How Do We Actually Know We Landed on the Moon?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лип 2022
- OR DID WE??!?!
Love content? Check out Simon's other UA-cam Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373
→Some of our favorites: • Featured
→Subscribe for new videos every day!
ua-cam.com/users/TodayIFo...
You're right. Kubrick was a perfectionist. That's why, when NASA asked him to fake the Moon landings, he insisted that they do it on location.
Lol. Reminds me of a rather humorous time travel novel I read about a viking movie being shot "on location" with real vikings and they still got criticised for the bad special effects and outfits.
You comment that in other video. Pls be more original. You can describe the same facts with different words (synonyms).
@@michaelpettersson4919 Hey, Michael, what's the title of that book? Sounds really good and funny.
@@donlebo6824 I am also curious, a quick Google suggest "The Technicolour Time Machine"?
@@lukekingsland5851 That looks like the one. Thanks. I'll definitely have to read that. That one would make a great movie.
I think the biggest one is the Soviet Union congratulated the US on it. If the Soviets had any reason to suspect it was fake don't you think they would have called the Americans out?
Underrated comment. They had every reason to deny we did it. We nearly eliminated the human race with them just a few years prior. There is no way they would have admitted we did it if it was fake.
You'd think. I only recently found a branch of the conspiracy: The U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., among other countries, are part of the New World Order. Always a side step. But this video is good for the basics lol
Germany's rocket scientists were split by USA and Soviet, and they talked to each other.
Very easy to see why that happened: If you are in charge of a US agency, company or a Soviet branch, you want results, and the German experts say they can only give you the results if they can talk to their German experts on the other side.
Why doesn't the enemies of the establishment call out that the Epstein client list isn't released? Elon Musk did, but why not Russia?
@@thepsychicspoon5984 Lol, if the USSR was part of it, that means all countries that do anything in space nowadays are part of it too... it's so ridiculous how the moon conspiracy logic goes, essentially you'd have to believe in a one world government that controls everything as that's the only way there would be all these government space programs AND private space companies supposedly trying to dupe everyone and working together. No wonder these guys don't listen to reason, if they believe in the whole Illuminati thing
@@thepsychicspoon5984 its astonishing anyone could think that two countries that nearly annihilated human life over their rivalry would magically be together on this... some folks are... simple.
Even when you photograph the moon from earth it reflects so much light you have to adjust your aperture. If you want stars in your photo of the moon you need to take two exposures of the sky and edit them together later.
He was 39 and walked on the moon?! I’m 39 sitting here playing video games and eating Cheetos 😭
I hear you, and there-in lies the difference between those guys & the rest of us.
Crunchy or puffed?
@@kissthesky40Hot or regular? We need answers Jabroni!
I'm 65, sitting here playing video games and eating peanuts. I am the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, so to speak. :P
Sucks to be you....😂😂😂😂😂
Without watching yet, the biggest contemporary evidence I know of is that none of the mission transmissions were encrypted, everyone could hear everything, and anyone with a simple directional antenna could track them in the sky all the way there and back again. So, at the very least, something went to the Moon, stayed there for a couple days, and came back.
Yeah and the Russians would've been all over it calling the US out for lying, it'd would've been propaganda gold for them catching NASA, and the USA as whole lying about this
@@slyaspie4934 Ah, that just shows how far the conspiracy goes!
But yes, anyone with an axe to grind could have just easily pointed out that the transmissions weren't coming from the Moon if they weren't coming from there.
And the time delay means that they couldn't route the signals back to Earth for responses, which means that transmissions where the astronauts *had* to respond in real time, *had* to oroginate on the craft without being able to rely on a pre-eecorded message. Meaning, there had to be something on the spacecraft that was capable of being able to simulate a normal human being in natural speech in real time. We can *barely* pull that off today with modern computers, and the amount of computing power required would have been several times larger and heavier than the entire spacecraft we sent to the Moon, if built with 1969 technology. And the software development - the very *basics* of the necessary algorithms were still being developed a mere 20 years ago.
@@ryandean3162 : Down the Rabbit Hole.
Go ask Alice ua-cam.com/video/ug2EcWkb26I/v-deo.html
I have a better one multiple universities with a radio telescope tracked the mission and Cambridge has a printout of it’s tracking that perfectly match’s the Eagle’s landing showing Armstrong and Aldrin looking for a clear landing zone. Then you have the laser reflectors left on the moon that you can still bounce a laser beam off the moon today.
Do you remember the time we thought the stupidity was caused by a lack of access to information?
Yeah, it wasn't that.
😂👍
you are right. the fact you comment here proves it
@@milo-qh7cv ditto
@@milo-qh7cv not really, get better insults
"a fetus is a living being", what sort of info can you derive from that? if you are illiterate you fall for it. and.or stupid.
Doesn't mention that many amateur radio operators intercepted the radio transmissions from Apollo 11 by pointing their highly directional radio antennas toward the moon.
Being on the moon and landing is completely different
The problem you have is that the only time Apollo crew could be detected by pointing the 'highly directional' receiver at the moon, is when the crew were on the moon. Unless you want to say that amateur radio hams received messages from the lunar surface or orbit, this story makes no sense.
Also, isn't it odd that we are relying on some amateur to corroborate the story? Why not have an official third party track the progress by radio?
Intact, we did have such a resource, and it didn't go well for the veracity of the mission. Dig a bit deeper.
Look,.the sun is actually quite hot, despite all the Apollo reports. Once you realise that going to the moon is a very hot business, you no longer have to reply on other sources for proof. 125°C out there, above the atmosphere. How to survive for 8 days?
@@jamesdonaghy9143 lol lol LOL
Fed bot
@jamesdonaghy9143
Space is hot yes, however the main form of transferring heat (convection) is almost completely absent because space is a vacuum
meaning surviving in that kind of heat is possible because convection is out of the question. the only way to transfer heat in space on a large scale is radiation, which is incredibly inefficient, as such both heating things up and cooling things down will take a while.
“But where are the stars?” Tell me you don’t know anything about photography without telling me.
They were only filming during the day, so no stars. 😎
You are right. Photographing on earth during “the day” isn’t the same as photographing on the moon with no atmosphere to bounce light around. Yes, there could be a reduction of sensitivity with light from moon surface reflection and exposure settings, but to see nothing at all where it is similar to a bortle class 1 (or better) is strange.
@@zalllonyou need to learn what bright light bouncing off a bright surface does to a camera. Especially with the cameras that were available in 1969.
Why is there no actual photo of the earth. This would knock out any "flat earth" theory.
@@normmcinnis4102 one of he most famous photographs is taken from the moon called “ Earth rising” . Still one can see this and still argue that does not prove anything because it is looking directly at a flat earth from the top. It will only work if they take a video from the space station. You can see the rotation of a round planet. Plus if you view the moon or any planet with a telescope. All the bodies are round .
In 1969, getting a clear picture on your tv set was a mission in itself.
Underrated comment. When I was a kid, playing with matches got you in serious trouble. Screwing with the antenna dial got you killed 😁😁😁
And at that same time, without even the technology to produce a Gameboy or a thumb drive, we somehow manage to fly back and forth to the Moon 6 times, right
@@jaqua7732 tech may help you life your life, but billions of us lived lives without, Hon.
This is the reason they "went there". Today the 4 k tv with full set of RGB colours makes it impossible. Thats all about it.
@@jaqua7732 😂😂😂😂
Reminds me of joke I heard comedian say years ago about his grandmother.
'My grandma believes wrestling is real but the moon landing is fake.' Lol
Foxworthy
@@jeffduncan9140 I thought it was he but couldn't remember for sure. Sounds like Southernism. Lol
I'm from Tennessee so I know them well.
@@jeffashley5512 it does indeed sound like a Southernism, especially when you pronounce it as rasslin'. 😆 I'm from Georgia myself. So, I know not to be overly critical.
Ha ha ha
" oh so there's radiation. I'm sure that was difficult to get through"
" Actually no it was quite easy. Barely an inconvenience"
Well it was not. Two astronauts died of cancer shortly after their return.
@@sH-ed5yf I was making a humorous reference to the "pitch meeting" UA-cam videos 👀 it's a famous quote that he always says. " Actually no barely an inconvenience"
In fact, I am quite sure that if you were to just google the words " barely an inconvenience" stuff on the guy's channel will be right at the top of the list 🍻
@@sH-ed5yf Which ones? You are flat wrong!
@@Tim22222 Illiterate but so confident at the same time. The classical flat earther
Jack swaggert was one of them died 10 years after his Mission. He was 51.
@@sH-ed5yf It was Jack Swigert, not Swaggert, and 10 years after, is not "shortly after their return."
