Did We Really Land on the Moon?
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 05. 2017
- Did we really land on the moon? Mr. Beat examines the main reasons why people think the moon landings were faked. And this is his first official collaboration with Keith Hughes! Check out Keith's video here about the race to the moon here: • How America Won the Ra...
Subscribe to Keith here: / hughesdv
Want a video about a certain topic covered? Your idea gets picked when you donate $2 a video on Patreon: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedleroom.net/
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Yes, we landed on the moon, but it’s been almost 45 years since we’ve been back there. Heck, it’s been almost 45 years since we went beyond low Earth orbit.
And when I say “we,” I mean the United States. Only 12 humans have ever walked on the surface of the moon, all of them men, and all of them American. The last two to be there were Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt. That was in December of 1972, of the Apollo 17 mission.
It’s easy to understand why people would be skeptical. Skeptics often point to the motive for wanting to fake the whole thing. The race to the moon was part of the Space Race, during a particularly tense time during the Cold War. The United States and Soviet Union were battling it out to get there first. Skeptics say the United States would have wanted to fake it to show they won the Space Race even if they knew it actually wasn’t possible to go. The Soviet Union had epically failed to ever get even near the moon, so they argue it seems suspicious that the United States able to land men safely on the moon six times in 3 and a half years, yet never do so since. Was this just a publicity stunt, faked in order to strongly discourage the Soviet Union and give the United States a huge advantage in the Cold War while saving its lots of money?
But how could this hoax be pulled off? Skeptics argue the technology did exist to recreate a fake mooning landing in a film studio. Sure, they argue the astronauts really did take off into space, but they likely just orbited the earth for several days before landing back on Earth, while faked footage was distributed to the masses.
But what evidence do that have of the moon landings being faked? For the rest of this video, I will first give you evidence that creates doubt, then give you NASA’s response, and then give you my conclusion.
The first thing that causes doubt is the footage showing the American flag on the moon waving. Skeptics say the flag waving shows the presence of wind, which should be impossible on the moon because it doesn’t have much of an atmosphere and is surrounded by a vacuum. NASA insists that the flag moved due to astronaut Buzz Aldrin twisting the flagpole, causing it to move like that. Apparently the astronauts also accidentally bent the horizontal rods that were supposed to hold the flag outward.
The next evidence that causes doubt is the fact that there were no stars in any of the footage or photographs taken by NASA on the moon. Skeptics say stars were left out because astronomers would have been able to use them to determine whether the photos were taken from the Earth or Moon. NASA, as well as many many others, argue that of course you wouldn’t be able to see the stars because the moon’s surface is so bright. It’s the same reason why you can’t see the stars standing on a bright football field at night. Some astronauts were able to take long exposure UV photographs of bright stars and Venus from the moon, though. But skeptics would probably argue these photos were taken from earth.
What about the fact that there was no blast crater from the lunar module on the moon, especially when scientists before predicted one would be created? Well NASA says those scientists predicted wrong. The fact is, the pressure on the moon was simply too low for the lunar module to create a crater.
Quite a bit of discussion by skeptics revolve around the discussion of lighting and shadows in photographs taken on the moon. Shadows are inconsistent and often intersect in photographs. Skeptics argue that the shadows should be completely black and run parallel to each other. NASA and others argue that shadows are weird on the Moon due to many light sources and lunar dust. Also, the unique terrain of the moon alters how the shadows are seen.
Skeptics also say the photographs on the Moon show the same exact background, despite astronauts saying the photos were taken far away from each other. They argue that the backdrop was basically kept the same, even for different Apollo missions. Take this photograph, for example. Skeptics have combined the two pictures and claim the backgrounds match. Pretty crazy, eh? Well, NASA says that because the Moon is much smaller than Earth, horizons appear closer to the naked eye than they really are, and thus may look identical from different viewpoints.
We all know that the moon landing was faked. It was filmed by Stanley Kubrick. However, because he was such a perfectionist he demanded that they film on location.
+Grant Hurst Haha! Typical Kubrick. And it probably took them 8 years to film.
Grant Hurst that was good.
Grant Hurst i like a comment like yours! Here is mine: just because a young bride wears a white dress at her wedding doesn't guarantee she is a virgin.
Funky--just because our government shows us pictures of Neil Armstrong walking around in a spacesuit, that doesnt guarantee we went to the moon.
Watch Adam ruins everything
One small step for man, one giant argument for mankind.
Those that have reached the age of reason are not arguing about the moon landings. The rest have only reached the age of denial somewhere around 12.
Underrated😂😂😂😂😂😂
Political stunt.. Political argument.
The step never happened
@@nmew6926 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂
It’s 2023 and NASA still has nothing
You mean apart from conclusive proof that they landed 12 men on the Moon, achieved near-miraculous fly-bys, orbits and landings on various planets and moons, put up an astonishing telescope, and successfully flew Artemis 1 to the Moon last autumn, beginning their programme to return to landing humans on the Moon?
Whereas you've got... what? "I don't understand what I'm looking at therefore fake."
@@paulbeardsley4095 Never did I say it’s not real, you’re putting words in my mouth. It’s 2023 and no man has set a foot in the moon as they previously hoped. That’s all I mean with my comment.
@@vndroz6793hope didn’t get them to the moon last time either. Dump trucks of tax dollars did. And that line of dump trucks will probably never be as long again.
@vndroz6793 You said "NASA still has nothing." If you meant something else you should have said something else.
They have moon rocks from the moon.
How do people have some doubts while you clearly filming this episode on the moon
Fair point
It was fllmed in Stanley Kubrik's massive studio . Not all of us can be quite as stupid as you, remember to take you RNA injection.
@@paulscottfilms What
@@legocamdude1 I think he's talking about the latest craze.
Injecting nano particles into your system to clot your blood
@@paulscottfilms PLUS NASA has *contradicted* the APOLLO MISSIONS! Now Nasa said they *CAN NOT* send *ANY* humans past the lethal radiation in the Van Allen belts!! czcams.com/video/Kji7H_brBa4/video.html
I guess NASA is coming clean
The comments here show a need for an increase in the education budget.
Exactly, folks today are dumb as rocks
@alpha beta Heh Heh, well said.
@alpha beta Anyone who believes the 12 year Apollo program was a hoax is an ignorant idiot. Libraries are free.
@@shaundouglas2057 Anyone who believes the 12 year Apollo program was a hoax is an ignorant idiot. Libraries are free.
@@thomaslewis7883 Oh dear another muppet who has had his delicate sensibilities offended.
Haven´t been back to the moon is the main reason i reckon it all crap, and i´ve heard many excuses as to why they haven´t returned and none make any sense. But many ignorant idiots believe everything mainstream media puts out because they dare not think for themselves.
The fact the Russians have never disputed it is good enough for me
Yeah you’d think the Soviets would be ALL over that stuff. But… they weren’t…
Soviet’s were broke saved them billions spending on trying to do the same thing they cut there funding after more to spend on there military
@@rustyshackleford234 Yeh well you would never believe them anyway you Russiaphobes
they were in on the con
@@Paul-nu7nj Yeah, right 🤣
When you tell the truth and your child doubts it, the first thing you never say is "You're a conspiracy theorist". You look forward to explaining and proving every detail to your child. This also applies to the current hoaxes.
There is a vast difference between an innocently ignorant child and a willfully ignorant adult.
If any moon landing deniers ever actually wanted answers to their doubts/questions, I'd eat my hat anyway. Universally, they PRETEND to ask questions, but they know, in advance, that they will never accept the answers. This is vastly different than a child asking honest questions.
Well your child has hope. So you give it a go. You and the adults who believe in flat earth, do not. So no point. Tough world I know out there when no one wants to explain things in a way that makes it make sense to YOU. But the CZcams videos you like make you feel right and vindicated and the nasa videos someone else likes are WRONG and faked.
@@marksprague1280 Indeed.
@@marksprague1280 spot on...
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?!
he film"" American Moon "" there will be no doubt left in your mind
czcams.com/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/video.html
@@paulscottfilms If you're gullible, that is.
We have landed many times on Mars.
We have sent countless probes through the solar system, all the way to Pluto, and beyond (Voyager 1 and 2)
And some uneducated morons still can,t believe we landed on the Moon ????
IF we faked the Moon landings, why "fake" it SO MANY TIMES ???
The education system has failed BIG time...
@@jocec3283 we all know about the Mars probes and moon probes. This has nothing to do with education, it has to do with whether or not you think the narrative told by Cold War government agencies (on both sides) is actually reliable ... 🙄
@@GameDevNerd Never cared about any governments' narratives.
I only care about scientific facts, evidence and logical reasoning.
If we really landed on the Moon in 1969..There would be a McDonalds and a Walmart by now!
remember all the space domes they promised us in the 80s?
Yeah and you two are idiots for believing any of the ad copy. Everyone knows that stuff is pure fluff.
Lol
Absolutely
STARBUCK$
This should be called " I'll give NASA the benefit of the doubt"
Fr
I would not give NASA other credit than that of relying on popular gullibility. As they say: the bigger and shameless the lie, the hardest to reject it and disprove it
@@user-by7jv6qd7x Shouldn't be a problem for other nations to debunk it. Especially those that have been to the Moon and don't see eye to eye with USA, even openly go against US diktats on a daily basis. But they all corroborated USA's story. Because?
@@user-by7jv6qd7x And you would know about big lies, having swallowed some. Go get an education and learn how it all happened instead of recycling shite.
I suggest the title, "I've given this matter a grand total of about 17 minutes of thought and approximately 4 minutes of research."
6 years later since the video and still havnt gone...back
In my opinion the most convincing part is the way the dust flies around. There's no turbulence so the whole set would have to be in vacuum! Sounds easier to just film on site at this point
Rattus, Not just a vacuum, but at one sixth of the Earth's gravity. And no atmosphere.
you have no idea how manyf weird effects can be achieved one way or another on a movie set
@@user-by7jv6qd7x Especially in the sixties when LSD was involved.
@rattusstatus3524 .
I'm not sure why you find it difficult to believe they had vacuum chambers even though it is well documented. One was the size of a football field, on which they were testing the rockets.
Apollo was filmed on these testing facilities.
I believe the moon landings happened but what you're saying is not only easily accomplished by filming on an indoor set, it's actually a notorious problem with filming outdoor scenes in a studio. Ironically, the same phenomenon that makes studio simulated outdoor scenes seem fake, would work in favor of making simulated moon footage seem more authentic.
It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled .
Mark Twain
Lane 3192 Ignorance is alive and well. There are some pretty dumb people running around. There is a long list of arguments why this entire Moon Hoax allegation is simply insane. For starters, you’d have to believe that the 400,000 people who worked on the Apollo program have managed to keep a coverup secret for 50 years. Add to that the notion that scientists around the world have been fooled by analyzing “phony” moon rocks, soil, thousands of photos, film, thousands of scientific papers, hardware, tracking, telemetry, data, billions of pages of documentation, etc.
And then there is this idea that Stanley Kubrick filmed Apollo. All one has to do is compare the 2001 Space Odessey moon-surface footage to Apollo’s real images, film. There is a huge difference. Kubrick made no attempt to try and simulate the moon’s 1/6 surface gravity because it was too difficult, impractical. Its laughable, yet conspiracists continue to sell the hoax. Why? Fake news is big business $$$ The estimated 5,000 Apollo surface photos and hours of astronauts surface EVA's video are far too complex to have been faked by Hollywood in the early 60s..
