Was the Moon Landing Faked? | This Morning
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 07. 2018
- Subscribe now for more! bit.ly/1JM41yF
We’re joined by Martin Kenny, who believes the landings were faked, and Dr Sarah Bosman who dismisses conspiracy theories as nonsense.
Broadcast on 1/08/18
Like, follow and subscribe to This Morning!
Website: bit.ly/1MsreVq
CZcams: bit.ly/1BxNiLl
Facebook: on. 1FbXnjU
Twitter: bit.ly/1Bs1eI1
This Morning - every weekday on ITV from 10:30am.
Join Holly Willoughby and Phillip Schofield, Ruth Langsford and Eamonn Holmes as we meet the people behind the stories that matter, chat to the hottest celebs and cook up a storm with your favourite chefs!
Dr Zoe and Dr Ranj answer all your health questions, stay stylish with Gok Wan's fabulous fashion, be beautiful with Bryony Blake's top make-up tips, and save money with Martin Lewis.
www.itv.com
www.stv.tv - Zábava
"Never argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but that is because fiction must stick to possibilities; The truth is not!'
Mark Twain
"It is easier to deceive people than to convince them that they have been deceived"
Mark Twain
"If you are not careful, the newspapers will make you hate the Men who are oppressed and love those who do the oppressing."
Malcolm H
*
"One can look, but to see one must learn."
Marguerite Duras
"Strange times are the ones we live in when both old and young are taught lies in school. And the Man who dares to speak the Truth is immediately called a lunatic and a fool.”
Platon
@@biser1901Are you two in a competition to see who can wrongly attribute quotes to Mark Twain? 😂😂😂
I agree with the quotes but can someone tell me why so many people reference Mark Twain quotes in relation to moon landing debates?
The indoctrinated never know they've been indoctrinated and they believe the truth is cause for alarm.
Mark Twain, Is that the only reply you can give? I was expecting more than that. Give me a reasoned argument to prove that the first moonlanding and thereafter were not fake. It is estimated that half the world thinks they were fake. They don't have the technology to get a man to the Moon today, how did they do it over 60 years ago. Back in the 60's things could be hidden. You could not do that now. Thank you very much for your reply.
The technology was 60s outdated technologhy but it got you to the moon, must have been pretty advanced 😂😂😂
If we lost the technology to build cars, and we had a car from the 60s, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't start from scratch, this guy talks pure lies.
Yeah and also ppl do car restorations and a brand of car can definitely rebuild an old car. But no nasas special and was so infront with their technology
The 1960’s was a time of great technological development as British Prime Minister Harold Wilson pointed out in his ‘white heat’ of this ‘scientific revolution’ speech in 1963. From an aeronautical perspective there was supersonic and hypersonic aircraft, spacecraft, satellites and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Amongst a myriad of aircraft, the U.S. produced the hypersonic X15, the supersonic SR71, the HL10 re-entry vehicle and the first operational variable geometry swing wing aircraft - the F111. In Europe we had the supersonic Concorde and Harrier VTOL ‘Jump Jet’.
@@dragyclips have you ever done a restoration on a car depending on how popular the model was it can be very difficult to find the necessary parts.
Less than 20 Saturn V’s were ever built and half a dozen lunar landers. Most of the parts were not off the shelf but were specifically made just for those vehicles.
Don't forget we flew a 1970's space shuttle around for like 40yrs... it was the only tech that DIDN'T advance drastically in that time, lol
We have no idea of truth
Actually not the biggest lie told there are many
If Sara could hear herself, OMG, how stupid. We figured out how to do it, but it was so long ago there's no point in keeping it. Wow.
Technology regresses all the time because of a lack of driving impetus. We no longer fly supersonic, electric cars were absent from our roads for 70 years after their first appearance, and after the Romans fell, many technologies disappeared for a millennium.
But of course there was also a lone gunman in Dealey Plaza Dallas huh !
@@jackreacher8858 yes, there were several "lone gunmen." James Files, Charles Nicoletti, "Saul" (ref. Appointment in Dallas by Sheriff Hugh McDonald). And then, of course LHO, who was the patsy. Accidentally photographed standing in the Texas School Depository doorway during the shooting.
@@jackreacher8858 Indeed there was.
So.... The tech that took them to the moon is now obsolete? Why is that?
Because it is almost 60 years old. Do you use much tech still that old?
@Kit Canyon no... but common sense would tell you there would be improvements since then that work better. We don't drive model T cars anymore. They are obsolete. There are better cars now. The fact that you ask such an ignorant comment also explains why we haven't been back to the moon. The dumbing down of humanity.
@Kit Canyon strange world we live in with your kind of logic.
@@JenJHayden : what? Why are vacuum tubes obsolete when making tvs?
You logic is flawed. Funny how you weren’t able to explain your claim.
@@JenJHayden : Ah, I see now that you did give more details to your line of thought, which is good.
I responded to the original post just as he did; literally he demanded to know why were aren't using tech created back in the 60s. What is so hard about that to understand?
Of course we make improvements and new developments. That's not what he asked about and you know it. He is clearly a denier and trying to sound relevant. I simple called him out on that claim.
An educated person would simply ask what at the limitations to using current technology. But that's not his cause.
The comment section was closed all these years what happend?
I think I started it off.
Piers left.
There is obvious bias here, on CZcams. Pitiful really.
@@charles_preston Kenny is a conspiracy loony tune who doesn't know anything.
@@gunternetzer9621 The 'scientist' completely failed to impress me.
I actually don't believe the US ever went to the US
Ha! I like the way yo think. The letter "" and "" are a hoax. They do not exit.
why does she sound so frightened?
She sounds fine.
@@gives_bad_advice you give bad advice
I agree it's not possible, we can't get through the Van Allen radiation belt.
What do you know about the Van Allen beltS that James Van Allen (or any other expert for that matter) didn't know?
@@rockethead7 no human can pass through.
Why didn't James Van Allen agree with you? Why don't any of the aerospace engineers on the planet know this? When NASA tells you that there are radiation belts, you believe them? When NASA tells you the level of radiation in them, you don't believe them?
@@oSTYNCLSYo"no human can pass through"
Source?
Von Braun said it would take a rocket the size of the Empire State Building to go to the moon!
The Saturn 5 was pretty damn big. He must have decided it was good enough, and it was!
That was to get to the Moon using the direct ascent method (one rocket there and back) which they dropped in favour of lunar orbit rendezvous.
Sucks not to actually research things, right?
@Kit Canyon why nobody went there in decades?
@@clarkkent4665 : Why do you think? I get the idea that you think it is just like hoping on a bus, right? A simple thing that doesn't cost much.
You need an education, son. And I'm not talking about conspiracy videos.
Going to the moon is incredibly hard and expensive. Are you going to pay for it? Plus, they landed and explored 6 different times at different location. Things don't last forever.