The same people who deny the moon landing will use gps to go to macdonalds and watch football on satellite tv.
No moonwalk is needed to launch sattellite or gps.
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266
No, but a high proportion think that space is fake or the Earth is flat. The other's are either scientific illiterates or deniers. The point being that these people take the technology around them for granted and think that prior to the invention of the iPhone we were rubbing sticks together for fire, hunter gathering. living in caves and communicating with smoke signals.
lol...... tell me you have no idea what youre talking about, without telling me you have no idea what youre talking about
Ah yes, the satellites that magically float in space and seem wholly unaffected by the gravitational pull of earth 🤔
NASA lost the tapes for the first moon landing but every video like this is out to prove the entire program. 29:00
It's kind of weird that the moon landing didn't become a US annual holiday, considering the massive achievement it was.
Sure, 12 days after INDEPENDENCE DAY. That'd make a lot of sense.
@@ronjones-6977 horrid timing for holidays GREAT TIMING for 1969
the american people lost interest in the space program after apollo 11, except for a few days when apollo 13 was looking like a goner.
That would make it seem like we thought it was a big deal.
@@Loralanthalas I was 6 when the first moon landing happened. It was so cool. I remember on the later Apollo missions, my teacher wheeling the tv into the classroom so we could watch it.
Camera film has a thing called "latitude". I was a photographer in highschool (68-70) and if you set your exposure for very bright items, you'd lose detail in the dark areas. At a basketball game, if you had black players and white players, you could not have detail in both faces without darkroom tricks. So we would "burn in" or "dodge out". For the black players, we would have a small cardboard disk on a wire and block the light to his face for part of the exposure making it look like he had a halo around his head. Burning in: e. g to show detail for a face with pale complexion with blond hair (dark on the negative) you take a piece of cardboard with a hole cutout and allow light to shine through for the face until you have detail making a halo of darkness around the face. Stars are so faint, you have to provide longer exposure at much larger apertures to get them to show up at all. If you expose to see detail on the bright surface of the moon, there's not way to get detail of the stars so the sky looks totally black!
Exactly.
That's why there are no stars visible on Moon shots!
If you look at the photo of Earth that was taken in 2015 from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter just 80 miles above the moons surface you can see the true scale of the Earth This was taken from the far side of the moon just imagine the view in the center of the moon . Don't you wonder why we don't have hundreds of photos from the moons surface with the view of the Earth like this ? Hello because we were never there or we would have . www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/earth_and_limb_m1199291564l_color_2stretch_mask_0.jpg
That's really interesting. Thanks for sharing
if that was the case why didn't they take a huge piece of cardboard to cover sun and the moon so we could see the stars ????
Kubrick's special effects in 2001: A Space Odyssey were ground breaking for the time but they were still obviously animation. I don't see how NASA execs would think they could fool anyone.
Not animation but still a fair point. Also, the effects are still groundbreaking today. Didn’t fake the moon landing, but still the GOAT.
Mmm....no. There were some animated computer displays in "2001: A Space Odyssey", but the spacecraft special effects were all practical; that is, with miniatures and camera tricks. When production was complete and the film had been delivered, Kubrick ordered everything, sets, props, drawings, etc. destroyed to keep any of the materials from being recycled into other movies, which film studios tend to do. One need only look to Universal Pictures and their recycling of miniatures from the 1970 Sf feature "Silent Running", incorporated into their "Battlestar Galactica" effort a few years later.
Yes there was some good model work and good live sets. But many of the scenes were obvious animation and give the whole game away. If Kubrick had better methods available he would have used them in his movie, not NASA's.
also, someone did a collection of all the astronomical mistakes made in 2001 that's pretty crazy
The survival of the Apollo 13 astronauts to me was more unbelievable than the moon landing. How those men were able to make it back despite the odds is just amazing.
The odds were not that bad in the first place. While the accident itself was not anticipated, they were prepared for a range of problems and the mission was set up accordingly.
That was another drama enacted to give "legitimacy" to the so called "moon landings".
You bought into the Hollywood version that only a miracle could save the crew, but NASA has so many scenarios/redundancies written into the planning of the space missions. It's one of the reasons that the costs were so astronomical for each moon landing.
Thats what gets me every time. Not that the Apollo 13 astronauts survived. But that the moon landing itself has so many virulent conspiracy theories around it, 1 more unbelievable and selfcontradictory than the next, but somehow, the conspiracy theorist has nothing, when it comes to Apollo 13. Never heard about a single conspiracy theory about Apollo 13. So apparently theyre just fine with Apollo 13 flying to the moon and overcoming their accident and making it back to Earth, but when it comes to the last part, landing on the moon, it suddenly not even possible to get there....
Hollywood. Watch the edits when they supposedly returned from space
I'm interested in stereo photography. When you photograph a scene, move to the side, and photograph the scene again, you can use that to create a stereograph and see the depth in the scene. I often do this with two frames from a movie when the camera moves sideways, and when this is done in a studio or sound stage the flat painted backdrop becomes completely obvious, just like you were there in the room with it.
I have also done this with the Apollo pictures that they took of the distant landscape while cruising around on the LRV, and those objects are NOT on a flat painted backdrop. They extend away miles into the distance. Good luck faking that one.
Edit- My gosh, so many people saying "Deserts exist on Earth, haha gotcha!"
What I'm doing here is saying that the photos cannot have been taken in a sound stage. But this whole operation was your idea- you all need the sound stage because lunar photos look bizarre and unlike Earth. On Earth, you have shrubs all over the place even in a desert, and even if you clear them all out for miles, you can't hide the wind and water erosion that's all over the place. The Moon doesn't have wind and water erosion, but what it does have are a lot of craters and micrometeorite impacts that are missing from any desert on Earth. I fully believe that some of you all can't tell the difference, but remember the goal here would be to fool a well-trained, intelligent Russian geologist, and to them the differences would be obvious.
And before you keep trying to @ me with some "aha, gotcha!" ask yourself this... The goal of the Moon Landings was to show up the Russians, right? But that can't be done with a simple TV broadcast. The Russians had these things called telescopes and RADAR, and they were able to see and track the Apollo missions from the ground. It's that simple. If they hadn't seen it with their own eyes, they would have called BS and publicly mocked the US. So any contrived conspiracy theory you come up with has to include the cooperation of the Russians. Also, any amateur astronomer with a telescope in the 1960's would have been able to track the modules for at least some distance, much as how amateur astronomers track satellites today. They wouldn't have the resolution to watch them all the way to the Moon, but we would be able to see that they were leaving Earth on a Moon-bound trajectory. How do you fake that one?
I get the value of being skeptical, but try to spend some time disproving your own ideas for a change.
Last I checked, Nevada extended for miles. Who says everything was filmed on a stage?
@@freeearthcitizen7601
Even modern special effects would be HARD PRESSED to make a believable edit of film of the nevada desert that could pass for the moon.
@Christa Simon
They just make up crap and hope someone as gullible as they are fall for it.
I would love to see your research, nice research idea. Could your work be released as a ‘how I analysed’ and a 3D film?
One claim is that the horizons are too low, so either the most distant part of a scene is quite close or with a lot of the moon buggy footage you have hills in the background. (The same hills in two different missions in two different locations) the star backdrop is completely lacking any artefacts apart from the famous ‘earth rise’ shot where differentiating between subtly different dark blacks show a rectangular box around the earth image. I don’t mind being convinced but your assertions don’t have much weight and are mostly debunking a straw man anyway.
@@jamesmaybury7452 Moon landing deniers seems to willingly forget that the Moon is much smaller than Earth, hence the horizon be much closer, also without atmospheric distortion, making it visually even closer.
Humans Landed on The Moon. 6 Times... 12 Men
don’t talk to buzz about moon landing denial, 72 yo buzz damn near knocked a moon landing conspiracy theorist out. dudes a bad ass and national treasure
I love their Mitchel and Webb sketch were a shadowy government organization are trying to work out how to fake the moon landing. They decide the cheapest option is to fly to the moon and fake it there
Might it not be cheaper to just pop to the moon and fake the footage there? ua-cam.com/video/P6MOnehCOUw/v-deo.html
Indeed.
Another favourite of mine is their Homeopathy A&E.
ua-cam.com/video/HMGIbOGu8q0/v-deo.html
That same episode shows how much harder it is to fake several common conspiracy theoretical stories.
Just watched Mitchel and Webb , very funny
Precisely. "So we will be saving on....catering?"
The Soviets had teams of their best scientists, photographic experts, and so on, analyze every speck of information in an effort to debunk the Moon landings.
If they had found even the tiniest discrepancy, they would have announced it to the four corners of the world.