@@thomaslewis7883 First, Nasa wasn't/ isn't a big warehouse with 400,000 people working hand in hand . It's compartmentalized with everyone doing their part. If only a few head people know what's really going on , then I believe it's very possible for a secret to be held for 50 years.
Wouldn't it be pretty silly to make a movie set look exactly the way you made "the real moon" set look?
Well the funny thing is , scientists have been "fooled" by phony scientific papers (what ever the hell that's supposed to mean), hardware, data, etc... Look into it a little deeper.
Ok, so why haven't we been back in 50 years. Please , don't say we don't have the technology anymore like Don Pettit said. haha Is it a money thing, it cost too much?
But we will be going in what is the date now 2024?
Isn't it kinda funny that no other country has landed a human on the moon? Is our 1969 Technology that far advanced that NO one today can get back to the moon?
You believe what you want, a little common sense would tell you , you've been lied to.
@@lane3192 So Boeing or say Airbus could fake multiple Moon, Mar Missions and we would never know.?LOL Speak for yourself.No ones fooling anyone I know with fake Moon landings.haha.Sorry, impossible without NASA possessing some kind of mythical magical powers. LOL.NASA had 38,000 men, women at its facilities, and another 375,000 men, women working for the 20,000 subcontracting companies hired by NASA for the 12-year lunar program. The Soviet Union would have immediately announced that the Moon landing was a fake. 1969 was the height of the Cold War, the US was bogged down in Vietnam, we were having violent protests in the streets, Had someone found evidence of American faking 9 Moon flights,6 landings, it would have triggered a scandal 100x worse than Watergate that would have forever changed how Americans viewed its government and leaders. The Soviets would have won the cold war.
The Soviet Union said nothing, because they were part of Apollo program, watching every launch, recovery, tracking, listening, observing, etc,.They even tried to land their robotic Luna [soil sample return mission ] spacecraft before Apollo 11 to bust the party and claim "first on a lunar surface", and "the first recovery of lunar surface samples", unfortunately, Luna crashed..NASA even shared lunar samples [ large rocks ] with the Soviets as 3 later Soviet Luna missions were successful, recovering 326 grams / 11.5 ounces of lunar regolith [fine soil and small pebbles ]. As a side note, the Soviets were asked to join Apollo as a partner,they declined only to have their own manned Moon program shut down after repeated failures of their N -1 heavy-lift booster rocket.
@@thomaslewis7883 Well, Nasa faked moon landings in 1969, I'm sure Boeing or whoever could fake it too. So I still ask the question, why haven't we been back to the moon or farther? In 50 years our planes have advanced quite a bit. In 50 years cars have advanced quite a bit. In 15 years our phones have advanced quite a bit. But in 50 years, not too much has advanced as far as space travel goes. That doesn't throw up a red flag in your common sense thinking?
@@lane3192 Common sense?. Yes, I understand why NASA ended the Apollo program in 1972. Budget cuts and waning public interest. You're not interested in Apollo, despite it being part of the public domain for over 50 years.. So how do you generate public interest and acquire funding when thousands of naive ignorant people are telling everyone to cut NASA's funding.?
You educate the public. Thankfully the public is excited again..Were going back to the Moon.."Artemis 2024".Unfortunately, we haven't figured how to warp space, so we still use combustion rockets. You can't fake moon landings. Science won't allow it. That's all you need to know.
Besides the footage and all that seems pretty legit to me, my brain tells me, if we can't go to the moon now with our current technology, how it was even possible over 50yrs ago.
Because it's not the matter of ability, but having the actual physical hardware to do so.
Can we do it right now? No, because we don't have the literal hardware to do so.
Can we build the necessary hardware to do so? Yes we can.
Besides all of the airline records and videos of Concorde going mach 2, that seems pretty legit to me, my brain tells me, if we could fly 100 people at mach 2 for 3000 miles before, but now we can't with our current technology, how was it possible that the 1969 Concorde even existed?
We could go, we just haven't wanted to pay for it. Artemis might change that.
@@MrWeezer55 finding money for stuff has never been an issue for the American govt.
we could go in a nano second, but we destroyed that technology.
It would have been very difficult to simulate 1/6 G outside of a tank of water. It is quite apparent the astronauts were experiencing lunar gravity and weren't in water.
The film was not live and slowed down to half speed.
to simulate 1/6 G is so difficult that they achieved a poor effect of it in fact, if you ever cared to look. It is so obviously fake you need to wonder why people prefer to believe what they are told like using their own brains were not an option
@@jerrylee2425 one of the things that made me the most skeptical of the whole thing was the press conference. Like I don't know what happened to those people, but that is direct opposite of how human beings behave after success that is unimaginable. Imagine risking your life for several days and then achieving the biggest thing in human history only to be at the press conference like you're sitting at the murder trial....and you're the convicted guy.... :// very suspicious. The best evidence that something's wrong with the story is, they're not going back. It's been 50 years now and I predict they simply will not be going and everyone will keep pretending and lying. There's also the lost telemetry tapes from the first mission, diferences between videos and photos that should've shown the same thing.... all kinds of problems like space radiation, perfect photos [not even one was out of focus or missed - every photo is almost like National Geographic cover LOL
@@ArcadeMusicTribute You see it! To bad to many love the lie.
@@jerrylee2425 Yeah it's that "my mommy would never lie to me" kind of psychology. I guess people prefer to lie to themselves, that to admit they've been deceived.
Imagine flying 290,000 km away from everything you've ever known.
and imagine leaving the stove on
And imagine how scary the apollo 13 was
240k miles..= 384k km..?
but granted..
would be interesting to find out what the astronauts' greatest fears were (& whether the red cyanide tabs were real, or just a urban legend..😀)
@@philcoombes2538 imagine getting stranded on the moon and slowly running out of oxygen
@@anonymoose6873 that, imho, would be where I could see tablets being used; any other sort of failure (suit failure, meteor strike depressurization, atmosphere entry failure etc would happen so fast death would (hopefully) be instantaneous), but death by hyperventilation triggered by excess CO2 is not a good way to go
Anybody with even a basic understanding of telescopes can tell you why the HST can't resolve lunar detail. How does it see so far away ? Ask yourself just how big the objects are that it's capturing.
Absolutely, it's not rocket science! The flat earth brigade etc cant understand why aircraft cant be seen from space either. Doh!
The film"" American Moon "" there will be no doubt left in your mind
czcams.com/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/video.html
If you were in a space ship, with a pair of binoculars, try seeing a quarter in the middle of a football pitch. Good luck finding the Apollo spacecraft.
@@paulscottfilms There is nothing in doubt . But , politely , I skimmed the transcript - you know it's bad when they mention 'Capricorn One' (LOL!) , & the rest is just the usual dogshit . Go ahead & believe it if it makes you happy .
Yet satellites can resolve licence plates from space?
Fantastic intro Mr. Beat. My father always said that a great teacher can convey their message in a way that someone who isn’t interested can either understand the lesson or gain an interest in it. My brothers don’t care for history the way I do. But I’ve showed them quite a few of your videos and they friggin love them. Thank you, Mr. Beat
What i don't understand is that there is a lot less gravity on the moon than on Earth, which is why i was told the astronauts had to wear heavily weighted boots etc or they would float away. Yet when they kick the moon dust up it falls just as quick as it does on Earth, why doesn't it float away?
1) No astronaut wore any weighted boots.
2) Moon dust doesn't float away because the moon has gravity.
3) If you have an issue with the rate that the dust falls, calculate it. Calculate the initial velocity of the dust, and the time it spends in its arc until it hits the ground again. Physics 101. I mean, the math/physics has been done a few million times already, but, since you say that it's wrong, calculate it. Demonstrate your claim.
Notice also that fine dust here on Earth makes dust clouds that fall slowly, because the air slows its fall. There's no air on the Moon, so no dust clouds form and the dust goes down as fast as it goes up.
@@rockethead7 Save your breath. These braindeads float of faith, not science. Just like those flat Earth retards.
Except for everything being wrong in your post, yeah, good one. You figured it out!!!!!
The suits were heavy. They were somewhere around 200 lb so weighting the shoes was not necessary.
Do you get how gravity works? If there is gravity, things won't float away.
No time in human history has a super successful technological achievement ended in "Just Stopped".
Except for Apollo.!!!
_No time in human history has a super successful technological achievement ended in "Just Stopped"._
Sure it has.
The Concorde, for example.
My last TV was 3D. When it broke down I wasn't able to get another one.
Moon landings stopped after Apollo 17 in 1972 because we mainly went to the moon as a political goal which obviously meant we no longer had a need to go after the goal was fulfilled and in the eyes of the public we were just wasting money. And we have made many space achievements since then, albeit typically unmanned (i.e. sending a spacecraft to Pluto). The reason we haven’t returned to the moon is because there is less incentive than there was in the 1960s, not because we can’t do it.
@@pluto6383 But sir - nobody STILL has ever left earth orbit. You just drink the KoolAid and believe it.
@@marblox9300 I think you know people have been to the moon and are just trolling.
In one of my retouching classes in college, I made it my final project to doctor a moon landing photo, putting the Star Trek ship in the background and replacing all the USA labels and iconography with its Russian equivalent. Fun class.
The film"" American Moon "" there will be no doubt left in your mind
czcams.com/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/video.html
@@paulscottfilms Don't worry. I know Earth is vaguely spherical and that the moon landing was real. I was just having some fun.
Dune buggy needed oxygen to operate right?
@@susangeorge5399
Huh? What are you talking about? The buggy (lunar rover) operated on batteries, not oxygen. Are you under the impression that it used an internal combustion engine?
@@rockethead7 i thought everyone knew that we were dropping big block v8's in our moon buggies. we didn't know how to use batteries in vehicles until recently with the tesla, idiot /s
None of the skeptical opinions are not convincible enough.
KAGUYA which was sent to the moon exploration by Japan was able to see the jet trail of the Apollo 15 lander, and for the first time since Apollo, and for the first time other than the Apollo spacecraft, Japan succeeded in capturing the landing trail of the Apollo spacecraft.
India's Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has the highest resolution camera ever sent to the Moon. It pictured two of the Apollo landing sites (including 11) back in 2021. They really are there.
Well 6 years have past any updates 😂😁
The 'moving flag' is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. The film clearly shows the astronaut moving the flag pole. Once he is done placing the flag, it doesn't move; which is exactly what one should expect to see.
@felix mendez No, there aren't.
@felix mendez _You want evidence? How about this for starters. Here there are only a few of the counteless pieces of evidence of the hoax:_
_a) "Astronauts" being incapable of giving a straight answer in their Apollo 11 press conference, when asked if they saw any stars while on the Moon and having to consult among themselves to be able to provide an answer._
Your point (a) is bullshit. Neil Armstrong gave a PERFECTLY STRAIGHT ANSWER. There was no need for them to "consult among themselves" nor did they do so.
Patrick Moore asked them two questions - the first was about how "firm" they found the lunar surface, and the second was "when you looked up at the sky could you actually see the stars and the solar corona, in spite of the glare?".
Buzz Aldrin then answered the first question, causing a delay between Moore's second question and Armstrong's answer.
Armstrong then answered (with the straightest of straight bats):
"We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. Uh…I don’t recall, during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona, what stars we could see".