And on a historical note, the first time mankind traveled to the deepest part of the ocean was in 1960. The next time anyone did that? It took over 50 years to return there.
Thus, are you claiming that the first trip in 1960 was faked?
Beside basic educations in science, math, engineering and manufacturing you need some lessons in simple logic.
Notice after the first question was answered she said and now from the science perspective.Since when did we start worshipping science.We all have common sense.
Worshipping? What technology do you use that is not science related?
Do you have a question? Please ask. What about this does not make sense?
@Usul
Do I have a question?
No, I made a statement. A statement was made viz; "since when did we start worshipping science?"
My, reply was;
What technology do you use that is not science related?
If no one is worshipping science, then why use mobile phones, TV, microwave ovens, computers, ad inifinitum.
I trust this clears the confusion for you.
@@Testequip I was addressing @davidhepburn9328. Totally confused by the commentary, though. Not sure what you mean.
Common sense doesn't build rockets that go to the Moon. Science does.
You archive files not destroy!
They are archived and easily found online. What do you want to know? There are more pages of Apollo program technical documents, mission reports, research studies, etc than you could read in your lifetime.
@@jmp4177 well that's implying that people like him could even read
you destroy them when they are fake!
Thats like in any companies, if something was covered up only the senior members will know and the other staff members won't have a clue.
Biggest lie of all time.
😂 at them saying they don't have the technology no more. Hilarious!!!!
There are thousands who would have to know.
@peteconrad2077 not true. Example 10 people can know something or less and then a whole floor can be kept under the dark. They just believe what they are told.
NASA did not lose the technology to go to the Moon in the sense that it was forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappeared. A lot of the blueprints still exist on file; but the individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Experts spanning the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, and photography all say we’ve been to the Moon, and it’s usually a good idea to defer to experts on matters in which you are, in fact, not one.
@@mc-mc7qr It was one of the most public events of the 20th century viewed around the world and would have to have been a conspiracy involving hundreds of different people from many different countries over decades, including Great Britain, the former Soviet Union, France, Australia, Italy, Germany, China, Japan and India who were not even employed by NASA, and from which not one credible witness has ever emerged. It would also have been impossible to cover up for such a length of time; the Watergate conspirators couldn’t keep their escapade silent for more than a few months.
The dust thrown up by the rover lands in a way impossible in an atmosphere as on earth and there is so much third-party corroboration; for example, the spacecraft were tracked to the moon, the rock and soil samples have been authenticated by many different scientists around the world for decades. Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes have also photographed and or observed the equipment left behind at various Apollo landing sites.
Experts spanning the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, and photography all say we’ve been to the Moon, and it’s usually a good idea to defer to experts on matters in which you are, in fact, not one.
@gunternetzer9621 Who you trying to fool? Lol.
By the way, the title of this video is a misnomer. There were six (6) landings. And one (1) cis-lunar abort.
Is cis like trans-moon?
And two more that orbited without landing. Missions 8 and 10.
@@dansv1 - oh, yeah! To my way of thinking, Apollo 8 was at least as much of a giant leap as 11.
@@JenJHayden
No, it’s the opposite.
“-The prefix “cis-” comes from the Latin meaning “on this side,” as opposed to “trans-” which means “on the other side of” or “beyond.”
Some more interesting info: “Cislunar space (alternatively, cis-lunar space) is the volume within the Moon's orbit, or a sphere formed by rotating that orbit. Volumes within that such as low earth orbit (LEO) are distinguished by other names. Practically, cislunar space is a useful label for "the volume between geostationary orbit and the moon's orbit". Beyond cislunar space lies translunar space.
Cis-lunar is Latin for "on this side of the moon" but also "not beyond the moon".
@dansv1
I didn't know that. I just learnt something new. Thanks for the info
She said that it would cost too much money to rebuild 1960s technology with a straight face.
It would because the old technology isn't there.
There are no 1960’s IBM mainframe computers to navigate the craft from ground radar data. There are no companies that produce the hand-woven flight computers that were inside the lunar module. Grumman, the company that built the lunar module, is long gone, absorbed by a bigger company. North American Aviation, the company that built the command module, no longer exists in any form. TRW, one of the companies that made the rocket engines, went out of business 20 years ago.
No aerospace company builds any equipment for 100% oxygen environments any longer (which is what Apollo used). There are no launchpads capable of launching a Saturn V rocket. All the buildings and tools to construct the equipment are long gone. Nobody in the world uses 1960’s style radar any longer. The communications systems have long since been replaced by more modern systems. Hamilton Standard, who made the PLSS backpacks, went out of business in the 1990’s. It's long been understood by anybody in aerospace engineering that it's far faster, easier, better, and cheaper to simply take the lessons learned by older programmes, and start from scratch, rather than trying to build carbon copies of old equipment. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
But they destroyed the knowledge of building all the tech and telemetry data that would be useful in making new technology that could be used to go back to the moon more cost-effectively. Creating 1960s tech is easier to make than building a smartphone like the iPhone.
@@pdhud Maine if knowledge was in the skills of men who’ve since died.
@@peteconrad2077 Humans have passed on knowledge for thousands of years. In fact, you can see them in museums. Think about the industrial revolution just in the 20th century, you can find many modes of steam engines etc. But for the moon landing, NASA in the modern era, didn't care to document anything. Not even telemetry data which would add to their claim.
@@pdhud
The spacecraft are in many museums around the world just like the steam engines you mention.
NASA did not lose the technology to go to the Moon in the sense that it was forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappeared. A lot of the blueprints still exist on file; but the individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
NASA did not lose the telemetry tapes from Apollo 11 but rather the taped recordings of raw analogue video transmitted back from the spacecraft. The tapes were made using specially designed, high-capacity recording gear in order to capture the raw transmissions at the point of receipt in case anything should go wrong with the elaborate system used to convert them to a standard broadcast signal. Nothing did go wrong, and once the conversion and transmission was complete, the recordings were no longer needed for their original purpose. Any magnetic recording media has a limited life. The magnetic fields of the stored data decay over time. For this reason, and because high-grade tapes were very expensive, they were never considered an archival medium. It may seem odd today, but in 1969, the second-hand copies filmed off specially built, flat screen CRT displays were considered the archival copies, and we still have a number of these, including some shot by NASA and some shot third or fourth hand by television networks and affiliates.
It’s run from the top of the pyramid system. My father worked on the manhattan project and never knew what he as doing. It on a need to know basis
It has been done many times... in many ways. Like the Free Masons!
*_"It’s run from the top of the pyramid system."_*
Confirmation that you know absolutely nothing about the structure, the culture and the philosophy behind the Apollo Programme.
Perhaps you can explain how Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman?
@@marksprague1280 What difference does it make?
@@charles_preston To members of the Flat Earth or Landing Denial Cults, probably no difference, as they lack the wit to comprehend the implications.