Well that sound logic but what about this. How do you think the rest of the world would think of Soviet Union of they told it was fake while rest of the world was 100% certain it was real? Soviet Union would be the worlds joke. Also in the early 70s Soviet and USA cooperated a lot in space so all that would be ruined if they say it was fake. Im not saying the landing was real or fake but the Soviet Union point people make actually doesn't make any sense.
There is always the thing, that Casey might have been a paid Soviet agent too besides a charlatan
Putin would've been more than happy to have released any Apollo Hoax material by now. And he's been there for 20+ years.
you think any corner of the world would of aired anything Soviet lol? really? ..
@@jasonking7736 the Soviets said lots of crazy crap that was aired all the time. There are more countries on the planet than just the US and Russia/USSR. Even if the US somehow successfully quashed any reports, other countries would've spoken up.
gorgeous presentation... thanks for this one.
1. I watched the launch in person. 2. As an aerospace engineer, I calculated the orbital mechanics and calculated the rocket size myself. 3. Anyone could buy the radio equipment to track the progress themselves. 4. I was able to touch the rocket in the VAB. 5. I knew several of the astronautics. 6. I knew several engineers that worked the rocket motors, rocket and the capsule. 7. There are Chinese photos of the Apollo landing sites! Anything else?
Those are facts and in case you weren’t aware, conspiracy theorists tend to ignore them
I especially love the high definition photos of all 3 Lunar rovers we left on the Moon.
The Hubble and Webb have forever dispelled whether or not we landed on the Moon.
Which Lunar rover picture is your favorite?
'Thanks Baxter. Nice to hear from real people and not anonymous internet nutbags who denigrate real peoples amazing achievements.
Yes, there's still one problem:
125°C at 1 a.u..
Conspiracy theories are for fools just as Neil Degrass😅
My aunt was Wehner von Braun’s secretary and my dad was a junior engineer on Apollo. The stories they told about their work are more than sufficient for me (along with the mountain of actual evidence). My dad (rest his soul) would laugh about these people after a few beers.
Crackpots gonna crackpot, no matter what.
Still dont know how I feel about the US selling its soul (using von Braun) to help us land on the moon. However, if we werent going to take him, the soviets would have.
@@YzerWings I also have deep misgivings. Not surprisingly, that part was never brought up much in family retellings.
Want to know exactly why the kubrick theory is actually their downfall he always scouted his own locations and refused to film on a set unless absolutely necessary so either he didn't film it or he did film it on the actual moon
There were something like 300,000 professional people who had some involvement in the Apollo missions, so it would be impossible to fool them all, or to keep them all from revealing secrets.
My dad was one of them, an electrical engineer who specialized in microwave communications. He was part of the team at Collins Radio who built the spacesuits and the radio equipment built into them, and the communication equipment aboard the capsule. I remember being 8 years old, watching and listening when the landing occured and what a big deal it was when we heard those famous first words spoken from the Moon. I was older when I learned that my dad was involved in creating the equipment.
He was a ham radio operator since he was a teenager which is why he wanted to work at Collins. That company started out making the best ham radio equipment. He listened to the communications just about the whole time, which I thought was boring as hell at eight years old because I didn't understand what it was.
Kudos, if only I could have heard half of the stories you have heard. Lucky you !
Buzz Aldrin punching that guy is one of the things that lives in my memories rent-free.
He represented all sane humans in history giving a punch to the nutty conspiracy theorists out there.
Until one day he couldn't lie to a little girl. Buzz has been hinting that it was all a crock of crap his whole life.
Lol i was going to type what u said.... but add in the movie THE SHINNING the same director put in the movie trying to tell the public it was fake .. the same guy that produced the fake landing
Oh snap he mentioned the shinning Wow.. this guys knows his truth
And guess what
. When the cia uses the term conspiracy theory you know your over the target
Thanks for summarizing all this in one short video. It helps to hit the pause key to actually absorb all this information. Well done!
the same government that issued the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as truth to escalate a war against N, Viet Nam? The same government that covers up even to day the JFK assassination docs?
5000 thousand employees kept this a secret? The conspiracy is a great story but a load of bunk
Well, we’re all talking about it, millions of people reject the BS nasa story, so I suppose it did get out.
More like close to half a million people worked on the project, scattered across the USA. Even a bra-making company got involved (Playtex).
I was at a meeting with the Apollo 11 Mission Commander. Someone asked him "so was it hoax"? He replied "well, they sure fooled me".
Gene Kranz?
Sarcasm... saying something they don't mean, leading on the interlocutor in a way that doesn't make them feel offended, or aware of the real meaning, sometimes it may be followed with a wink towards his acquaintances, coworkers, friends or family. So the meaning of the response is apparently agreeing with the interrogator but clearly not, for those with a brighter mentality.
In other words, Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
@@JO-qn8gy not to mention they figured out how to make devices to breath, figured out transmission, made suits that could withstand leaving this atmospheric system and more within a few years of being an established part of the government? 😂
@@CulturalOasis 1958 was the year they named the agency with a formal name, but it was doing the same work since they captured the first Nazi V2 rocket...
Radio _"Transmission"_ had been dependably working since 1900. Work on space suits obviously began as soon as they fired the first V2 rocket into space and knew they had to get started to have the suit on time... and it was a simple variant of all the other suits that were being used for orbital missions, which included doing "spacewalks". Just because you missed it all, doesn't mean it never happened... your mind is just one of 7 billion on this planet, and only you know what's in it... so your ideas change nothing. Reality is what most people can witness as such.
my favourite bit of Lunar Trivia is that Command Module Pilot Michael Collins told Neil Armstrong "If you had any balls at all, you'd go out there and say 'We've touched down on the moon, and - OH MY GOD WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT-" then cut your mic." making him the funniest man to ever walk on the moon.
Unfortunately that is just a myth.
That would have been GOLD.
That would have been the best dad joke ever!
I hope they joked around like this- at least the thoughts shared for laughs.
Astro-Types can be sadly uncomical
@@suavexxi not nearly as much miserable tossers who push conspiracy nonsense, they really have no sense of humour, or any sense at all.
I've read so many fascinating books on everything from the Apollo Guidance Computer to 600 page books that focus solely on the pros and cons of the concept of lunar orbit rendezvous vs direct landing etc. There is just no way you could fake the moon landings and then 60 years later have people still writing books about the technical and physical challenges of the endeavour. It's not only moronic and idiotic, it's a disservice to all the truly brilliant individuals involved in the Apollo 11 moon landing.
It's an insult to the Americans who sweated blood (and in some cases shed actually blood) to make it happen.
Nonsense. It's not a disservice, it's great entertainment, and very amusing. Always good for a laugh.
If you watch the news conference after the Astronauts retired to Earth, they all seem very unhappy, unwilling to talk, almost depressed or scared. Why??
You didn’t watch the entire Apollo post-landing press conference with the Q&A session immediately after, did you?
As I was born on the day Armstrong stepped onto the moon, I've always quipped: "That's one small step for man....but one giant push from my Mum!!" 🤣👍
😳
You’re British. Hello fellow Brit. 🇬🇧🌹
Good on ya, Mate!
Did you ruin her?
@@MemoirsofaBasketcase I take it you're speaking for yourself - and from experience!
I did my own orignal research on this. I compared the original Apollo 17 16mm ascent camera film footage to the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) photos. Spoiler alert - they match up precisely. Video on this is on my EEVdiscover channel.
Indeed and a very good video it is too.
@EEVblog - Great research, Dave! The LRO photos are a great resource. It's so cool seeing the landing sites, especially the Lunar Rover tracks in the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 landing sites.
@@stevenemert837 Dont worry.
The deniers will claim its all fake...
What's the video called?
@@jocec3283 Yeah, that's the sad part. Conspiracy theorists' beliefs can't be changed even with a preponderance of evidence.
Another point about the use of multiple lights... In the photos of the moon landing, everything only has one shadow. If you have multiple lights, everything would have multiple shadows. And some will cite the slight difference in angles of shadows from different objects. Don't get the angles mixed up with multiple light sources. During the day, look at the shadow angles of some objects close to each other on Earth, like a light pole, telephone pole, and street sign. From your perspective on the ground, they all will look like they point in slightly different directions. These deviations in angles aren't caused by multiple light sources. It's perspective. Again, multiple light sources will cause multiple shadows. Not cause different angles of shadows from different objects. Light sources can't single out objects, giving them one specific shadow.
you're partially right. the 'perspective' effect you're talking about happens only if the light source is relatively close to the objects producing the shadows. the sun is 93 million miles away so the rays are for all intensive purposes, completely parallel by the time they get here. but of course that's irrelevant in regards to photos from the moon which do not show perspective angulation which of course they shouldn't.