Armstrong here has clearly not realised that Moore was asking about the visibility of the Solar Corona from the lunar surface. This is quite understandable, as to attempt to see the corona Armstrong would have had to look directly at the Sun. Perhaps Moore thought his sun visor would have made this possible. In any event the reasons for Armstrong's misunderstanding are moot - for he clearly did so because in his reply he gives an answer that refers to the "period of time that we were photographing the solar corona".
The Solar Corona photography took place before the landing, from the Command Module, when all 3 astronauts were together. They had just entered the Moon's shadow and were scheduled at this point to photograph the corona "peeking out" from behind the Moon. (These photographs are on record).
Mike Collins either witnessed this photography or participated in it - so he gave a VERY NATURAL response to Armstrong's reply:
"I don’t remember seeing any" (which tallied with Armstrong's own answer).
And there it is. Collins was not responding to Patrick Moore's question, but to Neil Armstrong's answer. A perfectly INNOCENT AND NATURAL exchange.
Patrick Moore realised the misunderstanding, but let it pass - probably because there were many of his professional colleagues waiting to ask their own questions.
HOWEVER, when Moore got the chance to interview Armstrong 'one on one' for his BBC 'Sky at Night' program the following year, he took the opportunity to get the information he was looking for at the Press Conference. He asks the same question, but this time, to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, he splits the question in two. They are the FIRST TWO QUESTIONS he asks. You can hear them here:
czcams.com/video/PtdcdxvNI1o/video.html
How can such a misunderstanding (on the part of Hoax Believers) arise from such a simple exchange at the Press Con? Are people so incapable of comprehending the meaning of words?
The answer is that these people are so prejudiced by their desire to believe that the Moonlandings were faked, that they allowed their critical standards to drop and jumped onto the interpretation that they WANTED to hear.
The "non-agreement" and "confusion" about what the Apollo astronauts saw from the surface became a REPEATED LIE.
Now it has been answered. Please don't repeat that lie again.
felix mendes ... Your entire post is total BS, but I will just point out one of your "points" (h).
All of the lunar landings were made near the lunar morning terminator. And the reason is that the surface temperature is "cooler in those "days". Yes a Lunar "day" is about 15 Earth days long. The idea that the surface temperature recovers from 250 F below zero the 250 F above zero "instantly" shows you have no understanding of thermal dynamics. You are correct that the Moon has no atmosphere, so only the surface is heated. This is also why the suits are white and reflective to help protect from the heat.
The surface temperature at the landing sites were approximately 130 F. Remember the night side had cooled to -250 F over the 15 days of darkness and penetrated considerably in the soil. It takes a while for this soil to warm up and it likely reaches the highest temperature in the late afternoon which would be 11 or 12 "Earth days" later.
All of you other points have similar glaring failures. To less educated people they can seem to make sense.
Swinde Okay, please explain the “glaring failures.” When you say something, at least back up your claims.
I’m not on either side btw. That means I believe either way, hoax or not, could be a possibility.
@felix mendez And you need to stop watching this conspiracy crap. You are just parroting what has already been debunked a million times.
I find it very hard to believe man was on the moon in the late 1960s, yet I can't take a date to the moon in 2021.
@Joaquin you cant, it's not possible with current tech to escape earth into space
@@HassaanALal Its funny how NASA had the tech to do that in 1969, but not now.
@@ahnguyen1 exactly, they would have gone 5 to 10 times by now if it was so possible for them.
@@HassaanALal they went six times bro
@@HassaanALal
They went to the moon on manned mission 9 times, 6 of those times landed. 24 people went to the moon, 3 of those went twice. 12 of them walked on the surface.
Well I think with the temperatures minus 300 Fahrenheit the astronauts and their spacesuits , they will freeze together
The measured surface temperature during Apollo 11 was -23C to 7C.
Sorry, but temperature doesn't work like you think it does. A vacuum doesn't have a temperature. Things inside a vacuum can have a temperature, but, it doesn't work the way you're pretending to understand.
My doubt is, how did they touch down on the moon so perfectly and take off so perfectly with limited fuel.
They didn’t touch down so perfectly, which is why they were so close to having to abort. However, the descent stage was left there when they lifted off, serving only as a launch platform for the ascent stage. It, in turn, had a separate rocket motor and propellant tanks.
think jet fighter ejection seat ... all one needs is the initial boost ... and the engine cutoff was set to allow enough fuel for liftoff ... or didnt people bother to understand WHY they had fuel counters for landing ...
it's called PAYING ATTENTION ...
yeah, and what about the 300 kg of rocks they allegedly took back on take off from there. Or where they could possibly have stored a ROVER and took it out on the moon from the module. Ridicolous -the list is just endless
@@user-by7jv6qd7x The moon has one sixth of the gravity of earth, so not much fuel was needed to blast off from there. Apollo 11 took 21.6kg (NOT 300kg!) of rock from the moon. The Lunar rover was only used in later missions, when the lunar lander was larger and had more storage space. It's easy to find video of the rover being unpacked from its storage space
it's called the ol' magic of leadership and the latest of movie direction. You need to wonder why they haven't applied it yet to succesfull mankind time travels
The best part was when Nixon phoned the moon from his oval office landline...
Actually, this is how it worked. The Unified S-Band System used the 2025-2120 MHz band for uplinks (earth to space transmissions) and the 2200-2290 MHz band for downlinks (space to earth transmissions). Both bands are allocated internationally for space research and operations even today. A hybrid of radio communications and landline communication, both were full duplex (as was the Apollo capsule comms) meaning both ends could talk and listen at once, just like any other phone call.
The conversion from radio system to landline system was done at a shore station, in the case of Apollo one of the radio telescopes or the point-to-point microwave links across the country that were also commonplace in that decade.
Nixon would never do something that was not true .
@@Jay-vr9ir I agree, but lunar scientists, aerospace engineers, and nerds don't need to confirm if "Tricky Dick" made a phone call to the Moon,to establish whether NASA is telling the truth.Individuals lie, cheat, and steal all the time; science doesn't.
Never thought of that one either.. . LOL
Direct line so they didn't forget to bring home some. Moon cheese.
@@meldaghost Yes, lots of cheese.LOL, Lunar conspiracists' don't know what they don't know. Sadly they teach this ignorance to their children. I believe the internet's promotion of fake conspiracy theories and misinformation are the biggest threats to democracy.
Here's a little tip, if you want to try to know things, stop believing everything first. -marc27
stop spamming
@Marc Douglas Vogt Here's a little tip. Fight ignorance online. If you want to understand how NASA visited the Moon 9 times and landed on the surface 6 times. Get a good education and study hard. While we might not be able to prove Oswald acted alone in the assassination of JFK., we can prove NASA visited the Moon 9 times. Anybody who is unable to separate scientific fact from fictional pseudoscience needs to enroll back in school. There is no excuse for not knowing based on an unwillingness to examine authoritative cited and sourced evidence from respected individuals. Claiming a Moon rock is fake requires scientific evidence from a lunar geologist, yet conspiracists insist if Joe Blow says he's a geologist and the half-ton of Moon rock is fake, then it must be true.. If the earth is flat, Apollo was a hoax. The same non-evidence supports both claims. Ignorance is alive and well on the WWW.
It isn't really the closer horizon that makes the backgrounds at 5:29 look similar, it is the lack of atmosphere - the backgrounds on those photos are several miles away, but they appear to be close because we on Earth are so used to seeing distant environments as bluish and indistinct due to atmospheric haze, so we feel as if the backgrounds on those photos are very close.
This is true - and incredibly hard to explain to decided conspiracy theorists who don’t get that the Moon is literally a different world.
@@paulbeardsley4095Paul, the moon ain't a world; it's a moon.
@@pelocitdarney5718 “Pelocit,” “world,” in the context used, means a place other than our own. Words can have more than one meaning depending on context. Buuut since you never graduated high school, I can understand your struggle. 😊
Do better, learn.
I have more power in my little mobile phone than they had in all their computers in the 60s and 70s, and we're usable to return to the moon? Because we never went to the moon
We're unable to return using Apollo because major portions of the infrastructure have been scrapped and would need to be rebuilt (although we will be goin back soon with Artemis). You know, you currently can't fly in a supersonic commercial airliner, I guess that means the Concorde was also a hoax?
Why isn't your mobile phone going to the moon? Gee, is it because getting to the moon has nothing to do with mobile phones, or computers? My mobile phone has more processing power than all of the computers during Apollo, therefore herpes is fake, because my phone hasn't cured herpes. If herpes was real, my phone would have cured it by now. I mean, do you see how silly you sound? Why would you think computers are relevant to landing on the moon? The reality is that they were prepared to go to the moon with no onboard computers at all (but, yes, they needed the big IBM mainframes on the ground). Sure, without onboard computers, they wouldn't have landed where Apollo 15 or 17 landed (in the middle of mountains and valleys, where precision landing was crucial). But, for the open area landings, they'd have gone with or without the onboard computers. So, why is your cell phone even relevant?
I've been to the moon like 5 times already. Who hasn't?
Thanks brother does the moon has it door which can not affect the world when you are entering am not sure of going to the moon might be new planets not moon those people are decieving
Depending who you ask, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. But then again, depending who you ask, the earth is flat or oblate, and the CIA, Cubans, Mafia and LBJ clubbed together to buy an Italian rifle. Anyway, I'm going out now to share a beer or two with Elvis.
All the people involved at the very top all left soon after the Apollo 11 mission as did the 3 astronauts?????
When I was smoking that good weed or drugs
Sorry but going to a Maroon 5 concert five times is not the same as going to the moon.
Wait a minute. The radiation in the Van Halen belt shouldn't have been too much of a problem, being that they could have avoided certain" hot spots," but what about the temperature? The Van Halen belt consists of Plasma; both " cold Plasma," AND" hot plasma." Cold plasma is about a few thousand degrees Celsius, and hot plasma is WWAAAYYY hotter. The only type of metal that can PROBABLY sustain those types of temperatures is titanium, and we all know that the shuttle isn't made out of titanium. And even if that was the case, they would have had to avoid EVERY hotspot perfectly, in order to reach the 🌒 without burning up. Now let's talk and the radio waves. I don't know about you, but I don't think that raido waves can go through plasma. They either get absorbed, or the bend. I'm not flat Earth theorists, but I'm about 62% sure that we didn't go to the Moon!!!
LOL - Van Halen belt
GodmindNY NYC
Running with devil was one favs, I’m about 98.375% no one has stepped foot on moon
where, relative to Earth's atmosphere, are these plasmas..?
@@philcoombes2538 yes they are. There's red plasma and yellow plasma, and according to NASA they conveniently made the voyage while avoiding all the red plasma spots, that's remarkable!!
@@astralmindny9055 A ref please, so I can see what NASA said..?
They are having massive problems now even with more advanced technology, 2 dates have been cancelled due to male function or something August 2022 and September 2022 . These problems are occuring because it never happened before
What in the world are you talking about? SLS has never even lifted off before. Delays are normal in space travel. Mercury/Gemini/Apollo had countless similar delays.
male function lol
Spot on!
Isn`t "male Function" what they need viagra for?
You think no Apollo mission was delayed or went wrong sheesh
The problems we have is because we dont have proper engineers anymore. Apollo F1 engines had to be hand adjusted. The morons America is producing nowadays dont want to get their hands dirty
the intact dust below the rocket engine is sufficient proof they never set foot on the moon , this is absolutely undebunkable, myth busters would NEVER dare to replicate this experiment(even at a much lower power)
Hilarious! Who told you such a thing? Was it a conspiracy video? How about AS11-40-5921? See that most of the dust has been blown away, down to the compacted regolith and rock layer? See those radial striations from the rocket blast? Did you watch a conspiracy video that showed you a couple of low-res shallow angle shots, and told you the dust wasn't disturbed, and you never lifted a finger to check for yourself?