Amazing Martin go forward🙂
238,000 Miles and you have to get back with no filling stations , anyone know the MPG on Apollo 11, or would it be GPM , Maybe the reason for not going back is NASA are still charging an electric or hybrid rocket up from the 1970's .Surely NASA would want to keep all Data as archives somewhere.
You don’t need any more fuel once your in your way. Read a book.
@@SVegan-de6gc it’s not. It’s ignorant.
@@SVegan-de6gc not wow. It’s simple science. If you took a moment to look into the way it works you wouldn’t be making such ignorant comments.
And yet half a century later...which in tech and science FACTS still says we cant get there ...hmm...im a sceptic and beleive it is possible but was it ?
Read my comments.
No logic! NASA actually claims that key data were erased by accident?!?!
😅😂its called deconstruction. If you can't see, feel or touch it never happened.
😂😂 they still can’t come up with a intelligent answer to why they can’t go to moon. Because they never went.
I did not hear anyone say we cannot go to the moon. Who says we cannot go to the moon?
@@Usul obviously you wasn’t paying attention, just like when you was in school. That’s exactly what nasa said, they can’t go back.
@@dwightjackson2614, Where did NASA say this? Please provide a reference.
The individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” and have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. There is also no cold war imperative and no time limit publically placed on it by a president. We also live in much more risk averse times. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
@@gunternetzer9621 dude you wrote a book, you have to find a job or a hobby. You obviously have to much time on your hands 🤣 to sum it up you still didn’t give a intelligent answer that made sense 😂😂😂
As soon as you hear "P900 camera" you know you are dealing with someone with a non conventional outlook.
why, what is that?
Bill Kaysing said the strongest vid evidence was the lack of a crater as the rickety LEM 'vehicle' lifts off from the surface. Looks more like a theatrical prop lifted by a crane to me.
@offgrid444 Oh, Bill Kaysing, you mean that fake con man who had NO technical education of any description, yet tried to claim he was an "engineer', and didn't even believe Apollo was faked when he started the 'Moon Hoax", the Bill Kaysing who lives alone in the desert with a bunch of cats, claims to have been the target of several CIA assassination attempts, then advertises where he lives, alone in the desert, on a national TV documentary?
THAT Bill Kaysing.
Apollo is a well proven historical FACT.
Looks can be deceiving, and Kaysing's was a con artist out to make a quick buck
Ok mr expert
The 'technology' on display is laughable, at best! Let's get real.
@@charles_preston Because you said so?
Look who needs to "get real".
They need to find a better scientist next time. She isn't good.
a 100,000 pound I would say isn't used for basic photography lol
Under £1000.
Has anyone with these hi-tec cameras been able to see the flag or anything else like the buggies left on the moon???
Or the golf cart buggy
@@gulfy09Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes have photographed and or observed the equipment left behind at various Apollo landing sites.
The flag is too small but yes there are photos of the landing descent stages of all 6 lunar modules still on the moon
the Chinese have a low lunar orbit satellite that i believe is capable to taking photos with enough resolution to see the shadows cast by the flags.
Yeh you can clearly see the track marks left, there’s pics online
i got to meet neil, when i was younger.. what. an. honor. i smiled for 2 weeks straight.. i always look up.. single mom wishing i was part of the NASA, life got away from me.. i always look up still.. im obsessed to whats beyond our capabilities of exploring. they did land on the moon... it must be sad to believe and live this way....(in a box)
His argument is WAY MORE convincing... than hers. Wake up!
@@charles_prestonPerhaos you can explain the photographs of Apollo landing sites taken by lunar probes from 4 different countries?
@@marksprague1280no one is saying probes have not gone to the moon and various other planets , the big question is did we send a man to the moon
@@richkavanagh2778 OK. Now explain away the fact that probes from 4 different countries have sent back photos of Apollo landing sites.
@@marksprague1280 bro I can’t go in to it that deep because I’m on the fence I really am , but I just can’t get my head round 1969 live broadcasts to UK,USA etc . I mean they barely had colour tv and the Van Allen Belts no one can get Though them in 2024 . Can you show me evidence of the moon landings ?? I’m still not sure these missions you speak of prove it , I wish they did as love space exploration but they lie don’t they . With this fake global pandemic “the bats” I’m struggling now as I’m sure millions are
(( NASA; "We destroyed the technology to go back to the moon")) 🤣🤣🤣
Wrong.
They ended the program and got rid of all the infrastructure,
Put more accurately, the US Congress "destroyed" the moon program through a cessation of funding for lunar missions. NASA reprioritized its missions to align with what it could afford, then stuffed tons of money into the shuttle program.
Funding... Nasa gets 10milions per day and they still need a Funding... 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about the topic. Dewdrop, congress controls NASA's money. They don't just hand NASA a budget and say "there you go, do whatever you feel like." Each and every program NASA runs is funded separately, and individually approved by congress. NASA cannot take a billion assigned for jet research and just decide to build a rocket with it instead. They cannot take a billion assigned for atmospheric or glacier studies and build a lunar craft instead. You seem quite proud to have zero understanding of the words you write.
In the end she says other countries would have to be in on it but no they wouldn’t the usa could’ve easily lied and made everyone else including other countries think its real and it could be done for self image, the space race to see which country should be deemed as the most innovative and advanced one.
It was one of the most public events of the 20th century viewed around the world and would have to have been a conspiracy involving HUNDREDS of different people from many different countries over DECADES, including Great Britain, the former Soviet Union, France, Australia, Italy, Germany, China, Japan and India, from which not one credible witness has ever emerged. It would also have been impossible to cover up for such a length of time; the Watergate conspirators couldn’t keep their escapade silent for more than a few months.
There is so much third-party corroboration; for example, the spacecraft were tracked to the moon, the rock and soil samples have been authenticated by many different scientists around the world for decades. Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes have also photographed and or observed the equipment left behind at various Apollo landing sites.
" the usa could’ve easily lied and made everyone else including other countries think its real"
you don't understand all the implications. Russia had the ability to track our spacecraft and monitor the activities of NASA from orbit during the space race. and China has LROs up there right now capable of resolving down to a few meters. you're just taking pot shot guesses based on very little knowledge
No, they would have needed to have been in on it. Every Apollo mission was actively sending back radio waves to Earth which was how they could communicate with NASA and how NASA could triangulate their position. This was however possible by anyone with the equipment for recieving these radio waves. And as such every country with this technology was listening, including the Soviet Union. They would have easily been able to triangulate where the ship was at any point and when they tried to and realised it wasn't there they would have known the whole thing was a hoax
It was during the peak of the cold war. If the moon landing is faked, the Soviet would've immediately found out and blew it all wide open. Or are you suggesting the Soviet secretly works with the US, during the cold war, to protect a secret that made the US look great and the Soviet look like a loser for losing the space race?