Kaysing did for bullsh*t what Stonehenge did for rocks.
“Almost as if NASA has a lot of people working there who know exactly what they’re doing”
I love smug sarcasm 😂
I find it sad and pathetic
@@daveeol1987 Is that because it's directed at some unfounded beliefs you wish were true?
It was a need to know basis only.
@@ValMartinIreland Nothing about apollo was "need to kniw" tgey told everyone exactly how they were going to do it.
They had TV specials that showed how it worked and included interviews with the engineers that designed it giving guided tours of the equipment it's components and layout.
The Glomar Explorer was need to know and nobody cared about it at all but still it was busted after only a year.
It's funny how no other nation has been able to reach there even after decades
"With a little planning, all of this was overcome. It's Almost as if NASA has a lot of people working there, who Know Exactly what they're doing." You are Awesome Simon
I laughed at that also 🤣
Solid point.
Well in a way that's exactly what conspiracy theorists could also say :D E.g. they can fake anything. (I don't believe in the theory, just pointing out a little bit of logic fault)
Sorry buddy it's NASA (Not A Space Agency)! NO ONE ever went to the MOON!
@@paulhogsten2613 and 400,000 people successfully kept it secret for decades. what's the purpose of lying about going to the moon? Especially after making several return trips, putting landers on Mars, telescopes like Hubble and JWST into space, launching probes like Juno or the Parker Solar Probe, etc? What would be the point of lying to begin with, let alone carrying on that lie? Let alone the impossibility of keeping the secret.
@@paulhogsten2613 Gonna need some reliable, verified sources that are backed with peer reviewed citations to back up that claim, buddy. You're claiming thousands of people faked the moon landing so YOU need to prove it. We already have evidence PROVING, yes I said proving and I did mean proving, you wrong.
After this I watched a veteran film maker video of why the moon landing could not have been filmed and also addressing several topics such as lighting, shadows and stars.
He said the technology to do such recording in a studio was none existent back in 1969 and he pretty much went and broke down the technology that was available back then and why it couldn’t have produced such footage in a studio. He later went on and showed original pictures of the footage next to a footage he altered to meet people’s argument, for example he showed what it would actually look like if the cameras where to also show stars and what you get is a super bright and fuzzy pictures with stars in the background, he also showed what would shadows truly have looked like if multiple light sources where used and more.
In the end he goes and say that he can’t confirm nor deny if we truly went to the moon in 1969, because he wasn’t physically there, but that he can 100% confirmed that it was not recorded as the technology to do so and to edit just wasn’t there yet, he also explained that at this time , 60s and pre 60s, the main focus for technology growth was aimed at military and space while everything else was slowly progressing. He also goes on to break down the cameras used by the Astronauts and their specs.
On his video what I found very interesting was how he was able to show footage of what it would actually have looked like when added all the things that people claimed on why it was faked, from the shadows, to the lighting and more proving how impossible it would have been to record such event in a studio back in 1969.
just think about this... if you were flown to the moon, what is the very first thing you would look at....your home... and you would document it every chance you had.. turn the camera to earth and be amazed.. did we get that??? nope.. nothing... crickets
@@jdl1276 he then said that the final nail in the coffin was the fact that the whole thing lasted more than an hr, online it said the broadcast was well into 11 hrs with no comercial breaks, the amount of film required to prerecord this back then would be insane and would be impossible to cut one film and glue it to the next without showing the editing. What you and I see online today is nothing to what the people saw that day and furthermore there are snippets online from that video of the earth from the moon taken by Apollo 11.
Again, the technology wasn’t there for a live 11hr+ continuous and uninterrupted broadcast and I find it funny people saying the same thing as you when there is a shot of the earth form the moon but we don’t know that because none of us here have seen the 11+hr video to say it never did show it, the reason I say there is, is because in the nasa website they have that snippet and they reference it to that recording.
@@jdl1276 Google "Earthrise" Photo. We HAD lots of Earth-from-Space photos, but Earthrise was a unique opportunity and shots were taken.
Go watch the vid of the interview the nauts gave upon returning.. they just finished something no one in all of time had done.. it should be smiles and overwhelming excitement... but there they are.. underwhelmed ...low key... no excitement found in the room..
In fact they look miserable... you look at all the things I have mentioned and it adds up to one thing... fake
The simplest answer to the question is that, by now, it would have cost 2 DOZEN TIMES AS MUCH to keep it secret than it did to just go to the moon. AND THE COSTS WOULD STILL BE MOUNTING UP. Look, this country went to the moon. It is the simplest and by far the cheapest explanation for events.
Except no one has left low earth orbit since 1972 because they don't yet know how to survive the Van Allen Belt. Really odd that.
@@murrayallinger2830 ... Armstrong lived a long life. Aldrin is still alive. No one has gone through the Belt to the moon because other countries couldn't do it and the US decided to emphasize orbital.
13:00 - While the F1s performed flawlessly, the inboard J2 Engine of Apollo 13 did fail during launch. The spacecraft was still able to achieve orbit. As related in the movie, "well, I guess we've had our glitch for this flight"
It (the inboard J2 on the S2 stage) had an automatic shutdown because it was undergoing the "Pogo Effect". Fortunately the booster already exceeded Max Q at that point, so as the movie said, it was necessary for the remaining four engines to run longer than planned. Would have been a different story had it been one of the first stage engines: they may have been able to compensate for the loss at a critical time in the flight, but at such a low velocity it would have been dodgy. Once again, Lucky 13.
"Im not gonna believe nasa because I don't think there's enough hard evidence"
...
"Anyway I'm gonna believe this one guy who has no hard evidence whatsoever"
Absolutely
As to the F-1 first stage engine there was a failure that occurred during the ascent phase of Apollo 13. The central engine of the 1st stage failed during the later part of the ascent to orbit . This is featured in the movie "Apollo 13". NASA's response was to simply let the remaining 4 engines operate long enough to achieve the necessary altitude to fire the second stage. They had already planned for this. Actually, over the entire Apollo program the powerful F-1 engine was very reliable.
Ironically, during the Apollo 13 ascent phase when the F-1's central engine quit firing Lovell said "well, I guess we've had our glitch for this mission".
My favourite comeback to conspiracy theorists who say, "man never walked on the moon"'. Is no in fact they did not, they bounced, skipped and hopped.
And drove!
The development of the Saturn Five rocket has to be one of America's greatest achievements. The Saturn Five was capable to taking over 300,000 pounds of payload into low earth orbit.
I was given a mission patch when I was 4 years old in 1969 and couldn't understand how two guys could fly to the moon on an American Bald Eagle.
Three guys. Two landed, while the third stayed in orbit above the moon. Six astronauts had what must have been a VERY eerie experience, being _completely_ cut off from all other humans while they were in orbit on the lunar far side.
They used freedom
I kinda wish 4-5 year old you could have met the astronauts. the look of confusion and realization as the astronauts as they figured out that the eagle on the patch would be funny
They were just THAT American.
still more believable than some of these conspiracy theories.
I had heard that Stanley Kubrick was hired to fake the moon landings. But he insisted on such realism that they ended up having to go to the moon to shoot the footage anyway 😀
😂🤣😆😁
And he killed himself at such frustration that they would not believe his movie in how he faked landings.
@@paulkeenan2691 If by any remote chance Stanley Kubrick was indeed hired by NASA (though his daughter categorically denies it) it was probably to create the out of ship graphics, those we see of a space probe where nothing could film them, those views from distances as short as a few feet from the probe to as far as it could be seen and identified... and they show us such videos because it's what we like most, to watch air or spacecraft flying in their environment, but since there isn't any way they could make a camera fly along and film the craft, they have to draw the view instead. That may someday be possible when they develop inexpensive space drones that can fly along and film shots that replace what till now is done by computer.
From what I've read, Stanley Kubrick was an honorable man, and he would have never got involved in such a farse. You probably won't understand this because it takes an honorable mentality to understand another and most conspiranoids are no such thing... if anything they are very dishonest but don't see themselves that way, and think it so easy for others to be like them, but they are very wrong!!!.
@@Lowonfuel You need to learn to recognize sarcasm.
@@timpatrickhanna I responded to Paul Keenan because he wasn't being sarcastic, he truly believes that Stanley Kubrick killed himself... after "being discovered for having faked the Moon Landings", but he died of a heart attack during his sleep in 1999, 29 years after the Movie 2001 Space Odyssey.
Correction: Ed White died in Apollo 1, not Ed While. That fire caused massive changes which prevented future fires. No human had put any object into orbit until Sputnik in 1957. So, no one would know how easy or hard it would be to get to the moon in the '50s.