@@rockethead7rocky, unfortunately you're outnumbered, and you're beginning to realise it given your desperate comments. More people now believe the moon landings to be fake than those who believe them to be real. Stop collaborating with the enemy, there's a good chap.
@@pelocitdarney5718So what about the photo that he IDed? If you're going to ignore what he says, why bother reading his posts?
Any comment on the photo IDed by @rockethead7?
@@gives_bad_adviceWho is IDed?
what is the speed you need to get out of the moons gravitational pull again?
Ooh, I bet I know where this is going! Will see tomorrow.
michaelstillman is a shill.
Where's your follow-up post? I'll write it for you if you like.
michaelstillman is still a shill, and he knows it, because he doesn't challenge the accusation.
Surprised no activity but mine. Looks like we're done here. Adios!
Half a century back we landed on the moon!
Amazing!
Half a century later we are struggling to attain low earth orbit!
Amazingly speechless!
Yes we did, and no we don't.
what are you talking about lol
Who said we’re struggling?
@@cerbmurasaki space being the 'final' frontier, scientists are racing to strip it naked. The ISS floats just a centimeter above your hair yet no accommodation for more scientists. Pity, why not built ISS 2 or something to circle the earth in low earth orbit? Or is it too much of a struggle just to do that?
@@dewishesso2305
You do realize how expensive it is maintaining one space station, right? It’s not impossible to have two or anything. It’s just unnecessary and fiscally irresponsible. We get what we need from one station; why would we bother making more?
seeing a stage hand, overhead boom mic, grips and gaffers in the shot , but Mr Beat still gives NASA benefit of the doubt. LOL this guy funny
You know perfectly well those things never happened.
Shut up
Damn right. I'm beginning to think Pigs In Space might not have been real.
And like a true hoax nut he can’t man up this evidence. What a hard fail, son.
@@kitcanyon658 son? son??? haahaa it always makes me laugh when I hear something use the term "son" Do me a favor shut da fk up & go open up your canyon wide for manbear.....HAAHA drop em boi
They landed in California, right in Stanley Kubricks back yard where he got to photograph that epic landing.
We're not all that stupid NASA, some of us do our own thinking.
Not the brightest bulb, eh?
Maybe you do do your own thinking on occasion. You ought to try doing it about the Moon landings.
That's a hell of a trick, considering Kubrick moved to England in 1961.
‘Our own thinking’ _just happens_ to resemble the exact same poop/puke that keeps the conspiracy-theorist human-caterpillar alive! Amazing.
💩🐛🤮🐛💩🐛🤮🐛💩
The Indian spacecraft took pictures of the what Apollos 15 and 17 (if I'm not mistaken) lift on the moon, so yep, discussion ended
Exactly, as did other nations.
Right. Soviets had a probe orbiting (then becoming one with) the Moon when A11 astronauts were there. They knew exactly what was going on, which helps explain their congratulations then and 50 yrs later.
The graphics were worse than the Apollo joke and you people?? Believe this. 🤪
@@geoffbirchall7552 ⬅ Thinks _"I don't get it"_ must mean it's fake. Sorry, little one, your astonishing ignorance is not the standard for reality to be what it is. 😉
Do better, learn.
@@DemonDrummer cartoons are not reality! Animation is not reality! Hard facts is reality!
The star one in particular makes a ton of sense. If you look at pictures from our spacecrafts that orbit other planets like Jupiter or Saturn you never see stars around the planets in those pictures
We don't have to prove the fraud. They have to tell us why 70% of people don't believe it 50 years later. This is unique.
none of those are real either. every "space photo" on the internet is photoshop
Put down the crack pipe. It's turning your brain to mush.
@@1gallimaufry it's easier to fool all of the people than convince them they have been fooled.
but they were all fake! they couldn't accurately calculate alleged star positions so they didn't bother
If anything the flag should flutter MORE on the moon (while being handled) than on earth when there is no wind. Any non-rigid entity (flags, cables, straps) will still flail around like crazy in low gravity, as they keep their momentum from any movement and will even 'ripple' when they reach their point of tension. They will do this for longer than on earth as gravity doesn't pull it in one direction to 'fix' them.
Yes, there is no air resistance to stop it flapping straight away.
But if there is no atmosphere on the Moon, there is no wind - so why is the flag waving? Is this the proof that conspiracy theorists have been seeking?
Look again at the image, and in particular along the top edge of the flag, and you will find the answer. A telescopic pole has been extended along the top in order to make the flag fly proudly (yes, NASA really did think of everything).
"Because it’s been set up like this, it appears to be waving in the wind," Ojha explains. "All the wrinkles are there because it’s literally been screwed up for four days en route to the Moon."
you realize they had a horizontal bar on the flag to prevent that from happening..
In pure words it more tending to do shm( simple harmonic motion) people dont know about these stuff so they say its fake
@@GoodBoy-nx3oy Yes. It’s telling that most Apollo deniers have very poor scientific knowledge (they typically express silly ideas about radiation and heat transfer) and often don’t even know the history that they are disputing (“How come there was never a second landing?”).
Imagine flying nazi’s over, creating a new space agency and giving them 4% of the national budget for someone to say we’re just going to fake it
You can imagine it as much as you like.
@@paulbeardsley4095 honestly if it was true that would be hilarious
Hundreds of hours of footage you can watch on CZcams. 1/6 gravity in a vaccume.. miles long movie set? There is a video of them driving miles in the moon rover...
Thousands of hours of telemetry tapes were lost!!! Are you fuck" ing kidding??? man's greatest achievement and they lost the thousands of hours of tapes that would conclusively prove that it did in fact occur??? There is a large piece of mistletoe hanging from the back of my jacket...
Imagine landing on the Moon and your kids grow up and say you faked it.
Imagine growing up and believing in something that never happened.
@@gunternetzer9621 it didn't bro. Wake up. Not one real video or one real picture. All CGI bullshit
imagine faking it and your kids say you went.
@@DANTHETUBEMAN
That's more or less what I had to do.
Can you imagine what it was like for me....with people saying "oh, your dad went to the moon" etc
@Huỳnh Châu Quốc Huy of course. You have to understand that technology is much older than you think. They just spoon feed it to the public.
50 years since the first mission and we just stopped going and no other country has been able to do it in all this time. Sure we went
Yes, but it was ludicrously expensive and served mainly propaganda purposes, so _of course_ nobody wanted to go back - the reward to expenses ratio just wasn't good enough back then.
BrushyMtnGolfer I was a skeptic in 68 and more 2019
@Suzie.q Popcorn123 Actually the on board computer (Apollo) was in some ways better than today! Small systems today crash completely if they cannot cope. Although in 1969 the computer was overworked it still carried on working and doing most of it's programming. Way back in the 60's CGI had not even been thought of. Stanley Kubrick would have loved it if it had existed then!
BrushyMtnGolfer We went to the moon to prove technology superiority over the Soviet Union. After we landed (and we did land), the country had no incentive to go back, for the cost was too high for what we’d actually get back.
Exactly its all bs. We went to low earth orbit thats about it.
There were 14 Apollo missions from 1961 to 1972.
6 missions landed on the moon.
2 other missions were to orbit around the moon and the latter to orbit around the moon and dock and undock from the lander.
So they spent 11 years faking 14 missions.
Here is how we know the US and the Soviets went to the moon.
1) The Soviets tried to steal the Apollo thunder by landing first, but their rover crashed into the moon a day before.
2) The Soviets landed multiple rovers on the moon with their Luna program. It lives on today with NASA. When the Soviet Union collapsed the Luna scientists were hired by NASA. All the rovers on Mars are the grandchildren of the Soviet Luna program. They even use the same independent 6 wheel design.
3) The most recent theory that the Earth is a 2nd or 3rd generation planet is because of the Apollo and Luna programs. The rocks brought back and studied by scientists over the world show the moon and the Earth share the same chemical makeup. This is only possible due to collision. The latest theory is a smaller planetoid hit the Earth at a high angle. It knocked off the outer crust and made it molten. The Earth had a ring, like Saturn, until the debris reformed as the moon.
4) The European space agency, Chinese, Japanese, Russia and NASA have sent missions to map the moons surface and to identify mineral deposits. ALL of the Apollo landings show up in the pictures.
Spot on! Although I think you forgot a question mark at the end of the sentence of your third paragraph. Well said though!
This guy deserves a “Most Gullible” trophy which he’d proudly display because NASA is just so honest no government agency could ever do this, so the joke’s on those who do notice a muddy elephant in the snow.
The unintentional irony at this stage is as hilarious as it is staggering.
And meanwhile the crap online conspiracy theory that you yourself hang on their every word is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
@@yassassin6425 ✔Well said.
@@yassassin6425Best not use the term 'conspiracy theory' because it suggests to the reader that you've lost the argument. 'Challenging the narrative' might be a better term to use, as it doesn't have connotations of the argument having been lost.
@@pelocitdarney5718
No, it's perfectly apposite. Thanks anyway.
@@yassassin6425Yassa, so what you're saying is that Carl is a person who thinks that bad people could get together with other bad people to do something bad? That's all 'conspiracy theorist' actually means, so that includes 99.9% of us. Also, it's just an over-used term which someone throws into the discussion when they're losing an argument, and all they're doing is saying that someone belongs to a group comprising 99.9% of people. Yassa, in this context, you could use a much more powerful term which puts your opponent into maybe only 10% of the people, such as 'narrative denier'. Kaboom! See how Carl reacts to that!
Holy shit. We landed on the moon? When.
July 20, 1969
@@xiphactinusaudax1045 WOOOOSH
@@Luigipopdrop Whoosh!
@@Luigipopdrop jokes must be funny to be a joke. Kurt's comment was not funny, therefore not a joke, therefore illegal woooosh
still developing technologies to circle the Moon, landing will be done some 10 years later after it
We landed on the moon. I never realized the moon was in hangars in Arizona though.
Miles upon miles upon miles of rover footage, driving across the lunar surface... can you point out any hangar in Arizona large enough for that? How many people did it take to fill miles of dust and rocks in those hangars?
@@rockethead7 They used one and the same rover in all "rover-landings". This was a small step for the astronout, but a big leap for mankind.
@@rainertheraven7813
1) You don't know what you're talking about.
2) How does that even remotely address the topic of this thread?
That's because most of the commentators are here,are experts in aeronautics,and space engineering.
Best part is everyone thinks that moon buggy was strapped to the little tin can.. Bwahahaha 🤦♂️
Y in every Moon landing videos theres a youtube Context check?
Because You Tube is private company that can do whatever they want, I guess. They must not want to be responsible for spreading the moon hoax folks bullpucky without at least an asterisk.
The "identical backgrounds" at 5:20 are caused largely by the fact that the moon has no atmosphere, because this makes distant objects appear to be very close;
on Earth, distant objects always become bluish and hazy, but this doesn't happen on the moon, so we assume that sharp and clear objects on the moon are closer than they really are.
Yes, Apollo deniers just don’t get that the Moon is an actual other world!