The UK, Australia and USSR independently picked up the Apollo transmissions from the moon so yes they would need to be in on it.
funding, she said it, the real reason NASA
Wow! If they had funding in 72, I'm sure they have funding now
@@ashian23x65 Once Apollo 11 had returned from the Moon and President Kennedy's goal had been achieved, cutbacks began under Richard Nixon during a widescale retreat from technology projects due to competing demands e.g. Vietnam War, 70’s recession, public apathy and of course, Nixon never liked Kennedy and didn’t want to prolong his legacy.
It was extremely expensive; each mission cost $1 billion to put two men on the Moon for a maximum of 3 days, a sum which was not financially sustainable, and it was extremely dangerous. Out of 12 manned Apollo missions, including a ground test, there was one catastrophic failure (Apollo 1) and a mission failure (Apollo 13), that’s a terrible ratio.
The speed with which it was possible to land an American on the Moon was a function of the military missile race and President Kennedy’s decision, in the face of Russian space successes, (and to save his own political reputation after the Bay of Pigs disaster) to turn the moon project into the ultimate symbol of American prestige.
There was/is no political imperative to go back to the Moon as there was to get there in the 1960’s Cold War, which was a completely different time. Even Apollo astronaut Frank Borman said. 'Any idea that the Apollo programme was a great voyage of exploration or scientific endeavour is nuts. People just aren't that excited about exploration. They were sure excited about beating the Russians.’
@@ashian23x65 "Wow! If they had funding in 72, I'm sure they have funding now"
this isn't something you have to guess at. NASA's historic budget is a matter of public record.
The Moon is focused plasma phenomenon of negative cosmic energy. It shows the X-ray of the base of the Earth. The geometry of the source of cosmic energy below creates its phases. It happens in a semiaetherial environment and is from phosphorised Kr (krypton) 👁️
It also makes a delicious queso dip. Loved the hilarious comment.
Easy to control 20 people
you are not a junior high school teacher
@@gives_bad_advice
24 adults could easily be paid to keep a secret
@@wlfrnfdjf The problem is the rockets don't build themselves, don't launch themselves, the astronauts need tons of training, everything has to be tested, tons of people saw the launches, and there are tons of other space programs. If Russia didn't have reason to call fake, I doubt some simpletons making youtube videos could.
You are not a middle school teacher.
She reminds me of a Bobs Burger careacter!! 😊😊
The flat-earther moon-hoax cult-leader guy is a former chef... So maybe this is an episode of Bob's Burgers.
We destroyed all documents because they were obsolete!!!!! She gives this reasoning and calls herself a scientist. That's the most pathetic argument ever.
"We destroyed all documents" ....... "She gives this reasoning".....I think that you need to watch the video again and this time listen to it. She never mentions about "destroying documents" whatsoever. She clearly says that the Apollo era technology is obsolete which is an obvious fact. Please get your facts correct. Take care.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth ,the 'obsolete' technology got them to the moon and they don't have anything in modern technology to repeat the feat again! Yet they discarded it. How about having some common sense first before they call themselves scientists.
How dare you
NASA did not lose the technology to go to the Moon in the sense that it was forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappeared. A lot of the blueprints still exist on file; but the individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
I say Martin won I call cap on the scientists argument.
Kenny didn't offer any science at all, just a load of cobblers.
You go ahead and call cap all you want
A built and launched rocket doesn’t mean it made it to the moon…
A working super heavy lift rocket is the biggest difficulty to overcome - the whole process is reliant on that, otherwise you can't get anything past Earth orbit to the Moon. The Russians couldn't get their version to work which is why they couldn't get to the Moon.
She’s absolutely delusional. 🤦🏻😂
He's delusional. NASA did not lose the technology to go to the Moon in the sense that it was forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappeared. A lot of the blueprints still exist on file; but the individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost. And on top of that, much of the equipment is incredibly dated, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better.
If you study this subject and understand the science, historical perspective and the equipment and procedures used, you will come to the conclusion that limited spaceflight was perfectly possible in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, and that the United States did in fact put men on the Moon.
It was one of the most public events of the 20th century viewed around the world and would have to have been a conspiracy involving hundreds of different people from many different countries over decades, including Great Britain, the former Soviet Union, France, Australia, Italy, Germany, China, Japan and India, from which not one credible witness has ever emerged. It would also have been impossible to cover up for such a length of time; the Watergate conspirators couldn’t keep their escapade silent for more than a few months.
There is so much third-party corroboration; for example, the spacecraft were tracked to the moon, the rock and soil samples have been authenticated by many different scientists around the world for decades. Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes have also photographed and or observed the equipment left behind at various Apollo landing sites.
@@gunternetzer9621 - anyone who believes the fraud theory is not going to be able to understand or appreciate what you're saying here. that's why they usually don't answer follow-up questions
@@gunternetzer9621 They destroyed the technology, recorded over the video, and lost the data.
@@gunternetzer9621 Is one Jewish family who has their offspring controlling every country in the world.
Come on...
Why do u think all the kings, presidents etcr are all Jews.
They keep it all in the family.
Gentiles are kept out of it.
One Jew can easily control and manipulate 1 million sheeps.
@@gunternetzer9621 denial much?
how can u declare its illuminary whithout having knowledge about it strange mind
One scientist thought the moon was plasma. It may be a bioluminescent and is under water.
yes, these people are real. the good new is that they are not intelligent enough to read a ballot.
Auguste Piccard once said, after reaching a record high altitude decades ago that the world looked completely flat with upturned edges… His exact words.. Come on tossers… start discrediting what this great explorer sa with his own eyes.
“In the country of the blind. The one-eyed man is king”
Yes it is called The ice wall, another reason The Antarctica treaty was signed by so many countries including Russia in the 1950’s..
They never talk about THAT now do they?!
It s as real as "the good guys won ww2" 😂
Moon Landing is real
Guys you should search where's mk now
watch Capricorn One the Movie then you will Know.
Watch a work of fantasy fiction and you'll know what precisely?
Because he sees more than she or they do, it’s not a cover up it is just that people are closed minded
I think it's more a text-book example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. What he sees is merely misunderstanding, or his succumbed to the nonsense purported by conspiracy theorists
Yes - him.
It's a cover-up.
He sees more than she does? She has a M.Sci. in astrophysics and PhD in cosmology, he is a random dude who went on the internet once
@@ivandarmawan9372 I don't care about her diplomae... I care if she can make a clear & convincing argument...
And the answer is a resounding NO!
4:15. Funding moved from lunar exploration to the space shuttle. Easy answer.
@@charles_preston what? I don’t understand what you’re saying. Why would I lie?
@@michaelsinkler3069 Bon voyage!
@@charles_preston ok
It's translucent 😅🤣
Strangely, they used that kind of old technology to go to the moon and sucessful but why can't they use the same machine to go back? The circumstances, environment of the moon hasn't changed. If they can do it 60years ago why now no...😮
For the exact same reasons that they don't fly Concordes any longer. They were massively inefficient machines, with little or no return on investment (other than political). The technology from the 1960s is outdated now, and it's far too difficult to retrofit worldwide communications and radar tracking systems to those old standards. And, the circumstances HAVE changed. They lost the political support to keeping them flying, and every single flight lost money.