The retroreflectors that are on the moon.... That's how you know it happened.
Not necessarily, since the Soviet Luna program actually put a retro reflector or two on rovers. Given the brick ton of other evidence, it doesn’t really matter, though.
I worked with Boeing engineers while I was in the army, I met a gentleman who, as a brand new engineer, worked on the camera and transmission equipment to get the pictures from the moon to earth. They had completed the work and were in the “tweaking” phase when in Dec 68 the president made the following statement: “I can’t wait to see the ‘Red, White and Blue’ flying over the moon!” At which point the project lead freaked out because suddenly the specifications changed from black & white to color with less than 6 months to complete the engineering changes!! His comment was “yea, we all just moved into our offices and we worked around the clock, smoked several thousand cigarettes, drank thousands of gallons of coffee and are pbj sandwiches or catered food. Wives and girlfriends collected dirty laundry and delivered clean clothes. He paused for a moment, smiled and capped the story with “it wasn’t all ‘nose to the grindstone’, my first daughter was born in Jan 70…do the math.” We all laughed with him.
Shame when history was being made it was filmed in black and white.
😆 😂 Tell us who filmed the spaceship leaving and how the film made it back to earth to be televised.
@@badassmother1426 never heard of an automatic or remote control camera?
@@badassmother1426 Or radio?
@@badassmother1426 goofy
Here's a short explanation - it was easier to *actually* send 3 astronauts to the Moon than to fake it, because faking it would have required *literal magic* , while actually doing it merely required thrust, money, and balls - three things America could find in sufficient quantities.
Someone else below remarked on the fact that any transmissions purporting to come from the spacecraft throughout the mission phases would have *actually* had to come from a spacecraft flying the published mission orbits (including the landing sites on the Moon). That's because you could easily track the spacecraft with directional antennas (the best way to get intelligible reception, and thus the normal way every nation and scientific organization did track the spacecraft). This gives you automatic Radio Direction Finding on the spacecraft. So the transmissions *had* to come from the spacecraft, and it *had* to be where it was supposed to be if flying to the Moon and back, or the RDF bearings would have instantly given away the hoax to every foreign nation (including the Soviets). The time delay issues from speed of light means that there wasn't time to relay the signals through Houston (or even Earth orbit) and have a real person who wasn't actually on the Apollo spacecraft heading to the Moon to reply. Given multiple examples of transmissions that involved responding to transmissions or incidents that were literally *unscriptable* because they could not have known they were coming up, NASA couldn't just play a pre recorded tape from.an unmanned spacecraft they were pretending to talk to. An AI capable of handling natural human speech (including responding to those unscriptable events) is *barely* possible (although often goes off the rails quickly) *today* , and even if NASA somehow figured out the correct algorithms 40+ years before anyone else in the world did and somehow managed to hide that code from the rest of the world until this century, the *hardware* required would have been significantly larger (and *far* heavier) that the total weight of what NASA claimed to be sending to the Moon and back. So, just on the radio transmissions alone, conspiracy myth busted. Literally *impossible* to fake it with 1969 technology, and even if they somehow managed to pull that off, it would have been easier to stick astronauts on board with all the radiation shielding and everything else the conspiracy theorists insist they would have needed - it still would have been smaller, lighter, and cheaper to send to the Moon and back compared to what they *would* have had to use if they da Vinci'ed up a super computer that had a better better speech AI than what we can produce today.
Then there is the film evidence. Because they mostly only see the short segments of film, most people don't realize how long the uncut footage (both in the capsule and the external cameras on the Moon) is. This creates a problem if one is trying to simulate zero G or even lunar ⅙ G. There are only two ways to reduce gravity to microgravity - either actually fly in space, or fly the Vomit Comit route. Can't film longer than 25 seconds or so doing the Vomit Comet route and you can't have a sound stage larger than the cargo bay of the aircraft. For reducing felt gravity to ⅙ gravity to simulate the Moon, one must either go to a place (like the Moon) with ⅙ gravity, or one must go to someplace with lower gravity than that (like the microgravity of Earth orbit) and then spin the *entire sound stage* to get back up to ⅙ gravity. Again, harder than just going to the Moon, and the Russians darned sure would have noticed if we put a space station the size of a good sized warship into orbit (and people on Earth would have been able to see it with the *naked eye* as it passed overhead). This also wouldn't have addressed the radio issues above.
"But what about just using slo-mo film to make it *look* like things like dust are falling at ⅙ G, while using wire FX to simulate the hugh jumps? Film with the camera at 6x normal speed and them play back at the normal rate! And we could hid a ground based vacuum sound stage, so the dust doesn't billow!" Problem - that would have had to be a film reel more than a dozen feet across and weighting tons, and the motor.would have to be capable of constantly adjusting the rotation speeds of both reels (to ensure a steady frame rate) without breaking the relatively weak film or burning the motors. Literally could not build camera equipment capable of doing that. And *any* glitch in any frame would require refilming the entire take from beginning to end (we have the original full length films - there are no missing frames where a splice could have been inserted). The electronically scanned TV images would be worse as the magnetic tape would be even more fragile and susceptible to damage. So, literally impossible, even if you get around the "how do we fake interactive, real time, but delayed by speed of light, radio and TV transmissions in flight and on the surface of the Moon?" Problem.
This is merely two areas where I have direct knowledge of the *impossibility* of faking the Apollo missions. I am sure there are other fields of knowledge with similar issues.
well said sir! well said...3 things your typical Brit has a serious lack of most days...
The best response I've heard to all this is that yes, they hired Stanley Kubrick to fake the moon landing, but he was such a perfectionist he insisted on filming it on location.
Most conspiracy theories gave people the thoughts from the film capricorn 1.
It is possible to play a pre-recorded message from the "fake" spaceship actually going to the moon, but it would have probably have worked as well as singing in playback. You can do it if you prepare it a lot. Which means that the people on earth need to be on the conspiracy. And as someone wrote a mantain8ng a secret difficulty is proportional to the square of the numer of people that know it.
The delay argument makes no sense. In non emergency situation people tend to wait a little bit before responding to be sure that the other side finished his sentence.
Also if the answer is given from the next room, send to the "fake" spacescraft and then sent back or if the astronaut are actually on the spacecraft and need to wait for the message to reach them before they could response THE DELAY IS THE SAME. Even from the moon the delay is just a couple of seconds. Even if there is no or less than expected delay it doesn't prove anything. The astronauts might have started answering before they hear the full transmission.
Jesus
This was fun!!!! Great work
thank you for this vid. I am 67 years of age , i sat on the edge of my seat for the entier mission . over the recent years conspiracy theorists ,i must admit have planted seeds of reluctant doubt in my mind.How ever your vid with the explanations has given my beliefs restoration. Good job !!!
If true…why have we never done it plenty’s already??? This days seems just as hard and big to do it again and with same misleading photos or videos 😅😂😂😂
Omg don't be fooled. Those seeds of doubt are legit!
@@iSRS28-ov3psever heard of a thing could economics?
The cost of a manned mission to the moon is insane. Couple that with the very short duration of those missions means you achieve basically nothing for every single launch
Compare that to a lunar or mars rover that is cheaper to launch as it doesn’t need food, drink or air. The extended duration of the mission as there is not a need to return it to earth safely means for every dollar you spent you get far more science done.
Sorry but the answer is very obvious if apply a little bit of critical thinking to it.
@@michaeljones5615wow. Real compelling case you laid out there. Sadly for you. Every single conspiracy theory around this has a very simple answer. Just most of you don’t care to listen to them as it goes against your confirmation bias
Wow! That is exactly how propaganda works. I am watching a quarter way through and the snobby unethical actor has spent the entire time making fun of people who critically think instead of addressing their statement with data.
He literally uses the word "fact" and then doesn't state facts. It is funny
One more proof. Some friends and I, working on a college graduate project, built a receiver and dish antenna and listened to Apollo 17 all the way back from the moon. We had to adjust the frequency as it it moved closer because of the Doppler Effect. This can’t be faked because the object has to be far away and moving fast.
Go on next you will say you saw video of them inside the craft. Lol hell they hardly had the tech to get us decent pictures yet you had the tech to follow them. Ha
@@petethewrist Not too bright, are you?
@@James-bw7rk if your IQ was half of mine your comment, might, mean something. But sorry for you you are prob one of the 86% of the population that has low IQs memory yes may be. But that's not good enough and you are to easy to fool.
This guy seems to not know,how easy it is for a radio expert with rather simple radio gear,amp.and antenna,to listen IN on any found or known radio transmission,around Earth.
@@petethewrist I feel bad for you
The wildest claim Kaysing made has to be that the most famous people in the country went to Las Vegas and caused a big scene, and no one recognized them.