Stop lying. Sick and tired of liars like you. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies. Just STOP!
same sound stage
If there's very little gravity and it's like a vacuum than how come the dust or dirt falls back to the surface of the moon so fast that is being kicked up from the rover wheels . The dust having no gravity , a vacume atmosphere and no moisture should just hang into a cloud behind it. Not fall rapidly in formation to the ground
Is this a joke? The moon has 1/6th gravity of Earth, not zero. Do the math from there. I mean, do you really believe there hasn't been a single physicist anywhere on Earth for the past 50 years to notice this "problem" you think you spotted? And, sorry, if you expect a cloud, you clearly don't understand what a vacuum is. A cloud forms when the atmosphere suspends particles of stuff (dust/water/whatever) in the air. No atmosphere/air, no cloud. I'll cut you a bit of slack about the rover wheels, because most of that footage was shot in 16mm at 6 FPS, then sped back up to 24 FPS when they play it back (it's sped up). So, in a lot of that footage, yes, the dust appears to fall faster than it should, and there's no way for you to know that unless you understood in advance that it was being sped up. But, c'mon man, clouds in a vacuum?
I'm so tired of CZcams blocking 75% of my replies. Good grief. No atmosphere = no cloud. You don't understand what a vacuum is. And, 1/6th gravity is not 0 G.
Lol, The moon had 1/6 gravity, so dust would fall right back down. There is no AIR. NO ATMOSPHERE to suspend dust, So it goes up, and comes right back down. There is no billowing, no dust suspension to keep dust afloat. Vacuum just means no air pressure.
I'm saying when you watch the rover kicking up the dust behind it it falls exactly like it does on earth . Slightly less gravity should mean it falls slower and less organized, then you factor in no moisture it should float longer than the moist dirt does here not just spit up and emmediately drop straight down .I know there's no wind to blow it away .
Well, if CZcams hadn't blocked my first reply, I already explained that they shot most rover clips at 6 FPS, and played them back at 24 FPS. So, most of the videos you may have seen are running 4x faster than real-time. The rest of what you said was complete nonsense.
How strange that people has to jump, and move slowly on the moon, but sand from the rover does not. The sand that is thrown in the air is falling as on Earth.
good point!
because of size. the moon is smaller than earth, so it has less gravity. Mars is half the size of earth, meaning it is much bigger, and has more gravity.
The dust settles FASTER than on Earth. Dust clouds don't form in a vacuum. Without air resistance, the dust will drop back to the ground like a pile of bricks.
Calculate it. Submit those calculations to science journals. But, I will warn you, if you calculate it using this video's rover/sand, you're looking at a greatly sped-up copy. He obviously increased the pace to save time. But, if you download the original rover videos and play them at the original frame rates, you can easily do the calculations to prove you're correct. What are you waiting for? I'm sure nobody else has ever calculated it in the past 50 years... right?
@Lee cornell
Huh? Are you under the impression that we have any of those craft to even send?
Hi, Im in 2024 and wondering. What's the update on this report? Mr Beat?
It is way easier to fool people than it is to actually go to space! That all I got.
Means it was fake?
@@shxjxhhxjx3729 you are fooled by asking questions to other human beings. Just use your senses and the truth is easy to observe.
Kubrick admitted he was the director of those films. Check out the LAST movie he made "Eyes Wide Shut", it's all there. He died right after the movie was made.
@@spaduke really ?
@@spaduke source: trust me bro
Mr Beat Can you do every president's biggest accomplishment like The New Deal signed by Franklin Dealno Roosevelt and the The Civil Rights Movement signed by Lyndon Baines Johnson?
I can't believe I haven't done those topics yet!
The new deal wasn't really an accomplishment unless debt was the goal.
If you do cival rights (maybe you have I am still playing catch up) please start with Ike's policies not just Johnson.
New deal was a pile of garbage, you should freshen up on your history
@@bitcoinwillendjewishsuprem3744 Classic example of the American education system. We're taught a much perverted version of history.
Bruh imagine training for years and risking your life by going to the moon just so that 55 years later millions of people can call you a coward and a fraud.
Yep, That's the way of it. Truly sad.
@@apolloskyfacer5842I guess there are a lot of doubters out there, especially since SV40 has come to light.
@@pelocitdarney5718 As vaccines of all kinds are the products of scientific medical research, and therefore, a human endeavor, mistakes do happen. Nothing is risk free. I was one of the tens of thousands of children who received the Polio Vaccine at school. There was no risk to our lives. World wide, millions of children avoided getting Polio. The original Polio Vaccine was a complete success. However, there were problems with the later Polio Vaccine as it was contaminated. Still, not all that serious, but a real concern. I see you've been desperately searching the narrative to find something, anything, that's going to support your anti-vaccine agenda.
*People like you who are pushing a deceitful narrative that the Corvid-19 Vaccinations have been killing many people are disgusting individuals who should be called out on their deceit every time they present their nonsense. You are actually a menace to society*
@@apolloskyfacer5842Safe and effective, were they? Did you have the boosters? Go on, answer the question. If you tell me, I'll tell you.
@@apolloskyfacer5842How about giving an answer to my question? Did you have the boosters? (I'm not seeking schadenfreude; on the contrary.)
51 years now.
I love how humanity wastes more times debating if something is real or not, instead of trying to find more ways to get there...
That should tell you all you need to know friend. Because guess what? We CAN'T get there. Never could. If we could. We would. But we can't. So we don't. If people just use there heads seeing this lie is really a no brainer
What do you mean "more" ways to get there? They've never even figured out a single way to get there.
So you'd prefer for humanity to not think freely and to find ways to get "back" to the moon. While NASA,the Space specialist, is scamming tax payers for billions annually lol
@@Xendava I take it neither you nor Josh are aware of the Artemis Program?
@@Xendava Considering all evidence points to us having already gone there, I don't understand how you could say otherwise.
Supposedly we have powerful telescopes that can see beyond galaxies and we cannot see clearly the stuff we left on the moon .. Give me a frickin brake!
There's one on each wheel of your car and I hope your driving is better than your use of English language.
@@stevesmyth4982 why be bothered making comments about peoples spelling mistakes
@majica43 Is it a spelling mistake? It could also be a typo or a misunderstanding of meaning.
And you omitted the apostrophe at the end of peoples and the question mark at the end of the sentence. :))
@@stevesmyth4982 you like to read peoples comments to check for grammar mistakes, that’s funny
I can't find an optometrist to give me a decent prescription for glasses, but the "all new & improved telescopes" can find black holes and stars zillions of light years away in total clarity and "Disney Colour"? Something funky going on here! Looks like another government project to make us "little people" look stupid and prepare our own selves for the end of the world. Massive destruction of life and property while the elites "hunker-down" in their underearth bunkers. Crazy? Maybe not!
I love how they say "It would take tens of thousands of people around the world to pull this off" and then admit they are one of them. The masses follow the narrative.
In over half a century, nobody has produced an alternative narrative. “They, uh, faked it somehow” does not count.
Can you even be serious about this? Are you even remotely aware of what the nuts claim? It's like they're reading from a script. They make the same old debunked claims about a "moon hoax" that have been explained a billion times over. You can't go to one of these videos' comment threads without seeing:
"Apollo was fake. Where are the stars?"
"Apollo was fake. Who took the video of the first steps on the moon?"
"Apollo was fake. How did they get through the Van Allen belts?"
"Apollo was fake. Aldrin said so."
If anybody is guilty of following a narrative, it's the people denying Apollo. It's not a "narrative" to respond to questions with the correct answers.
He meant the people working on the thing, not normal people, then he would have said millions, not tens of thousands. All the engineers, all the people in Houston, the Soviets watching closely
Your narrative is even worse. You're calling all the men and women who helpd make those missions possible imposters. By the way your smug sense of superiorty is pathetic.
We do not expect to see craters under the LMs but, at least, there must be some pits because, during moon landings, NASA shows dust, sand, or moon rock thrown away from under the LMs, and astroNOTs also mention sand disturbance.
And there was indeed such disturbance, in a radial pattern which is completely consistent with the physical laws associated with 2,700lbs of thrust descending vertically onto the lunar surface.
Another hoax nut that never checked the photo archive, and just blindly believes conspiracy videos that claim there's no dust blown. Go look at the actual photo archive for yourself, dewdrop.
Metal cans protected the film from radiation but security and locked doors couldn't protect it on earth? Hmmm?
Great point friend
Nature don't deceive humans do!
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, of course 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.
@@Xendava 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, of course 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.
Try to keep up you ignorant gobshite, sunlight is radiation too, dipshit, but even a frosted window can protect you, numbnuts. Twats like you think all radiation is deadly, 'cos you're dumb as f*ck.
how could we have landed on the moon when the Great Space Dragon eats a piece of it every night then regurgitates it??? Checkmate, scientists!
each full moon crumbles away over the waning fortnight, with the bits going to make new stars (to replace the ones that fall to Earth); each full moon is thus entirely new, supplied piecewise from the sun during the waxing fortnight
(both of these processes take place during the daytime, of course, which is why you don't see actually see the bits moving at night..)
...which is why moon landings are fake - as it takes a fortnight to get there (the "3 day trip" is just a CCP-orchestrated mass hypnosis); as they would have to arrive there when the moon is "full", it means they would have to leave when it is "new", but as a "new" moon isn't physically there, they don't know where to point the rocket..
Woah ... you’re so stupid about the phase of moon
@@benjaminaraya8073 the Apollo stuff is just me, granted, but the moon-into-stars theory is that of one Ivan Denisovich Shukov, as reported by the author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn..
the film"" American Moon "" there will be no doubt left in your mind
czcams.com/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/video.html
@@benjaminaraya8073 NASA has already *CONTRADICTED* their own "supposed" MOON Landings in this video!!
czcams.com/video/Kji7H_brBa4/video.html
If we didn’t go to the moon why didn’t the Russians blow the whistle on the whole thing and why did they stop their moon landing project?
Because it’s ridiculously hard and expensive
Well it makes me wonder if we really did land on the moon. Why hasn't anyone else gone to the moon (other nations) and also if we went to the moon, why haven't we gone back?
Other nations have gone to the Moon, and the United States has gone back since Apollo - they’ve just used unmanned probes and rovers, because they are much cheaper and more suitable for exploration and study of the Moon.
Are you aware that they went back five times?
Robert, in order to understand this, you need to first understand that landing on the moon was really just a "stunt" in the first place. It was a political statement. It wasn't for exploration (though, yes, they did end up exploring the moon and getting a lot of good geology out of it). But, Apollo costed (adjusted for inflation) about $250 billion in hard costs, and about $100 billion in soft costs and international support. What did they get for it? They got 850 pounds of rocks, and 12 guys walked on the surface for a few hours each. Dollar for dollar, this is not a good investment. But, remember, that wasn't the point. The point was that we wanted to beat the Soviets, to demonstrate that we were capable of anything if we put our minds to it. It was a political statement to the Soviets: "Don't mess with us, or we'll beat you, we will always beat you." It was an effort to avoid WWIII by putting on a massive display of technological superiority. We'll never know what would have happened without Apollo. But, given the political climate at that time, at the brink of war, people building nuclear fallout shelters in their backyards, kids being trained to duck and cover in schools, etc., it's very possible that Apollo prevented that war from happening. That's certainly what the intent was anyway. So, after the USA won the race to the moon, things settled down quite a bit. The cold war continued, but, the Soviets never again did the same level of aggressive stuff, like they had done in Cuba. They backed off quite a bit, and eventually they collapsed altogether. Was Apollo responsible for that? Maybe. We'll never know for sure. But, the bottom line is that once the race was won, and the Soviets through in the towel, congress had no interest in continuing to fund an endless supply of missions to the moon. So, they cut it at Apollo 17, successfully landing 6 missions onto the moon, and shifted focus to much cheaper endeavors. They cut NASA's budget from 4.5% of the entire federal budget (plus another 2% or so in soft costs) down to 0.45% of the budget, literally 10% of what the funding was during the height of Apollo. Basically, the punchline is that the mission was accomplished, so they ended the program. And, we just haven't had a lot of reasons to spend that kind of money again, because unmanned probes that last a decade or more, costing $500 million instead of $350 billion, are more valuable than sending people who can only stay for 70 hours then come back home.