Also, for moon missions, sorry, but nobody wants another Apollo. It was far too limited. They want longer missions, more payload, more choices about where to land (Apollo had a very narrow band of possible landing sites), more ability to explore further distances, more experiments, more people, better environmental controls, etc. And, they want to do it on 1/10th of the money that Apollo costed.
The only argument the woman has is "how they could cover it up"? Very scientific. 😂
Why are you embarrassing yourself?
Have you ever done anything scientific in your life? Go ahead and lie to me.
@@jasonhickmann4344 this video is not about me. Stop your attacks.
That wasn't her only argument and in fact it is scientific.
could you be more specific?@@gunternetzer9621
The hoaxer in this video is completely ignorant. No they did not "destroy" the data. There are online archives where you can easily find thousands of pages of mission reports, technical designs, radiation studies, etc. Just the other day, I was looking for info on the Apollo 11 lander and in about 12 seconds of searching, I found 4,300 pages from various technical documents, just on the lunar module.
KINDLY GIVE ME THE LINKS . tHANK YOU
The hoaxers are the ones that LIED to us all. You are just a 🐑
Is there any in books published long before the internet…because those you’re talking about could very well be fake
@@wlfrnfdjf Recommended: Exploring the Planets - (Ian Nicolson BSc, astronomer, 1970), Rockets and Missiles - (John W. R. Taylor, writer & aircraft designer, 1970), Invasion of the Moon 1957 to 1970 - (Peter Ryan, Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society, 1971), A Man on the Moon - The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts (Andrew Chaikin, 1998), The Man Who Ran the Moon (Piers Bizony, 2007), NASA Moon Missions - (Haynes Manual, 2019)
@@wlfrnfdjf you think someone faked those thousands of pages of technical documents, containing data that you can verify and calculations that you can calculate yourself and find to be accurate, just so that they APPEAR to have been gone the moon, instead of using all those data and calculations to just, you know, go to the moon. Is that really what you think?
dr sarah wasnt born how does she know anything
The bloke arguing that we didn’t go to the moon is talking nonsense with no real understanding of science or technology! He babbles on with his point, then the cosmologist instantly corrects him… I think we need to ask him, what qualifications does he have?
😂😂😂 yall never went to the moon 😂😂
The Chinese orbiter which is orbiting the moon and taking photos has photographed every single landing site !!
They could very well be lying…I don’t believe anything China says
😂😂😂😂 you can use photoshop too
@@user-fl4jv3gc7w They didn't have photoshop in the 1960's !!
Absolutely landing never happened.
Why not
Ahh he lost me when he called the moon "Illuminary." Maybe we've been to the moon, maybe not, but uhhhh it is a tangible thing. That wild take discredited his whole argument, to me. That's like people who sceram and shout about something you might believe in, and then they say something totally insane, and you're like...ooooo, okay, I WAS with you, but now I know you better, and I gotta dip out"
The Bible also backs up what he is saying as does the book of Enoch.
Actually so do my eyes but most people prefer to believe ‘The Emperors New Clothes’ version of the moon..
You can't see through tangible things. Sometimes you can see a star through the moon.
Ah yes, he knows this. I wonder how he knows.
So you actually cannot decide.... whether the story is real, or a hoax? 🤣
The presenters constantly interrupt martin mid sentence, and let sarah finish. This is before any of them have even said much, so they already have a bias / premeditated agenda. They don't even realise this is a detriment to them being respected in a debate
Even if you don't agree with the opinion of someone else on any subject, have the respect/courtesy/politeness to let them finish their sentence before constantly unterrupting and trying to herd mentality everyone else into laughing at them. I mean it's not like someone is sat here claiming the earth doesnt exist, or the earth is made of cheese. If they are saying silly things that can be 100% instantly verified (the moon landing isn't one of those things) they don't need you to "kick them whilst their down".
The way they just laugh and shake their heads like they 100% know what happened, and want everyone to laugh at another human is more cringe imo. At it's bottom line, they are basically bullying him. None of them have any clue what happened and just believing what they have read / been told.
Martin also raises a perfectly valid point that back then nobody had the means / technology to even attempt to research / verifiy / think criticially about what they were being told. Everyone probably just virtue signalled and agreed with everyone which is a pretty cringe human behaviour if you have no way of knowing what actually happened. In before some clown says "you must be a flat earther" just because I expect more in a debate. Get a grip
The biggest fake ever. No man has been to the moon.
So any actual evidence to back up your claim?
According to Dr. Sarah Bosman, the U.S. didn't go back to the Moon because the old technolgy that got us there was destroyed. Now, if I wanted to drive a '64 Ford Mustang from California to New York, even though it's 60 years old, and uses outdated technology, I could still get there, along with all the new technologies and new vehicles on the road. In a word, Sarah's argument falls flat and doesn't answer the question as to why we never went back, even with the advent of newer and more cost effective technologies.
Sarah's next mental gaffe is in thinking that everyone who manufactured parts, or worked at NASA knew what the Top Brass had on their minds. She also does not take into consideration that there were hundreds, if not thousands of agencies, manufacturers, and departments that participated on this project. It's called decompartmentalism, and it breaks down organizations into tiny departments, allowing them to focus on a particular job, while never allowing the right hand to know what the left is doing. Keep in mind, the government within the government controls the media, military, public schools, and the official narrative, so no more than a few dozen had to be in on it. If a manufacturer tells its workers to make a million screws, and bolts, they don't ask what they will be used for or what the customer wants to do with them. Who does that?
Your argument concerning the integration of Apollo demonstrates precisely why a programme of the complexity, transparency and sheer scale would have been utterly impossible to fake.
Regarding technology being "destroyed", in addition to Dr. Bosman, one astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those dimwits that parrot their quote mined nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place their comment within it's full and intended context - the rest of the interview, then it's abundantly clear what they are referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of its commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit himself was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo.
"if I wanted to drive a '64 Ford Mustang from California to New York, even though it's 60 years old, and uses outdated technology, I could still get there"
This just demonstrates how little you understand about the topic. This is an incorrect analogy for many reasons. The Saturn V rocket, the command module, and the Grumman lander, are NOT Ford Mustangs. To drive a Mustang, it takes one person. To get a Saturn V off the ground, it takes thousands of highly trained personnel. To fly it to the moon takes thousands more. There are no functional command modules. There are no functional landers. There are no functional Saturn V rockets. Everything remaining (there's not much left, almost all of it was used) that it takes to get to the moon was gutted and put into museums. There are no launch facilities capable of getting one off the ground. There are no IBM mainframe guidance computers. There's only one working onboard guidance computer remaining, and they'd need at least two. There are no training facilities. There are no lunar landing simulators (LLTVs/LLRVs). The company that built the command modules doesn't exist any longer. The company that built the landers was absorbed by a larger company. Most of the people who designed and built everything to go to the moon is long dead or retired. So, no, dewdrop, your analogy to a Ford Mustang doesn't work.