Precisely... at that time they were like rockstars in that everyone in the country knew their faces.
You say, that is in his book? Not sure they were before their return.
@@narajuna yes they were. The featured in life magazine and their every move followed for months before the launch. None of them were comfortable with the attention
@@paulinegallagher7821 ?????????????? Oho too much to drink? :) Who said they were comfortable with so much attention? ...WHO followed everymove on the NASA base? Hello? Featured... doing the Greatest Leap of Mankind, think so, NASA is a Civil Agency not a spy one! They all trained much with cameras and expected to be unseen🤔 Wives werent, or Mother(suicide), but these tuff Military Officers were used to uncomfortness.
After a Month of Tourring Neil also volonteered to tour with Bob Hope in Vietnam, and numerous interviews after.
Also they were constantly in radio contact when not with NASA , with Parks in NSW Australia.
Russia had an unmanned craft orbiting the moon and observing. We went, sorry.
The Soviets monitored the radio transmissions from the Apollo crafts, which could be easily trinagulatet to prove that they really came from space, and never doubted the moon landing until decades later (by then being Russia).
As for Kubrick, he was a very individualist and often subversive artist. The government would never have trusted him to keep a secret like this.
I've seen the Capricorn One movie. Anyone close to discovering the hoax would be eliminated.
@@rewdwarf123 What hoax? Also, movies are fiction.
@@ChristophBrinkmann There isn't one. That's how all the conspiracy theorists are still alive!
A lot of people tend to forget that each Apollo mission was broadcast live for hours on end....uninterrupted with no cuts. Not just Apollo 11 either every mission up till 17.
So if its on tv, it must be real. lol
Hmmm how was it done live given that technology didn't exist in the 70's?????
@@last-chance_
What, live TV didn't exist in the 60s and 70s? That's news to me.
@@last-chance_ You think live broadcasts didn't exist in the 70'? Really? In the late 30's and 40's, all TV was live.
Are you sure?
This is wonderful! And it reminds me of that NBA player who said the Earth was flat.. and then when corrected, everyone in the group said that the round earthers had got to him😂 so I guess the moon landers got to you?😂
There are photos taken by lunar orbiters from foreign countries that show the landers on the moon's surface.
Yup. China, Russia and India all have orbiters which imaged the sites. I guess they're all in on the conspiracy too.
I would love to see those. Where could we find them?
1 reason it wasnt faked, the Soviets didn't dispute it
Slight correction... All in all, *nine* Apollo missions *visited* the moon. Three of them did not land - two because they didn't plan to, and one because of an in-flight emergency.
They landed on the moon because an emergency? wow....
One thing about being on another planet if there's an emergency. you die, you have a flat tire on Earth you're good have a flat tire on another planet you die
@@healdiseasenow You have greatly misunderstood my comment. Go back and read it again.
@@healdiseasenow That depends greatly on the nature of the emergency, of course. Apollo 13 suffered a very, very serious failure and yet everyone survived. Had the same thing happened on Apollo 8, it likely would have ended very differently because there was no LM available.
@expattaffy1 Shadows facing two ways? Of course there's nothing even remotely reflective anywhere near them to perhaps cause those shadows. Wow - damning evidence there.
The laser reflector is still there but I suppose that could have been placed by a very precise remote vehicle. But mostly, the fact that our enemies of the time weren't able to discredit it would be the deciding factor.
People shot lasers at the moon before "we went there"... The moons reflective sand already works as a mirror. Go read some books and dont be fooled.
Your enemies at the time are the same enemies as the present... they are on the inside.
And even if the world worked the way you seem to think it does... had Russia released anything then the media here would have called it lies, fake propaganda, etc... it might have been a talking point for a week but quickly buried.
Russia also stuck w the Gulf of Tonkin lies, now officially a lie.... why was Russia/China/Japan/Vietnam not telling us the USA was lying to the world? even now most think Vietnam attacked a US Vessel leading to it... it was lies.
If they can lie about a war and those you see as enemies stay silent, dont you think they can do the same for anything else?
"Hey Russia... stay quiet... and then you can run your own money laundering operation from taxes w your own space agencies?"
Money rules this world... and those that are ruled by it do not care what little act they gotta play as puppets.
And I could list many other lies the so called "enemies" of the USA keep quiet about...
"It is well enough that the people of this nation do not understand our banking and monetary system... for if they did, there would be a revolution tomorrow morning" - Henry Ford.
Could a monetary system that is in essence a scam not be called out by our enemies? umm m not a peep.... isnt that interesting?
So many on these comments just assume Russia is an enemy.... if they were an enemy they would educate us on what the above quote means ;) that way we would revolt. So would any enemy... they would tell us about Epstein Island and the world leaders that have gathered there.... but do you hear anything? nope...
Behind the curtain, all your "enemies" chill w your leaders... just like the WWE just far more nefarious.
Laser ranging experiments were conducted almost a decade before the “retroreflector” was even claimed to have been placed on the moon. There’s no proof it exists.
Good point. If the Soviets could have possibly spotted a flaw in the event they would have brought a 5 minute ad on the Johnny Carson Show to tell it.
The enemy thing is a sham. Independent nations don't exist. They want you to believe they do so you are easier to control.
"With everything it would take to fake the moon landing, you may as well just go"
Neil Degrasse Tyson
listen to the 100s of hours of radio communications from the missions. they did go, fact.
Another bit everyone misses about the footage of the Apollo landings: back in the day, whenever they started transmitting, the major networks would just start carrying it, sometimes over an hour at a stretch, and we'd sit there watching it, two guys in spacesuits bounding about on the lunar surface. It might have been theoretically possible to fake some shorts with late 60's - early 70's technology, there's no way they could've done it for an hour or more, without any edits, film scratches, etc., which would've given up the whole gig.
The nutjobs today only deal with the snippets, not the big long stretches of really not a lot happening. Why fake that in the first place?
@James Henry Smith radio and microwaves are also bounsed of the " Firmament " not just across the plane ....
If they could bounce around on the moon for a hour without editing, why would it be impossible on earth?
@@andersandersen6295 Because the astronauts movements had to be right, else the USSR would immediately call bullshit. Replicating lunar physics on earth would require lots of special effects and as such must be prepared ahead of time, and it all had to be just right, not only in and of itself, but the live performance had to be timed right.
On the moon, the astronauts just had to do their thing.
@@wyrmofvt Not taking into account that the russians were in on the hoax.
@@andersandersen6295 And why would they be in on the hoax?
I still say the best evidence for us having landed on the moon is that the Soviet union didn't dispute it.
Fortunately the Soviet Union hadn't yet adopted the modern Russian tactic to just spit in the face of reality and deny it anyway. Wouldn't be surprised if many of these modern "conspiracy theorists" are just Russian troll farmers out to correct that old mistake of the Soviet Union.
I'm sure they did. Remember, you just got told they didn't. And of course, they magically did later too.
couldn't agree more.
@JefferyTurpin-cm1tk
I guess that's why Soviet newspapers and media reported the moon landings, tho they didn't make a big deal of it of course.
About 2 day prior to the launch of Apollo 11 the USSR launched the Luna 15 mission. One of the mission goals was to monitor Apollo 11 flight, Moon orbit insertion and Moon landing. There is also a photo taken by Buzz Aldrin showing Luna 15 orbiting the Moon above Tranquility base.
The Soviets knew that NASA landed on the Moon. Luna 15 was sending information about this back to Earth.
It was Ed White dude not Ed ‘While’.
Thank you, I’m 70 year old, i saw it I believe it, sure i wondered was i wrong , the older i get the more i know I’m right, after a lifetime there’s nobody i know who thinks it happened, I’ve stopped looking for the little things, the big things prove it happened
I'm 64, watched it for 7 agonising hours and at 9 never believed the broadcast was real especially after the amazingly perfect moon man pictures.
I loved that episode of mythbusters as a kid, they busted many of these claims. The footprints, flag, how easy the astronauts moved and shadows
I have pointed this out a number of times. They were great shows
Agreed. And my biggest takeaway from that was, if you listen to the other side and honestly consider their viewpoint/evidence, you might actually learn something new and fascinating.
And yet millions of people still think it's all fake...
I remember the episode. They could prove absolutely no claim that the landings were hoaxes.
The best part was when Adam couldn't replicate the movement of the astronauts no matter how much manipulation was applied. If they couldn't do it with more modern camera technology how could they fake it that well in 1969?
Also, the Soviets would've pounced on any evidence that is was a sham and exposed NASA as a fraud.
Flat earthers space deniers and moon landing deniers all do the exact same thing. They ask for pictures, you show them pictures. They say they’re fake, then ask again for pictures.