Why haven't other countries done it? Because it's massively expensive. And, no other country has been willing to spend that kind of money to put the 13th person on the moon.
By the way, Artemis was funded in 2019, and is proceeding. Artemis 1's mission was completed. Artemis 3 intends to put people back onto the lunar surface.
Isn’t it funny how the brain dead think? “Well we did go back but it was machines”. Complete morons, PEOPLE never went back.
@@JohnHazenhousen Whats cheap about NASA ... lol... pay me I'll send you some 'science' lol
Accidentally they landed on Sahara Desert
I fell the Astronauts were meant believe they actually reached the moon 🌛 infact even they were even fooled
Lol… we went. Now going back have they been able to resolve the issues with equipment. The moon dust wreaked havoc on the suits. They are planning on spending much more time on the surface, looking forward to the next mission
I saw Buzz Aldrin speak for an hour here in NZ in 2010 about his experience ON the Moon and in space. Neil Armstrong said it would be harder to fake than to succeed.. cheers from down under 👍🚀🇳🇿
Right. And then he proceeded to drown himself in alcohol and anti depressants. A man whose tomb should at least be in Arlington for the greatest human achievement in the history of mankind...but no. Buried at sea. Not to mention his home has numerous pictures of his test pilot/ piloting days etc.etc. but none whatsoever of his historical walk on the moon. That's weird.
@@edcorrigan3156 _And then he proceeded to drown himself in alcohol and anti depressants._
He'd peaked up at 39, Ed. It's no wonder he saw nothing of interest in life afterwards.
_A man whose tomb should at least be in Arlington for the greatest human achievement in the history of mankind...but no. Buried at sea._
Buzz Aldrin is still alive. You're thinking of Neil Armstrong. But I won't hold it against you, since it's understandable that your mental faculties might not be what they used to be at your age.
_Not to mention his home has numerous pictures of his test pilot/ piloting days etc. but none whatsoever of his historical walk on the moon._
That's not _quite_ true, but also completely and utterly irrelevant either way. It's only "weird" if you're determined to spin every single thing you don't understand into a conspiracy.
@@Jan_Strzelecki Isn't determination to spin every single thing you don't understand into a conspiracy a requirement for membership?
@@therealzilchDefinitely.
when Neil Armstrong said it's harder to fake it, he was clearly flattering himself
we had a AM radio in 1969 and yet we went to the moon come on folks
We've also had XB-70 Valkyrie - a nuclear-armed, deep-penetration strategic bomber with six engines, capable of cruising for thousands of miles at Mach 3+ while flying at 70,000 feet (21,000 m).
Come on, you.
@@Jan_Strzelecki so what...that's ur come back.. oh well now that i know we had that then we must have went to the moon...jeez
@@jameslavalley2647 _so what._
So, the level of technology in the 60's is higher than you think it is.
@@jameslavalley2647 Wow, you're as stupid as the bloke a few weeks ago who argued that we can't have gone to the Moon because his television in 1969 was black and white! Talk about a non sequitur!
@@paulbeardsley4095 how in the hell did we get that car up there
In short.. I'm guna go with NASA on this one
@alpha beta Right horse fool.Step on out of the rabbit hole.
Mike, you would be right.You get the $1,000,000 dollar prize.
@@glassofmilk6988 Yes, I've watched it.
My question is this. "How can an intelligent person with common sense sit and watch 3 plus hours of a foreign-made film insulting Americans space program and not once ask if the pseudoscience, half-truths, and outright lies shown in "American Moon" are based on historical and scientific evidence." I guess not". That's why American's educational system gets a D minus.
An elementary school teacher commented on a CZcams Moon hoax video that she teaches her 4th and 5th graders the Moon landings were hoaxed.👍 She then when on to say,"So far, no one said anything to me" 😢. A licensed and educated teacher is unable to separate science fact from pseudoscience.
That's why I make sure I devote an hour a day to fighting ignorance. I imagine she was suspended, fired, and or required to take some additional training. I didn't bother to follow up, but she's not the first teacher caught wasting students' time. Thankfully the students waste no time posting videos, Tweets of their teachers and professors' ignorant comments to social media.👍
@@Arctic_Adjuster *with looking at the evidence
@@Arctic_Adjuster It doesn't take a Ph.D. in science to figure out 27 American astronauts visited the Moon. Imagine President Kennedy, leader of the free world, telling congress," Hey, let's be honest; no amount of money will put Americans on the Moon. "Let's borrow the $28 billion [ $250 billion in 2021 ] from taxpayers and pocket the money".🤣 ."If we do get caught, I'll explain. " The Soviets were breathing down our backs and Jackie likes expensive things". Will generate a virus around 2020, blame China, and repay taxpayers with a few simulcast checks. Problem solved.😉
Stars and their constellations would appear exactly the same if photographed from ANYWHERE in the Solar System. The reason they do not show in the Moon photos are simply the exposure time was too short for them to register on the film or in a video. The cameras were set for very short exposures to register bright objects correctly.
Why would short exposure result in a starless photo? I fail to understand your argument.
@@pvn2474
Dimmer objects require longer exposure. Bright objects like Astronauts in white suits ned only a short exposure such as 1/ 250 second. However, even a bright star needs up 30 seconds to register on film. Very bright planets such as Venus or Jupiter will still need several seconds to get an image.
IMO, the more important question is whether the US had the capacity (in terms of materials) to land on the moon. If you know the mass of the earth and moon, and you have the aerodynamic models we have today, you can figure out if a vessel, of known shape, mass, engine output, fuel flow rate and fuel capacity (at each stage), is capable of making it to orbit, transferring to the moon, landing, lifting off again and coming back. I'm no expert on the technology used in 1969, but there have been hundreds of thousands of aerospace engineers since then performing similar calculations for other trips, engineers from every country including America's 'rivals'. If it were technologically impossible for the Apollo mission to have succeeded, we would have known by now. And if they were technologically capable, it would have been harder to orchestrate an effort to keep such a giant conspiracy under wraps while working on a 'fake mission' than it would be to just complete the mission as intended.
Bollocks
It's technologically impossible for humans to build some of the things built on Earth even if they would have had modern equipment but people still insist they did instead of giving credit to Giants or aliens.
@@nyxnightlinger7719 Dont be so ignorant. Just because your incapable doesn't mean other are
@@gowdsake7103 it's been proven we could not move them and set into place. some of those giant stones weigh over 100,000 pounds and are the size of a semi trailer, good luck.
@@nyxnightlinger7719 No cocky uneducated answer yet ?
The pruff is questionable 🤔 though? Why wouldn't travel to the moon be a common event being that we had so many years following the earlier mission to the moon..why? Stop going at all with technology being so much more advanced than the 60's. Why haven't any other countries other than Russia never made it or even gave it a shot? I just find it hard to believe that only one country was able to do it. If we went and went many times ...why would others follow with confidence and further more study into the exploration of space???? Why one country has the ability to do so and no others?
YOU SAID: The pruff is questionable"
== I doubt you even know what the proof is. This video certainly doesn't address it.
YOU SAID: "Why wouldn't travel to the moon be a common event being that we had so many years following the earlier mission to the moon..why?"
== It is getting cheaper to do it, so, Artemis is funded, and there's a moon rocket on the launch pad right now. But, basically, even with technology advances, it is still just too expensive, and there has been very little motivation and public support to do it. Back in the 1960s, the primary motivation was the cold war. After Apollo, there just hasn't been that kind of motivation (and funding) to do it.
YOU SAID: "Why haven't any other countries other than Russia never made it or even gave it a shot?"
== Too expensive.
YOU SAID: "I just find it hard to believe that only one country was able to do it."
== So, your "evidence" is your own incredulity?
YOU SAID: "If we went and went many times ...why would others follow with confidence and further more study into the exploration of space???? Why one country has the ability to do so and no others?"
== In the height of Apollo spending in the 1960s, do you have any clue how much it costed? It was 4.5% of the entire federal budget in hard costs, and another 2% in soft costs and international support. That's about 6.5% of the entire federal budget... to put 12 people on the moon for a few hours each. If you don't understand how staggering that is, let me draw an analogy. It's very expensive to climb Mount Everest, about $60,000 per person for each climb, and it takes months, and you can only do it once a year. Well, in order to buy yourself a seat on Apollo's landing missions, it would have costed you 250,000 years worth of climbing Mount Everest before you could pay for one single seat on an Apollo landing. That's longer than the human race has been in existence. THAT is how expensive Apollo was. There is no other program in human history anything like it. The only comparison you might be able to make is when 30,000 people in ancient Egypt spent a decade of their lives to work to create one pyramid to entomb a single person. Well, Apollo was bigger than that. It took 450,000 people a decade of their lives to make Apollo happen. And, for that, we got 12 people on the moon for a few hours each. Nothing. There is nothing else like Apollo. No other voyage can compare.
Day temperature +240 degrees .. no problem, we have aircon tinfoil suits !
What atmosphere does the moon have to hold that +240 degree temperature?
Although huge temperature variations occur on the Moon, the astronauts were never actually exposed to them. The maximum temperature on the Moon is +260F at lunar noon but with no atmosphere this refers to surface temperature not atmospheric temperature. Every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise. One Moon day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly 15 Earth days, and the astronauts were only on the Moon for a maximum of 3 Earth days, so they weren’t there long enough for the Sun to be at its highest and hottest.
There are only two ways heat can transfer on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the Sun’s reflection on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light, so very little heat would have transferred to them.
The second is by conduction from direct contact with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as the dust, soil and rock on the lunar surface is loose and doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further.
Water from a tank in the backpack flowed through the Liquid Cooled Garment (a web of fine tubing within the spacesuit) into a heat exchanger and then out through tiny pores in a metal sublimator plate (turning from a solid directly into a gas) where it was exposed to the vacuum of space. The consequent pressure drop froze the water, forming a layer of ice on the outside of the plate. Once the water under the plate cooled to a user-comfortable temperature, it was returned to the LCG and the water in the plate would re-freeze, sealing the plate and stopping the cooling process. Thus, heat rejection with automatic temperature control was accomplished with no sensors or moving parts to malfunction. 12lb of feedwater gave about eight hours of cooling.
do you feel stupid much? ahahahahah
@@milanforever7014 I don't feel stupid if that's directed at me - Happy New Year.
@@gunternetzer9621 no dude.. it was addressed to the first comment.. happy new year ;)
Wow, we're in 2023 now
I have no reason to doubt it
We’ve broken the sound barrier
My question is how did they get that contraption back through the Van allen belt
Still spewing your fake questions, eh? You have proven repeatedly that you don't care about the answers. So, why do you keep pretending to ask questions?
exactly !
@@rockethead7 because I haven't gotten an answer yet.