"no more than a few dozen had to be in on it"
Ridiculous nonsense. There were 24 men who flew to the moon, so that's two dozen right there. And, sorry, but "compartmentalization" isn't accurate in the least amount. All of these systems were highly integrated. There was no concept of merely ordering a pile of bolts and a pile of nuts, and the makers of the bolts don't know what the makers of the nuts are doing. All of these systems were hand built, and every system had to work with other systems built by other companies. One of the most monumental tasks NASA mastered during Apollo was in getting all of the contractors to work together to produce a complete system. And, if you actually believe that hundreds of thousands of people built stuff that they figured would work to get to the moon, why not just go? What did these "dozens" of people know that the hundreds of thousands didn't? If Grumman thought the landers would land, why not just go? If North American Aviation thought the command modules would fly, why not just fly them? What did these "dozens" somehow know that would have prevented them from just taking the equipment that the contractors built, and use it to go to the moon?
@@rockethead7 : I believe you missed my point entirely and are failing to see the picture clearly.
Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you didn't read the answers to your own statements/questions.
That made of cheese questions was so insulting to Sarah.
She is covering it up also. So delusional
Unconsciously that is, since Martin probably knew this as well but forgot to point it out unless he just doesn’t know that part of people unconsciously being involved in the mass indoctrination, propaganda, misinformation etc… so the “cosmologist” and “Astrophysicist” isn’t necessarily delusional but rather blind to the truth of these so called “conspiracy theories” as if their “Theories” isn’t really just hypotheses, so I wonder why they call those “conspiracy theories” that instead of “conspiracy hypotheses”?
Yeah. That’s hypocrisy and stupidity at it’s purest form and that is at best, at worst it would be self-disrespect [To one’s intellect] and pointless stubbornness to crazy facts and concepts (“conspiracy theories” as they like to them) that ironically comes from the absurdity of their beliefs and even their opinions at times.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
You are the one living in a fantasy my friend
@willzi9265 No you definitely are my friend
Actually it did
Exactly no way you can land on the moon its illuminated
Yep fake
Let's spend all the taxes on wars!
There covering up to still the money
What money NASA barely gets any money from the government. The Pentagon has more than NASA’s yearly budget go missing every year.
If it was a lie. Why did they repeat it 6 times? These guys used to be sad loners sitting in the corner of pubs, now with the internet they can find others to spread the "truth".
Bingo
Six times 😂😂😂😂😂
He says he wants all the data so he can study it yet when he's given all the data about a spherical earth he still believes it's flat 🙄
That’s because all the data relating to globe earth has been debunked and proven to not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Do you honestly think you’re spinning on a globe at nearly 1000mph!.. your globetard fake facts are nauseating.. go and lie down and rethink your life
He is not a flat Earther, he thinks that humans didn't land on the moon. He is wrong, anyway.
@@user-bk9fk2tq2z oh he IS a flat earther, just watch another video on this same channel about interviews with flat earthers
@@ivandarmawan9372 Yep, my comment is a bit old and I know that he is a conspiracy theory nutcase who thinks that the Earth is flat and that the moon landings aren't real.
Just watch a funny thing happened on the way to the moon
Yep, if you like unsubstantiated allegations made without even the slightest piece of evidence being produced. Take care.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth yeah ok you keep telling yourself that it's got the 3 astronauts faking halfway to the moon plank you people can't handle the truth
@@mikereed8181
They didn't though. Bart Sibrel just told you that and knowing absolutely nothing about the subject and being highly suggestible and impressionable, you allowed yourself to be duped by him.
@@yassassin6425 duped there on camera faking i have eyes to see plus i know they never went there was no protection round the rocket you would have had to have probably six metre thick lead protection and they never i don't even think there suits where protected
It’s a crying shame that there are people out there basically discrediting and disrespecting thousands and thousands scientists, technicians mathematicians. It is horrible and disgusting
When people cannot actually do anything significant with their lives, they often choose to pretend that they are. For these folks, it's pretending that they have "inside knowledge" and that somehow they know more than the thousands of scientists, technicians, and mathematicians. Those people have no hope of ever being any of those things. So, for them, pretending that they have somehow "outsmarted" everyone on Earth is what gives their lives meaning.
"There's people researching it"
Bruh - surfing 4chan and reddit is not research.
We haven’t been to the moon for the simple reason it’s way too cold for anything to function properly, I bet you 🐑didn’t know that it’s like -250 & +250 just look at what they were wearing. Everest X100😱🤔🧐😘
You should have studied a bit before commenting
(1) "that it’s like -250 & +250 "...If you are referring to lunar temperatures then pleas give the units, otherwise what you write are just meaningless numbers.
(2) The lunar temperatures during the 6 landings were nowhere the figures that you quoted (in any unit system). The measured temperature range during the Apollo 11 mission for example was -23C to 7C. Take care.
@theflatearthtruth1920 obviously they meant degrees centigrade or fahrenheit lol 😅
Honestly, I have a hard time believing the temperature is only -23 on the moon at it's coldest. The range of -23 to 7 is incredibly small
@@nezkeys79 Thank you for your comment. The lunar day/night cycle is roughly 29 Earth days long and over this time the surface temperature of the moon can vary from a daytime max of about 120°C to a min at night of about -130°C. However it takes time (several Earth days) for the lunar ground to heat up so this is why all 6 lunar landing occurred just after lunar dawn when the temperatures were near the middle of this range. The -23°C to 7°C was the recorded temperature range while the Apollo 11 astronauts were on the moon's surface, not the max and min temperatures that can occur on the moon's surface. I can link you to the original technical reports which will also give details of the construction and operation of the resistance thermometer that was used. Take care.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruthwhat's the min that can happen then?
I just love this nonsense. And Eamon not knowing the last Apollo mission was in 1972, shows poor research by the Good Morning producers. It’s hilarious if if wasn’t that seemingly sensible folk believe that over 400,000 people involved in the Apollo project have kept quiet for the last 50 odd years. Never mind all the other stuff such as a prism that we can bounce a laser off it to get the exact distance the moon is from the Earth. Or it that fake as well? As I say ‘Hilarious.’
Compartmentalization.
Thank you!@@1Corinthians15.1-4
for real.@@1Corinthians15.1-4
@@1Corinthians15.1-4
Conspiracy theorists often claim that scientists are compartmentalized to suggest that knowledge within the scientific community is intentionally restricted or controlled.
'They' argue that scientists work in isolated compartments, unaware of the broader picture, to manipulate information. However, this notion is generally unfounded, as collaboration and open communication are fundamental aspects of scientific research, allowing for the exchange of ideas and findings across disciplines. Hence your claim is unfounded!