Yes, like photos of the earth from the moon, or video of the ISS being built.
@@dansv1 yup, can show them anything and they'll just say it's fake, hell you can show them math and they'll just say "yeah what ever that doesn't work." or completely ignore it and say some other stupid claim.
Just for your information, there is no film or original images from the Moon landings, they were all some how destroyed so, the show an image is a false excuse, also Flat Earthers can't be thrown in with the Moon landings as there is a huge difference, one we still can't do today, the Earth we can see from LEO which is a pretty normal thing, we just can't get humans or animals past LEO, the only creatures that made it past LEO and back were two Tortoise, this is a fact you can Google it, the Tortoise have a very high radiation tolerance.
Nice way to make your point of view very easy though ;) don't be so lazy next time and do a little research at least.
Round earthers all repeat what NASA has told them. Not one of them has been to the moon, proved curvature, or left earths orbit. They believe whatever NASA tells them.
@@leifburke5905 I have been high enough to see the curvature easily, I have also been in one of the tallest buildings in the world and seen the SUnset three times in the same afternoon, plenty of experiments that easily show a curved or round Earth, you can do it yourself, just go to a very tall building with a fast lift, watch the Sunset from ground floor then ride the elevator up to the top floor and Bingo, the Sun is ther ein all it's beauty to see and watch go below the horizon again, explain that on a flat earth lol.
The moon landing competes with the earth is flat as the biggest conspiracies
And dumbest.
No, the biggest conspiracy is religion!
You mean biggest idiocies.
Only in a complete vacuum does dry dirt hit the ground after being thrown up by the lander wheels at the same time leaving not even any dust. On earth the air clings onto dust so it hangs in the air. You cannot replicate that effect even today because we still cannot achieve a complete vacuum equal to that of space. That's why a brick and a feather when dropped from an equal height hit the ground at the same time on the moon. On earth I'll go out on a limb here and say that the brick just might win that race. Young people had deductive reasoning googled right out of them.
Another crazy simple thing that blows appart the multiple light sources claim. Multiple light sources cast multiple shadows, switch on two table lamps in a dark room and you'll see two shadows cast on the ceiling light.
Good point! I don't even see the shadows as strange at all because I grew up with walking in the woods on sunny days. Uneven ground + sunlight = the same kind of shadow distortion.
I followed the whole of the space race with bated breath. Kept a scrap book with newspaper clippings. Built the Gemini and Aoollo models. Listened to the touchdown live, courtesy of my science teacher.
Apart from all that, the clincher for me is that if it had been fake, the Soviets would have known, and they would have shouted loud.
I started 1st grade in 1959. Watched every Mercury, Gemini and Apollo launch. I remember the B + W TVs the teachers would wheel into the classroom. Up on those big stands. I don't ever remember hearing a peep from the Russians about it being faked.
That's a very dumb justification, 'muricans never believed Russia and back then passed everything as propaganda as the brainwashing was still in full, this wouldn' t be any different.
And if you still believe it, you're still indoctrinated to the nonsensical propaganda!
I would've loved to be around back then! Excited to see what happens with Artemis and Starship flights in the near future!!
@@RogueWraith909 You will never see Artemis going to the moon (they will keep pushing the launch date back until the day your gone)! Then on that day your soul will travel to the moon where you will eagerly await the little rocket to land (and there you will wait for eternity -because it will never happen in reality, just on earth in a Hollywood Studio)!
Every country in the world with competent military-grade radar could have tracked the progress of any translunar object of that size at least as far as the point that it left orbit and began heading to the moon-and none of them ever once disputed any of these flights. If you've gotten that far in the "fake", you might as well finish the job.
Why would you want to absolutely convince those who do not want to be convinced? Forget it. At this stage of our evolution, those who want to lag behind will get what they deserve. The rest of us will keep moving forward.
Because NASA lost the tapes for the first moon landing and that raises questions.
@@michaelsoutherland3023 Fine. Stay behind. My point exactly.
@@magicmike7198 Always behind the old fashion act of researching topics. Was hoping Simon would cover how NASA recovered Apollo 11 footage from broadcast recordings.
@@michaelsoutherland3023 Researching topics is very good. Well done. But not when it stops you from seeing logic and moving forward. There are some non-negotiable things: We went to the Moon. Elvis and Marilyn are dead. There are only two sexes in humans (male, female). And the Earth is round. “Researching” that to the point of making you doubt it is counterproductive and only prevents you from moving forward. It sets society back. There is a time in human history when society went backwards. It was called the Dark Ages. Or the Middle Ages. Let's focus here. We went to the Moon. On to the next chapter.
It's so ridiculous and has caused a lot of distress for buzz aldrin despite the fact he should basically have been able to chill on his laurels bc he basically did the most amazing thing anyone ever did
Buzz puts more stress on himself then all the debunkers put together. Don't get me wrong, I love the cat, but c'mon.
Well, to be fair, he did the second most amazing thing anyone ever did ;-)
He also told a 10 year old, on camera, we never went there.. who knows??? Van Allen belts still puzzle me
@@zoeyshoots Bull
annoying buzz aldrin may be the only good thing that came out of these conspiracies
In April 2021 the ISRO Chandrayaan-2 orbiter captured an image of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage. The orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public in a presentation on September 3, 2021. Apollo missions were tracked by independent parties at the time, including a group at Kettering Grammar School who monitored radio transmissions of Apollo 17 in 1972.
The question is a nonstarter for anyone with the will to think and research for themself.
Lured by cheese sandwiches?Sounds like Kaysing could or did write for the Simpsons.
Duration in belts 3.5 hours on outbound trip.
Duration in belts 2.5 hours on return trip.
Radiation exposure 0.6 Sv per hour average across the belts.
Total Radiation exposure 3.6 Sv from belts alone (does not account for radiation in outer space nor on the lunar surface).
Note to self: Travel *inside* the space ship.
@@GuardianSoulkeeper 🤣
The US astronauts back then were considered to be "radiation workers" for government purposes, and carried dosimeters. You can read all about the data collected here: ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730010172.pdf
I used to work in a candy factory and the molds used for juju, gummies, and jellybean centers are trays of starch that is stamped with a negative mold. The way the starch holds the shape is what makes this possible. Furthermore, when you step in a pile of starch it leaves a better impression than moist soil and it's very dry so I've never doubted the authenticity of the foot prints
So they used starch on the set?
@@Grggeorge no it shows the possibility of making foot prints with no moisture
Just for sake of argument, starch isn't the same as other materials. Diatomaceous earth is also very, very dry, but doesn't behave the same as starch, which is a slippery feel.
@expattaffy1 why don’t you just tell us, it’s easier and quicker
@expattaffy1
I bet that you posted this comment immediately after the photo appeared on screen. I've seen how long conspiracy theory videos are, you should have capacity to stay seated until the section that addresses those "errors".
This video should also have included the NASA film that shows a rock hammer, attached to the LEM, swinging on cable, after being released by an astronaut. Its period can be measured, and the pendulum equation can be used to calculate the force of gravity acting on the hammer as it swings. Spoiler: The answer is not 9.8 m/s/s.
They slowed down the video. Oh no, they've gotten to you....wake up....we've never left Ur....all of civilization is a deep fake and the world is a hockey puck.
🤣🤣🤣🤣, u really got me
That proves nothing.
@@jonsmith3945 except gravity.
@@Tallnerdyguy Nobody's denying gravity. But it's easy to manipulate the speed of the visuals to make the pendulum's period correspond to 1/6 Earth gravity. So Chris' comment in no way proves the footage was taken on the Moon.
I was a young kid at the time, and the world was absolutely buzzing. Everything was better. The weather broadcasts television politics. In fact, everything, I did see the moon landing live if it was a hoax. I will eat my breakfast.
Excellent compilation of information.
Wish he would have addressed NASA losing the first moon landing tapes.
I watched the moon landing on TV. I was nearly 4 years old at the time. In the USA, it was 20/07/1969. Here in Australia, it was on 21/07/1969. My older sister turned 12. Once I was old enough to learn about this, I had a very big interest in astronomy. Even now, there are times when I go outside at night, & look at the moon with either binoculars, or if I want a closer look, I then set up my high powered Celestron telescope. Looking into space with these is very interesting. One night, I was going to visit friends, & I saw a bright light moving across the sky. I was asked about it, & I said it was the ISS. I got in my car, switched on my Amateur transceiver, dialed up the frequency, & tried contacting them. I wasn't fast enough. As far as I know, Edwin Aldrin is still alive. In my opinion, the moon landings are a real feat of engineering. I hold those involved in awe.