QUOTE:
"The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, 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.
-- James A. Van Allen"
@@rockethead7 Go have a look again at the contraption sitting on the "moon" and tell me that even made it off the "moon", let alone the outer portion of the Van Allen Belt. And somehow we lost that technology so we can't go back. How convienient. Know when your being lied to. That space craft looks like a bunch of 6th graders built it in science class. How ridiculous.
These skeptics Never include professional photographers, or folks like me who actually DO work on sound stages in CA, and I HAVE filmed "moon like asteroid surfaces with astronauts" and keeping the dust down was a major pain in the ass, as was getting the 'star drops' to be visible against the glare of the foreground 'moonlet' we had made. The only way they ever got the stars was to Way underexpose the foreground and then reshoot it without the stars. When you see the dust kicking up from the rover's tires, it falls straight down instantly- no hang time.
Yes. And that can only be accomplished in a vacuum. There are no vacuum chambers in existence large enough to fake this.
There's a great video by a professional explaining a lot (but not even all) of the reasons we couldn't have faked the moon landing here: czcams.com/video/_loUDS4c3Cs/video.html
That's not true. They asked the man in charge of the company that made the camera's they used a question regarding something that took place. I admit forgetting the details, but anyone that wants to know the truth can do an easy search to find it. The man was obviously an expert and the bottom line was that he smiled and said,.' I can't explain that',...……..meaning, whatever was being questioned could not have happened according to this expert. I'll look for the details, but it's a known story, you must have heard of it.
Omg yes why don’t they include me 🙄🙄
@@MrMarco855 from "American Moon" documentary?
0:03 talk about a Fish Story!
Why is the only photo taken of the Earth from the moons surface a blurry image above the flag pole in the photo that shows astronaut Harrison Schmitt standing next to the American flag with the Earth in the background during the Apollo 17 mission ? If you zoom into the Earth it shows the very same cloud formation and view of the Earth as the lunar orbit photo by astronaut William Anders from space . It appears as if they copyed and paste the same Earth photo and then blurred it out so you can just make out the same cloud formation .
What in the world are you talking about? Why would you think that was the only Earth image taken from the lunar surface? Did a conspiracy video tell you that? Why would you believe it? Why not just go through the photo archive yourself and see plenty more?
@@rockethead7 Right.Except for the fact there are hundreds of photos of the Earth taken from the lunar missions.
@@charliebay9441
And, that's different from what I said, how?
That was for Sertano
You should’ve just named this video why I agree with NASA
@KrispyKrackers88 Maybe not
Because that is the logical answer an educator like himself would come to. Of all government agencies I think NASA is the least of the average Americans worries as far as malicious intent.
This bloke is a Nasa fan.
We can't even go to the moon in 2021 what makes you think we landed there in 1969. Also, who was filming when the Astronauts left the moon, there is video of that, it just makes me wonder who was filming them leaving. If it was some camera then how did they get the video from the camera to show the world? Hmmmm
_We can't even go to the moon in 2021 what makes you think we landed there in 1969._
Because we can't go to the Moon today because the hardware isn't ready yet.
_Also, who was filming when the Astronauts left the moon,_
A remotely operated video camera. Please do your research.
@@Jan_Strzelecki Someone else stole some of my words. Lol
and way more fakery too...all these nations plaaying games with these mars and moon landing nonsense...all faked in deserted places and studios..facts and descrepancies dont back up any of the big claims
Ignorance is bliss - - -
The tv camera on the rover was left running to film the lift off.
The footprints on the moon are outer boots that were tossed on the surface before ascending. The Flag had a piece that extended from the pole which made the flag a rectangular shape. There is a mirror dropped on the moon so Astronomers and Scientists can point a laser on it and the laser bounces back. That is proof that we really landed on the moon.
also Pluto is a planet.
Yes, they obviously really went to the Moon.
Not sure it matters how you designate Pluto, though. It doesn’t become more or less of a world.
Yes.
How come this "news" story conveniently omitted the fact that ALL of the original recordings of the Moon Landing were (conveniently) DESTROYED? Yeah, I know. The event was just so important and so historic that a crazy terrible "mistake" was made that resulted in the total destruction of those recordings. Thanks, Inside Edition, for digging so deep by offering some clown to say, "Oh, yeah, everything was real."
Pfftt. Um, no. That is a butchery of what happened. Two backup tapes from one mission were lost, perhaps destroyed, perhaps taped over, nobody knows. Since that time, your favorite misguided video makers have distorted this into believing that everything was destroyed. And, rather than finding out what really happened, you have decided to blindly swallow anything those videos tell you.
@@rockethead7 Oh yeah, then where the heck ARE these recordings if they purportedly exist? And why can''t anyone buy a Blu-Ray or DVD version of them if those purported recordings still exist? You know the answer. Because you're just another cover-up-clown. We have enough of those in Government unless you're one of them too. But nice try at obfuscation and lies. You may persuade some dunderheads.
@James Feldman said _"the original recordings of the Moon Landing were (conveniently) DESTROYED"_
-
Oh, that again. Lol, there are plenty of photos, and 16mm film of all of the 6 landings to verify they took place, so your little mOoN hOaX 'gotcha' is moot.
That is correct. There isn't any good reason for going to the moon, even if it was possible.
@@anthonygreene4938
Actually friend the only way to get to Mars would be from the moon. Launching from earth takes an enormous amount of power. And if we really want to get to Mars we must launch from the moon. Should give you an Idea of how far away from Mars we really are.
For anyone here in the section; of The Moon landing isn’t faked -_-
If you look closely to the footages and photos and know how photography and physics work its easy to see that it is not faked. I like to think that moon landing deniers are just jealous because they never accomplished something huge in their life.
1. Why the flag seem to wave.
First of all, the flag wasen’t waving, there is a hidden pole holding the flag into place that is attached to the standing pole for the photo the Apollo astronauts took because a droopy flag doesn’t look good for the picture, once you take a close peek at the photo you can see an outline of a upper pole holding the flag giving the illusion that its waving. In one of the footages we can also see the upper pole for a one second before one of the astronauts hid it from camera view.
2. Why the Astronauts dint jump high.
Because they dint choose too -_-. Common misconception by moon landing deniers thinks you can always jump high on the moon no matter how much we use our potential energy as we squat. while it is true that gravity on the Moon is weak compare here to Earth due to its lower mass it doesn’t mean we can jump very high no matter how much potential energy we store before we jump, physics still matters everywhere in any object of the universe regardless if you’re on Earth or not. The Astronauts just dint use much of their potential energy to use produce enough kenetic energy inorder to jump very high. To put it simply, they just dint bend low enough to jump high they only jump by their feet not with their knees.
3. Why are there no stars.
if you look at the pictures and the footages, its really easy to tell that the main reason you cannot see stars is because the Astronauts were on the day side of the moon 😑. even if they landed on the dark side of the moon where the sun isn’t shining, you still can’t see the stars with cameras as cameras at the time have very low quality like old video phone cameras from the 2000s.
4. Why does there seem to be light on the shadow side of the capsule seen in the photo where one of the Astronauts is climbing down.
Easy, light can bounce off the ground like a spring, they don’t hit the ground like meterorites and light isn’t a physical object, its electromagnetic radiation. I want you to close your eyes and imagine you go to a dark room with a board on your hand with a tiny object on it and have a table light shinning on your model as far as the sun looks like, you can see that the area of the tiny object where light doesn’t shine is shinning a bit instead of being a full silhouette, why? Simple because light travels at a rapid speed faster than sound it bounces of the ground and reflects back on the dark side of the object which is why it isn’t completely dark.
Our education system is really f*cked and sadly these conspiraterds fell victim to it or they decided to not listen or not learn deeper than the extent of conspiracy theories that is made out of suspicion, ignorance, jealousy, etc.
Whats ironic is these guys are the very reason why got intrested into science in the first place.
THANK YOU it seems like more people think it was faked when it really wasn’t. The hoax that we didn’t land on the moon was started by the Soviets, the very people who lost and wanted to find anyway they could win by proving NASA was cheating
The star thing you mentioned is wrong. The real reason is because the moon is so bright they have to turn down exposure so much that you can’t see the stars
Holy Moly this last comment made me cringe.
Our education system is really f*cked and sadly these conspiraterds fell victim to it or they decided to not listen or not learn deeper than the extent of conspiracy theories that is made out of suspicion, ignorance, jealousy, etc.
Maybe you should have paid attention in English class? The fact that your spelling is this poor, Makes me doubt you even attended class. What is a period? A comma? Jesus F Christ. Do you assume that everyone who does not agree with the common story is ignorant and jealous?
Best part of this is that; The reasons you are giving for certain circumstances IE - The lack of stars seen in space from the moons surface? NASA literally stated it was an exposure issue. Yet you say its because they are on the Day side of the moon, Oh boy. I am hoping you realize that the moon is in tidal lock with the earth. The fact that you even think for one second that is the cause for lack of stars in the space above confounds me beyond most words.
Space maybe the final frontier - But the moon landings were 100% made in a hollywood basement. You can refer to my comments above to understand why politically this event happened.
Typical moon freak resorting to personal insults to prove it is correct.
People who claim that the lighting is wrong, that is a studio set with multiple light sources actually fail their basic test everywhere there is always multiple lightsources as light reflects. Especially off highly reflective white space suites, the reflective lunar regalith and of course the LEM was covered in mirror like mylar.
There is nothing unusual in moon photographs other than they are very rare and were taken by only 12 individuals on another world ...........
50 years later...with far greater tecnological advancement still no one has yet returned to the moon.. Pure Logic
60 years later...with far greater technological advancement still no one has flown a mach 7 airplane again.. Pure Logic
20 years later...with far greater technological advancement still no one has flown on a commercial supersonic airliner again.. Pure Logic
50 years later...with far more schools still no moon landing denier can read or write.. Pure Logic
The Artemis 1 was launched in November 2022 carrying the Orion spacecraft. The Orion spacecraft orbited the moon and returned. They are going to return to the moon.
Multiple robotic missions have made it, mapped the entire Moon, including snapping pics of the Apollo sites. Also landed on the Moon. You people wouldn't know logic if it sat in your face and farted up your nose.
Yeah robots what about humans you fool.
That is why I can't wait for Artemis 3 to land on the moon, then it would be quit obvious that the reason it took so long is because people didn't think it was worth the money to go back.
I am going to believe it once i see the photos in HD.
I think you'd be surprised the resolution of the film stock they used.
The 70mm film photos from Apollo have better resolution than any HD/digital camera ever built. It'll be about 10-20 more years before digital HD surpasses the Apollo 70mm film. The latest HD scans of those photos are with 2340 lines of resolution, which is basically a conversion of about 300 DPI on that 70mm film. Yes, they're probably overdue for some updated scans, but, the scans they have already qualify as "HD," so, why are you making this claim to believe it once you see HD photos? Have you not looked in the NASA archive yourself? Also, what does the scan resolution have to do with your belief or disbelief? Why does the resolution level of the archive photos matter for what you believe?
I am going to believe it once I see the photos in Smell-O-Vision.
No you aren't. Who are you trying to kid?
Hats off to Stanley Kubrick for creating such an awesome Moon Landing!