@@1Corinthians15.1-4 You want to talk about compartmentalization? Let me tell you about the Manhattan Project, the most stringently guarded secret in history. All the research directly related to the bomb was performed on a mesa top in what was then a remote section of New Mexico. The participants and their families were completely cut off from the outside world, surrounded by armed troops, barbed wire, high cliffs, and miles of inhospitable territory. People left only on urgent lab business, and traveled with false IDs. Even the members of the local Boy Scout troop were known to their district headquarters only as "boy 1", "boy 2", etc.
Despite all this, Stalin knew about the bomb before being officially informed at Potsdam.
I believe they landed on the moon, since it's not really all that far away, by spaceship.
Stop discouraging people from questioning what they have been taught. We do not have to blindly believe everything we've been told, in fact, to do so can be disastrous. I don't know if we made it to the moon, - but I have had questions myself, since childhood. Everytime I ask a logical question regarding this landing, walk, footage.. People get mad or mock me. I find when you get those two reactions, in particular, there is usually more to a story and your questions aren't anticipated, which causes either an anger response or one of mockery. I say question everything. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am a critical thinker and some things do not make sense regarding "Man's Greatest Accomplishment" --And before you ask, I am NOT a flat earther.
You can ask questions. But if you see something that you can't explain, it doesn't mean it is fake or a lie or a conspiracy. You probably didn't understand. And guess what : it is not serious, and you can still learn.
@@justlooking777 your comment really isn't a reply. It literally just looks like you were trying to use "radio telemetry" in a sentence by putting words around it.
@@PierreBrandominiBrandominiWell they aren’t called the “empire of lies” for no reason buddy :)
@@romeolarenzo3929 Evidence of Moon Hoax ? No ? None ?
There is nothing that doesn't make sense to you that can't be explained scientifically. What are your questions?
Apparently this lady doesn't know who controls the world 😅
And you do?
:) Sarah compares the car - a derivative of technology, with technology - drawings, experimental data, etc. She is ill ? In which country and which scientists are destroying the results of their many years of scientific work? :)
Cause you've been told, you didn't check and you've been lied to. The technology is not lost.
Ask Apple to make an Apple II computer. They will inform you that it is impossible since none of the components used are in production anymore and the machines used to make those components no longer exist.
You would get the same response if you asked Ford to build one of their car designs from the 60s.
@@luther0013 Exactly, well said.
@@luther0013 Equipment is not technology; not being able to produce something at the moment does not mean that you don’t know how to produce it. Such knowledge is priceless and it is not destroyed, but accumulated.
@@inbuckswetrust7357 the plans for the Saturn V are available on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Centre.
Notice how smug the guy is, but the lady is respectful.
Probably frustrated deep down that he couldn't pursue his career at NASA.
The greatest hoax ever. Only the Americans believed they went to the moon 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Quite a lot of emojis but as usual zero evidence to back up your claim.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth same can be said for you 😄 🤣
@@user-fl4jv3gc7w "same can be said for you"...Obviously not because I always back up any claims that I make with actual evidence and I do not use emojis. So now that you have attempted to deflect, do you have any actual evidence to back up your claims or not? Take care.
@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth what makes you think the whole world will believe the Americans?
@@user-fl4jv3gc7w Thank you for another reply without any evidence to back up your claim. Take care.
If you ever wondered if man landed on the moon or not then watch the post landing interview by Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins and that should help make up your mind.
If you watch the whole thing you would know they did.
@@gunternetzer9621
Can you post the link…I can’t find the whole interview
@@gunternetzer9621 ...I did they didn't.
What's your point... that three dudes convinced you of their absurd story?
@@charles_preston .....they convinced me it was a lie.
The moon is illuminairy hahaha
Illuminary. Yeah. Right.
That's why the sun casts shadows on the moon that can be observed via telescope.
@@marksprague1280, Well, the Earth casts the shadow... and you do not need a telescope to see it.
@@Usul I'm speaking of the shadows cast by the various terrain features on the moon itself.
@@marksprague1280, Gotcha. I think the best evidence the moon is not a luminary body are solar and lunar eclipses. That is what I thought you were referring to.
@@Usul That too. I think in terms of terrain shadows because they are evidence that the moon is a sphere and that the heliocentric model is correct.
That gentleman has a point. Well done Sir to be exposing this hoax! 👏👏👏
Does he? Must have missed that. And how is mindlessly parroting junk online conspiracy theory about a subject that he clearly knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about "exposing this hoax"?
He is right just another giant cover up.
1960s technology could not have been sufficient for moon travel NO WAY!
What technology would they have needed that they didn't have to be able to go to the Moon in the late 1960s?
@@casanovafrankenstein4193 The type of technology that they don't have now and definitely never had in 1960s otherwise they would have traveled back to the moon its common sense!
@@timelapsetv3869 The 1960’s was a time of great technological development as British Prime Minister Harold Wilson pointed out in his ‘white heat’ of this ‘scientific revolution’ speech in 1963. From an aeronautical perspective there was supersonic and hypersonic aircraft, spacecraft, satellites and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Amongst a myriad of aircraft, the U.S. produced the hypersonic X15, the supersonic SR71, the HL10 re-entry vehicle and the first operational variable geometry swing wing aircraft - the F111. In Europe we had the supersonic Concorde and Harrier VTOL ‘Jump Jet’.
The individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” and have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. There is also no cold war imperative and no time limit placed on it by a president. We also live in much more risk averse times. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
When someone like Martin Kenny says they think it's all a hoax I feel sorry and quite sad for them. They have constructed a world for themselves that is comforting and gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling. If you were going to have a hoax, you would bizarrely have to have a project plan that created the hoax project. Which is even more complex than just having a project to go there.
When he says it's a luminary I had a hard time not laughing. Then when he mentioned the old Nikon P900, I couldn't not laugh. Martin is clearly a flat earther when he says luminary and P900.
Lol just people confused on bathroom
@SVegan-de6gc Really?
He’s right . No way we went in 69
I feel bad for you because the moon landing crap is bs.
Have you been to the fukin moon?.. I’m guessing no.. only in your warped Hollywood infested dreams. The moon is a luminous body of light. And get this dicksplash… the sun is of equal size, both Approx. 3000miles in diameter. Contrary to official astronomical facts, the sun is not 400 times larger or further away than the moon. Which is why when you look up to the sky they appear the same size… BECAUSE THEY BLOODY WELL ARE THE SAME SIZE… we are living in a bizarre Truman Show movie like existence where ignorance and denial is the norm. My best guess according to researchers going beyond flat earth theory is that we are inside a gigantic magnetic toroidal vortex field. That encompasses what we know to be the van Allen radiation belts.
Of course it was faked
Evidence?
Out of curiosity, did you pass physics in school?
@@tomf9145 Yes.
@@gunternetzer9621 Thought so, now lets wait for the conspiracy theorist's reply
@@tomf9145I had the advantage of being born in 1964, so I remember the last missions and by the time I was in secondary school it was still recent history.