Some years ago, in the 1990’s, I was working as a Director at Financial News Network, an American Cable TV Network. I was Directing a show called “The American Entrepreneur”, and on one episode, Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin was the sole guest. At about 20 minutes to air, I walked past the “green room” and noticed that Buzz was sitting in there ALONE! So I came in, introduced myself and told him that I’d always wanted to shake hands with a man who had walked on the moon! He was a fine fellow, and we were able to talk for about ten minutes before I had to get to the control room and get ready to go on-air. To this day, I have no idea what his business was, but I’ll always remember having spoken with Buzz (and what a small human he is!). All the astronauts were very small in size, because every ounce cost thousands to get into orbit.
As of today 28-06-2023, Edwin Aldrin is still alive.
@@frederickd.provoncha8671 thank you for the updated info on Buzz Aldrin. This is awesome to know. I hope he lives for a lot more years to come.
@@edryba4867 wow, I am a bit jealous. you are lucky to meet buzz in person.
You watched the transmission from Earth.
It's me again; the dad with the 11 year old son who loves outer space. My son was debunking the conspiracy theory along with you. He's 11 and he gets it. He asked me, "dad, are people really that stupid?" I said, "yes, yes they are." Also, he really liked that someone got punched in the face by an 'old man'.
Think of it more like indoctrination. It's easier to understand that way, the intro and the continued acceptance; it's almost like Stockholm syndrome, where once they're part of it, believing they're right is easier than admitting they were wrong. We have a large portion of the modern population in needs of some real psychological help.
And by all accounts it was solid contact. The actual footage brings me to tears. The mixture of pride & hilarity is overwhelming.
@@kindlin reminds me of my illuminati 9/11 loose change days... i mean there may be something going on there but it def aint people dancing naked around a fire lol
I watched that footage - it was a good punch, I wouldn't like to have been on the business end of it.
Buzz Aldrin, my hero....
If you fact check this entire video everything comes out exactly like he said it did.
Movie effects weren't good enough to fake it
Have YOU seen any footage ?
I love the video of watching Buzz Aldrin punching that jackalope that ambushed him with that accusation. Epic own.
If he only could remember if he saw the stars or not on his "voyage" to the Moon . Hahaha
I would love it better if he took the oath. Once a rascal is cornered he resorts to violence. No one makes a fool of me. They fooled me long enough
These type of conspiracy theories really gives the government way too much credit. Maybe South Park has a point and the moon landing conspiracy theories are a government conspiracy to make themselves feel more powerful.
Considering the same percentage of people believed that 9/11 was faked…
Agreed. On the one hand, people are constantly amazed by how stupid and inept the government is and no one there can keep anything secret...but suddenly it is full of evil geniuses who all go to their graves without talking about wide-ranging conspiracies they were involved in...? You just have to ask which is more plausible.
Right. Remember when the Manhattan project was leaked. Also, remember when the stealth bomber project and U2 spy plane projects were leaked. The government is full of idiots that have all the money and power. If only they were as competent as the masses. 😂
Here the fact, Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins were absolute studs. And the only thing NASA had to consider faking was the press conference because of the giant balls on those three.
It’s really nice when a Brit gets your back I have to say. American muscle, British intelligence. A match made in heaven. God save the king.
4:02 Okay but if Kaysing believed NASA _could_ successfully launch an _empty_ rocket into space in '69... even though his incredulity was _specifically_ caused by the fact that the rockets were exploding on the launchpad two years prior... then his own conspiracy theory, by his own admission, _requires_ that NASA could successfully launch Apollo rockets? So...
It's a perfect example of the old saying "A wise man knows he doesn't know everything. A fool thinks he knows everything."
Conspiracy nuts fail to see the irony that elaborate conspiracies that fooled billions of people also require them to make seemingly (to the nutjobs anyway) obvious mistakes so bad that the average Joe can see thru them just using "common sense" . Basically conspiracies all require the conspirators to be dumber than the person that sees thru them, even tho that defeats the whole point of a conspiracy in the first place.
But rockets weren't exploding on the pad 2 years prior. There was a test of the launch escape system on a Saturn 1-B where a rocket was intentionally broken up and exploded. Apollo 1 was not a Saturn V and was meant to be a test of the command and service modules. White, Grissom and Chaffee were performing a plug-out test where the command and service module would not be connected to any ground systems to test its life support and power. The Saturn V didn't launch and until Apollo 4, and it was uncrewed. As was the case for the second launch of the Saturn V with Apollo 6. The conspiracy theorists just make shit up.
@@krozareq Sure, but I was taking his own premises and placing them next to each other to show _even without needing to check anything_ his own reasoning is loony.
@@Zahaqiel
Have you not seen Trumperism in the last 5+ years? The human race is on some kind of downward slope right now, and we have got to find some way out of it, unfortunately Idiocracy is starting to look more and more like a documentary and less like satire.
As someone who has watched your channel for years, progress from thousands to millions of subscribers, knowing 75% of every story you tell....... I always love to watch your content because i always learn a few more tidbits of info about the subject that i didnt know. You may not hear it enough but we love you and what you do, keep doing it!
E
Wierd
Regarding Spheres in Space 🌍and Comets: The on screen CGI showing spherical ball🌝🌍⚽objects floating in "Space" is pure nonsense. Our Sun and Moon are local ionizing gas plasma luminaries, travelling within the Tropics. Earth is a fixed level Plane of existence made of fossilized, mineralized biology of mainly ancient Titanic Dragons🐉 some thousands of miles long, turned to stone (Limestone, and Granite) 🗻mountains. The term is nucleophilic substitution, flesh to stone. The 38 Transition Metals we use today literally came from these titans veins, and arteries. The mega titanic fish 🐟🐠🐡give us most of the (SiO2) Silicon Dioxide, and (Si) Silica Dessert sands, exactly like the Sahara titan fish desert ! You still here ? 💫 lol. Space "rocks" ie. Asteroids, Meteors (meat🥩) and of course Comets, are the tough fossil remains of these titans (mostly dragons🐉🐲). The Void of space and level Earth was called the "Raqia" in ancient Hebrew (Latin-Firmament), and "the Expanse" is so massive we get Hyperbolic, and Interstellar (now) Comets. Due to Magnetic Force, when these massive transition metal (conductive) laden space fossils get near Earth's dipole, the Anode is discharging electrons into the "Comet" nucleus and taking protons from it. The Comet is now a hot cathode from a cold state (far away) and Sublimation-Phase Transition (from solid to a gaseous state) is causing it to discharge Carbonaceous Dust and microbes etc. by the hundreds of Tons an hour (example) as a Type2 Comet science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/19apr_isonids above Earth. The 3600 yrs. ago Thera Eruption marked last cycle of energetic Comets, and it was called the "Shar" in ancient Sumerian, the "Completion of the Circuit". The electrical Shar is likely an intentionally induced 👽Cosmic Cycle, which adds raw material (Proton Density, Radial Velocity etc.) to the outer magnetic field of the Toroidal Vortex EMF above the level Earth. The "Solar Wind" is the measured strength of the EMF Torus (AKA magneto/heliopause) without it the harmful ionizing UVC radiation from the Void would make life on Earth impossible. The last Passover 3600 years ago (Minoan eruption) was obviously much, much worse. I figured this out, at far less than NASA $26 Billion a Year budget. 😎 I want a raise, dammit. lol 💲
Don’t encourage the fact boy. He’ll make another channel!
All of this.
Today I found out that this is where Messrs. Dunning and Kruger get their raw material.
NASA plans to return astronauts to the moon.
But first they are sending a mannequin and will take radiation measurements. Then they will land on the dark side of the moon.
Unfortunately the planned manned missions have been delayed.
Measuring radiation now? Why? Coz now they have to actually send someone for real.
Hearing Simon say "cheese sandwiches..." in an amused, yet conspiratorial tone is epic.
Who doesn't like a cheese sandwich? That would be enough to get me to Area 51.
commenting about it is equally epic lol
Also, in addition to Armstrong's famous "One small step.." quote, his other famous line to Buzz was "Should I grate the cheese or cut the cheese?"
@@jondrew55 What’s even better is that they wouldn’t even have had to take any cheese with them… Those highly respected scientists Wallace and Grommit had already proved that in fact the moon was made of cheese, though not as good as Wensleydale
What most people don't know is that it was grilled American cheese sandwiches on Wonder Bread with extra butter. Delicious.
All kidding aside, it could have been code for getting the world to think that something fake (like American cheese) is real.
Well done. Simon is at his best when he avoids the snarky sarcasm he employs in other videos, and sticks to facts and intelligent, well reasoned delivery. This video is about as good as it gets.
100% agree about the snark!
Thank you for making this!
7:41 😂😂 Murr da