LET ME GUESS 🤔🤔🤔 HE'S GOING TO "GO WITH NASA ON THIS ONE" 👍 😊
NEVEEEEEERRRR. Don't you understand what mean never? You respond 1 month ago, so what happened to you? Don't you see news? Artemis 1 had problem to lift off. Nasa has problem today with new technology and you still believe those liars touch the moon? 37 earth planet between or 237K miles away. Do you think any person will risk their life to a trip without any protection? HELL NO. Even the best pilot will never risk his life to go WHERE? There is nothing to help you and they were playing on the moon, running, jumping, driving a car,J,AJ,AJA,JA,AJ.
---- HOW YOU WILL BE SO STUPID PLAYING ON THE MOON WITH ALL THE RISK INVOLVED?
lol he did well fooled everyone
@@whatislifebro Not quite.
@@alansimmonds9030 yeah not you
Cool video! I love stuff about space.
Well thank you Gabe
it's all fake
The film"" American Moon "" there will be no doubt left in your mind
czcams.com/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/video.html
@@Zero11s
Then, aliens are fake, too.
Why is the backdrop exactly the same on different missions on different sides of the moon, I mean exact.😂
Why do you ask questions when you have decided in advance to reject/ignore the answers? Why are you wrong all the time? Why don't you go watch the Apollo videos and find out how wrong you are, instead of just blindly trusting a conspiracy video that told you that the backdrops were exactly the same?
Actually Geoff, the backdrop isn't exactly the same on different missions at all.
Try again.
@@sailorman8668 sorry, exactly the same. Place an over picture of a back drop scene from completely different mission and hey presto.
@@rockethead7 I have already looked into this. Like you I once believed we went to the moon, l was a moon head, like you. But the niggling doubts forced me to look into the subject with an unbiased viewpoint. After near endless research I discovered the chances of ever doing these things had a zero present possibility.
"I have already looked into this."
TRANSLATION: "I watched a bunch of conspiracy videos and never bothered to fact-check them, and I believe everything they say."
Sorry, but you haven't "looked into" anything. Your position was that the backdrop is the same on different missions. But, anybody who has actually watched all of the Apollo videos would know this is false. You haven't watched the Apollo videos. You've watched the anti-Apollo videos, and you eat them up like Christmas dinner, and you don't have the knowledge or ability to know when you've been lied to. This has resulted in a delusional standpoint that the EDUCATED people are the ones who are doing exactly what you're doing (blindly swallowing what we're told). But, it's YOU doing that. How can we tell who's right and who's wrong? WATCH THE APOLLO VIDEOS AND SEE THAT THE BACKDROPS ARE NOT THE SAME. It's that simple.
We are able to bounce laser signals off a device that the astronauts left on the moon that can detect return laser signals.
Talk about the lunar module not kicking up dust because of pressure on the moon, but the rover and astronauts were throwing up plenty of it while moving around. I thick that rocket would have enough thrust to blast the surface if the rover threw some up moving around.
Yeah, the rockets blew lots of dust. Go watch a few of the landing videos. Why would you think they didn't?
EXACTLY , I saw a video of a astronaut's helmet turning as the astronaut turned his head .lol
@@asianconnection7701 That is the way there were designed numbnuts. Those helmets were only for Gemini, not Apollo.
@minipilot The rover slung dust that was stuck to its wheels, but since there is no atmosphere you will never see it leave a trail of dust floating. The rockets of the moon landers blew all of the dust to the side far away from the lander. Dust cannot billow on the moon due to no atmosphere pressure to slow it down or to suspend it in the air. There is no air.
The lack of time delay on the coms.
You failed to cover the key to understanding the moon landing fraud. That is "Frame Rates" of the camera used to send "video" back to earth. The sole camera on the surface of the moon filmed was a 10 frames per second (fps)(Westinghouse WL30691 Secondary Electron Conduction Tube (SEC)). The media was shown "live" feeds (and they filmed it on their own recording equipment). The feed was presented at 24 frames per second (fps), but there was no 24 fps camera on the moon. I believe the film was not authentic. Therefore, other aspects of the voyage were not authentic "as presented" either.
James Van Allen, would also like to know how the Playtex space suits and a thin sheet of aluminum were able to protect the astronauts as they passed through the "Van Allen Radiation belts", which were believed to be two belts at the time and now we know there are actually three belts. According to NASA, the astronauts received "no more radiation than if they had stayed on the earth", based on dosimeter readings following the mission and actual quote by NASA officials. Those same suits cannot be used again because the "blueprints, composition and specs cannot be found in the archives", meanwhile look at recent news from August 2022, NASA is going to spend $1 billion to have 2 suits made for a future mission to the moon on the, (ahem), SLS... and no suit has not been developed yet, and this problem has been around for years, and has caused a substantial delay on returning to the moon.
*_"James Van Allen, would also like to know how the Playtex space suits and a thin sheet of aluminum were able to protect the astronauts as they passed through the "Van Allen Radiation belts"_*
James Van Allen wanted to know nothing of the sort because he understood the nature of alpha and beta radiation, time and exposure and the differing intensity of the belts, whereas you clearly do not.
*_"which were believed to be two belts at the time and now we know there are actually three belts."_*
The third belt is transient and has nothing whatsoever to do with the trajectory of the Apollo missions.
*_"According to NASA, the astronauts received "no more radiation than if they had stayed on the earth", based on dosimeter readings following the mission and actual quote by NASA officials."_*
Source?
*_"Those same suits cannot be used again because the "blueprints, composition and specs cannot be found in the archives"_*
Again - full original source and context?
Absolute nonsense. The schematics and designs are fully available. Besides, there are many A-7L suits still in existence - you can actually see Armstrong's exhibited at the National Air and Space Museum. You surely understand that technology evolves, yes? Artemis 1 will be testing the 'next generation' suit design. Oh, wait...
*_"meanwhile look at recent news from August 2022, NASA is going to spend $1 billion to have 2 suits made for a future mission to the moon on the, (ahem), SLS... and no suit has not been developed yet"_*
Yes it has. What on earth is wrong with you?
*_"and this problem has been around for years, and has caused a substantial delay on returning to the moon."_*
What "problem"?
During the day the surface of the moon is around 250 degrees Fahrenheit. At night (dark side) negative 297 degrees Fahrenheit. That is a 547 degree temperature swing during a 25 hour lunar day. The only material that even comes close is Silicon with a range of 400°F to -100°F. We cant do it now, we didn't do it then.
Oh, you’re really spamming your ignorance.
Thinking the Moon has a 25 hour day is a whole new level.
I fail to understand your point. Why do you think those temperatures are even relevant? And, what do you mean by "the only material that even comes close"?
Yeah, I somehow missed the piece of the comment where he said that he thinks a lunar day is 25 hours. Good gods. These people can figure out how to post a message, but, can't figure out how to look up a lunar day. Dewdrop, a lunar day from sunrise to sunrise is 708 hours (essentially a month). Have you never looked up? You see that ball in the sky? It goes through "phases" for about a month. It takes about a month to go from full moon to the next full moon. Guess what? That's a lunar day. I realize your nickname is entirely accurate, but, c'mon man. Did you REALLY believe the entire world's aerospace engineers and physicists can't figure out the length of a lunar day? But, YOU can? And, you've determined it's 25 hours?
@@darts-multiverse And in your last sentence you reveal that you are a conspiracy head too.
Whereas in your earlier sentences you merely revealed that you don’t understand temperature.
Darts:
Dewdrop, you, once again, as you always do, fail to understand basic science. In this case, it's thermodynamics. Things don't instantly heat up or cool down. After the sun comes up in the morning on the moon, it takes about a week for the rocks to heat up to their peak temperature. The astronauts weren't there for a week. They were there for a maximum of 74 hours (roughly 10% of a lunar day). They landed at about the moon equivalent of 6:30am. And, the longest mission only lasted to the moon equivalent of about 9:00am. It wasn't THAT hot yet. When the original poster complained, he was complaining about the same thing you are (wrongly complaining). He thought that things instantly heat up or cool down. They don't. And, the most offensive part of your complaints is that you honestly believe that the 450,000 highly skilled engineers and technicians who worked on Apollo... have all simultaneously forgotten to deal with the thermodynamics on the moon, and you think YOU know better. It's ridiculous. You know NOTHING (as you have proven time and time again).
And, to even mention the nighttime temperatures is ridiculous, because no Apollo mission ever landed on the moon at night. They landed early in the lunar morning, and lifted off in the same lunar morning.
The craft and suits were designed for the amount of temperature swing they'd get. You people are always complaining about how the craft looked. Well, it looks that way BECAUSE they were implementing the proper thermal blanketing and protection from (and radiation of) the heat. And, as for the suits, sorry, but you are painfully unaware of how those things worked also. And, it's just plain silly anyway. A standard fireman's suit can withstand 1000 degrees. A really good fire suit can withstand 2000 degrees. But, you people think the Apollo suits couldn't handle 150? Spare the world your silly notions. Once again, you simply have no idea what you're talking about, and, yet, you think the entire world's engineers don't know as much as you do.
'how did the "moon landing" photos get the the papers the very same day when they supposedly didn't return from the moon for 72 hours. even then it would still take 72 hours to get photos back from the chemist!'
They took pictures of the images on the television monitor.
I'll answer your question in detail if you tell me which conspiracy video you're watching that fed you this line of garbage...?
@@rockethead7 NASA+T=SATAN
You've actually heavily added to my skepticism of the moon landings authenticity. I'd never looked it into but you showed me several concerning claims and refuted none of them in an substantive way. You just brought up the claims and basically admitted you don't have a good counter point to almost al of them besides "take NASAs word for it".
So NASA faked it 6 times total. And the logic to pull off the greatest Hoax in Human history with the whole world watching not just once but 6 times.. What to give everyone extra oppurtunities at exposing the Hoax?
Well, you're correct. He's not the best speaker on these issues. I am very certain that I'm in the top 1% of people when it comes to knowledge about Apollo, and I'd never say some of the stuff that he says. But, about all I can tell you is that the real sources for understanding Apollo aren't CZcams videos to begin with. Go study Apollo itself. Don't watch videos to make up your mind. This guy isn't the best source. But, of course, he's a million times better than the sources that think it's fake. But, it really doesn't matter. The facts stand on their own, regardless of who represents them (or misrepresents them, in the case of the deniers).
you dont believe the SIX, YES SIX moon landings occurred for several reason. reason 1: you are stupid. 2: you have the research skills of a water bear. 3: you have the i.q of a lab rat 4: you have a net worth of MINUS $15 5: you still drive a 1972 pinto that you STILL havent paid off 6: your highest academic achievement was 3rd grade in 1963
@@rockethead7 your senses are not fooling you, humans are! Why don't you trust what you experience? How can you ignore yourself while listening to or reading other peoples manipulation of senses?
@@highwayranger4878 You weren't under the impression that your gibberish meant something meaningful, were you?
The most definitive proof that we landed on the moon is the fact that the USSR did not refute our claim.
plethorex so if you lie nobody refutes it I guess you're telling the truth. LOL
vert422 when the people who have the most reason to call bullshit don't actually do that, you can pretty much assume the person is telling the truth. If the US put out a message tomorrow saying they successfully landed humans on Mars, every single country on earth would say the US was lying. Not a single country, including the USSR said shit about the moon landings except congratulations
plethorex. or maybe there in on it.
vert442 That... makes no sense. The Soviet Union was fighting to show merit in their way of life in the space race, this meant a lot more than just the good of mankind for both sides but most specifically for the Soviet Union. They have a lot more to lose to "be in on it" than to gain
plethorex I totally agree with you👍😎👉🌕🚀