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer 😄
After the show they drove him back to the hospital for brain search. Nothing found. What an idiot.
These hosts do not understand the meaning of compartmentalization xD
Google these images (preferably in high resolution):
- AS11-40-5927HR
- AS11-40-5922HR
- AS11-40-5924HR
Those are pictures from the LEM (Apollo 11 mission; first "moon landing"). If after watching those you still believe that piece of junk landed and took off the moon, I have terrible news for you 😂
PS: Sarah trying to justify this psyop is hilarious. She reminds me of my cusin trying to convince me that he saw the tooth fairy hahahaha
If you were to do even an ounce of genuine research, then you’d understand why the LEM looks as it does, what its design is, and how it functioned. You wouldn’t glom onto facile, childish descriptions such as “piece of junk”. Most importantly, you’d learn something that you don’t presently know. Yes, I realize that violates the moonhoaxer imperative to _invent_ one’s reality instead of discovering it, but the payoff would be the ability to contribute something meaningful when exchanging with educated folks. Good luck.
@@cardinalRG I've actually heard rocket scientist criticizing every aspect of it and it's hilarious. But you can keep your fairy tale.
Most of you people forget that most of those who question this story actually believed it in the past.
@@S1L3nCe -- _"I've actually heard rocket scientist criticizing every aspect of it and it's hilarious."_
You have not, and we both know it. And whether or not a moonhoaxer once believed otherwise is irrelevant, because such a conversion isn't explained by genuine research, but by the deliberate avoidance of it. The mere fact that you can't describe the LEM's design and function with any acquired knowledge, only proves my point. Treat yourself better and open your mind, friend, because knowledge is power. Embracing conspiracy notions might excite you, but in the end they will leave you stunted.
You're not very smart, are you?
"I've actually heard rocket scientist criticizing every aspect of it and it's hilarious."
No, you watched a conspiracy video with someone pretending to be a rocket scientist criticizing it. In actual aerospace engineering circles, the lunar module remains as the benchmark for spacecraft and satellite design, with many/most of its principles still practiced today.
Basically, your assertion is, "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake."
ARGUMENT IS DEAD - PICTURES OF MOON VEHICLES, LANDER AND FLAG NOW AVAILABLE
You'd think that would be the end of the conspiracy. But the funny thing is conspiracy theorists aren't actually interested in facts. Their system of belief allows them to ignore anything they don't like so they can continue on in a haze of ignorance.
Russia was never beaten in the space race! Lol! Russia has done most of the things first except for human moon landing. That astrophysicist is living in a dream of hers
Maybe google "space race" and try and figure out which context was being used here? Also, are you Russian (just curious)?
Not the first rendezvous in space either.
Illuminati is real.💀😭
They left mirrors up there,and at the right time you can point a powerful lazer at them, and they bounce back! I think that proves they were there! Among other small solid facts,that proves it!
Hahahahha dnt be stupd
U seen the cameras used to film the moon landing and the moon landing, it takes 3 men to operate one camera, they would have had to take a film crew to the moon.
Not only did they go to the moon in the 60s they managed to live stream it all the way to earth in real time
@@DirtyTalkTv It didn't take 3 men. A 16mm colour movie camera was used from inside the cockpit of the lunar module, on descent and lift off, and for some footage of the moonwalks. Additionally on Apollo 15-17 the tv camera on the lunar rover was left running and pointed at the lunar module to film the lift off from outside. On the lunar rover one astronaut operated a television camera (the box in front of the high-gain antenna).
@@DirtyTalkTv The TV pictures were filmed by a black and white slow scan television camera and beamed back to Earth, via a steerable 20-watt S-band high gain antenna installed on top of the lunar module ascent stage.
S-Band is a microwave band that can penetrate radiation and antenna gain refers to the ability of the antenna to focus scattered radio frequency waves into a narrower beam, thereby increasing signal strength. High-gain antenna provides a more precise way of targeting radio signals and are therefore very essential to long-range wireless networks. The LM’s transmissions were then picked up by a radio telescope at a tracking station in Canberra, Australia. NASA then converted the image to standard broadcast signal which was transmitted to a communications satellite and back down to Houston where it was then broadcast around the world. The radio telescope on the ground for receiving was extremely large and powerful which reduced the amount of battery power needed by the lunar module.
What annoys me with conspiracy theorists is that you are half-way through an answer that they themselves knows it will debunk their belief, they cut you off and add something else unrelated.... Then you start to explain that only for them to do it again and before you know it they've shifted the goalposts 8 times before you've fully answered and debunked their first belief.... It's a waste of time.... All I say to them now is go and study Physics.... That winds them up!
Yeah, well conspiracy theorists aren't usually very smart.
It's called the Gish Gallop.
@@rockethead7 Nice one. Cheers rockethead... :-)
what a flog
With the ability to find out why a lot of information today, how in the world do people get this painfully stupid? The other problem is why are you playing into their delusional Behavior. I mean I have found out a lot of things about a lot of details especially of relatively recent history. And some of them are against the mainstream. But I can show sound reasoning for why I have come to such conclusions. Because I took the time to study the mechanisms Within. This person doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. There's a mountain of evidence that it didn't happen, there is none at all but it didn't happen. There is speculation, and I have looked at every piece of speculation. It isn't of any value. As it turns out, a close friend of mine actually manufactured some of the parts that he took from Michigan down to Cape Canaveral and installed them on the landing module himself.
(( apollo 11 press conference )) when 3 greastest hero of humanity come back to earth...
I thought Gary Coleman died.
What an idiot he thinks they he smarted the scientist! 😂. If they were going to fake it, they wouldn't make school boy errors. The stars aren't meant to be in the background
HE IS ALIEN 4:37
Why should we believe someone without any schooling or validity. She’s a literal scientist 😂 he researches on CZcams
And he sounds way more intelligent than she does. The way he articulate, I doubt if he's just a CZcams researcher. People are figuring out that white people been lying to the world since they been in power..and this isn't the only thing they've lied about. That's what they do to seem important to civilization.
So what? You get people who teach religious education. They actually tell people adam and eve were real.
@@poisonpixie1146lol, that was funny
@@poisonpixie1146 science and religion are not interchangeable in this argument at all. Science is based on facts and derivable knowledge. Religion is almost solely based on belief. Your rebuttal is redundant.
Only listen to people with qualifications? Anyone can study information, but a qualification doesn't automatically mean you are right.
He's wrong, but he has a reasonable discussion up to 4:30 when he reveals himself to be a complete idiot by saying "the Moon is a luminary" etc.
the moon is a luminary.. an object that gives off natural light..
@@FundsOverBuns 😂
@@FundsOverBuns🤣🤣🤣
@@trevorgreenman9682 if the moon ain't giving off natural light then what's it doing
@@FundsOverBuns Reflecting light from the Sun.
Is this guy frustrated from being rejected by NASA thousands of times?