindsight, they should have left a huge flashing light on the moon or written, in very large letters, "WE WOZ 'ERE"
In reality, they did just that in the form of laser reflectors and scientific monitoring packages, some of which are still in use. And they left behind equipment which has been photographed by probes from other nations.
@@marksprague1280 indeed they did but it would have been great if they'd done something big enough to see with telescopes from earth.
I know "we" are going back in the next few years, but I bet it's going to be nowhere near the old landing sites. Hopefully they'll orbit over the sites and get some closeups of the old equipment though obviously that's nobody's priority.
@@roybatty8366 The LRO, and probes from India and China have all captured photos of Apollo landing sites detailed enough to show tracks.
@@marksprague1280 And Japan.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth Oops. 🤗
Ektachrome films cant survive the heat and cold, and the radiation... but they did wonderful pictures - like in a studio!
Again absolute utter nonsense. Hasselblad adapted their 500EL camera for the Apollo missions by removing the viewfinder, modifying the shutter, replacing the usual plastic black outer surface with reflective bare metal, and using special lubricants resistant to vacuum and high temperatures. The film for the cameras, was well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. The very thin lunar atmosphere cannot efficiently bind surface heat to devices that are not in direct contact with it. The camera film was derived from the ones used for high-altitude photo reconnaissance, which were designed to withstand temperatures from 490°F down to - 40°F, and they were housed in aluminium magazines covered with reflective passive optical coatings.
Apollo used ektachrome EF (S0168) and ektachrome MS (S0368) as opposed to ektachrome 100 which is off the shelf. Both of which were developed expressly for use in space utilising different emulsions due to higher UV and eliminate blue haze. They also used the E3 process to develop the film as opposed to the E6 process and a calibration chart was used for adjustment at the end of the process, to correct for issues with the colour.
You haven't got the slightest idea what you are talking about.
One day I was stupid enough and believed men went to the moon!
Sadly most people are stupid. Actual r3tards have more intellect than NASA fanboys.
Apparently we don't have the know how any more to go to the moon.......look it up.
When you say, 'apparently', or, "look it up", you naturally can't be referring to junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites...can you? Someone said so on social media did they?
If on the other hand you ignore all of the above and actually learn some very basic facts about manned spaceflight, you'll discover that NASA do indeed know exactly how to send a crewed mission to the moon and that has always been the case. You'll also discover something called Project Artemis, which evidently passed you by.
Apparently you listen to dumb conspiracy theorists peddling lies, and believe them without question. And by 'apparently', I mean definitely.
YOU look it up; that claim is nonsense.
Here. Let me help you. I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is, we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to, but we destroyed that technology and it is a painful process to build it back again." Astronaut Don Pettit.
Weird.
Why it look like night time with spotlights on?
Why didn't they show the video and photo of earth and sun taking from moon?
About your first question, there is a huge reflector. Very very huge. It is called Moon
Seriously ? You ask why there is no pic of Earth from the Moon ? It is not a joke ? You are really asking ?
Apparently the moon is now above the moon 😂
@@papalegba6796 A blue Moon with white clouds ?
Apparently nobody reads what they post 😂
In what night can you see the ground for miles?
The moon is in Nevada! Mars is in Canada!
And you have an IQ of 290.