I appreciate your personal insights on how to communicate with those who don't believe that the Apollo programme happened, Kate. It's my experience too that rational arguments directed calmly and persistently to such people tend to either win them over or, at the very least, wear them down from their position of denial in most cases.
My favorite pieces of evidence involve the Japanese orbiter SELENE that took topographic scans of Apollo 15 site region, and the landscape perfectly matches with the one in the background of EVA photos. Another undeniable telltale sign is the behavior of lunar dust and regolith in videos. No amount of trickery can fake the full scope of its physical behavior. Slowing down the footage doesn't account for unusually long range of dust that is thrown off, only changes in gravity can cause the range of thrown objects to be affected, there was even a scientific paper done on LRV rooster tails on Apollo 16. Slowing down the footage would also mean everything else moves slowly, but astronauts still make swift moves and equipment on their suits still flaps quickly while they jump. Funny story, by the way.
I have a feeling Buzz would've forgiven you somehow! And what a great pic, it deserved more than just 0.5 seconds exposure! I just wish Buzz decked that guy enough that he wasn't able to get back up! Anyway, I met Gene Cernan a few years ago! 😁
The best proof of the moon landings is the Soviet Union's congratulations to the US on the successful moon landings. They would have jumped on any fakery lol
The best come back is to ask them if they think the earth is flat and if not, why not. its a lot harder than you think. It ends up as a game of whack-a-mole; its not enough to answer one objection, we are expected to refute them all else they think they've won the argument. The same goes for moon landing deniers ...
Also from all of the tech created from the Apollo era lends itself to making it to the moon , with powdered drinks like Tang, sunglasses. Math equations generated. Hydrogen fuel cells and on and on. Movies like Star Wars were good ,but you could still tell. Photoshop or good quality editing was not around until 90's during the middle of the Space Shuttle era. I think most believe shuttle built the International Space Station which anyone can see fly over head every so often at night.
At the behest of Queen Victoria, my Great Grandfather walked on the moon in 1888, and I have his bound journals to prove it! So I am not shocked that the Americans managed also to do it 81 years later! 🇬🇧🏆🇺🇲
When Astronauts squeeze water from a container "in space" and it produces a bubble of water floating "in space" and then they drink the bubble of water ! My question is - after they drink the bubble ! Is the water still floating ?
This comment section is like a church religious fervor conflated with national myth by people who have never passed a college physics course, let alone crack a physics text book.
Might help your case if we could all see an analysis of those elusive telemetry tapes ... the hard data of what is heralded as the greatest technological achievement of mankind ... that took place over 50 years ago. Like the difference between 1900 tech and 1950s tech. ?! Can you reference a published scientific paper in a respected peer reviewed journal in which scientists refer to each other as stupid. Did ya'll take trig base or calculus based physics. I took both cuzz I transferred from a state college to the University of CA at Irvine where trig based physics was not quite up to their standards. Why haven't we gone beyond low Earth Orbit for 50 years?
The hard data is available in numerous reports on the NASA Technical Report Server. And in the science data archived in the Planetary Data System. We haven’t been back to the moon yet because Apollo was the most expensive engineering program in history. And once the goal of beating the Russians to the moon was achieved, nobody was willing to spend that kind of money on a mere scientific program, as opposed to a national prestige program as Apollo was. The effect of going to the moon with a smaller budget is seen with Artemis: with 1/25 the annual budget that Apollo enjoyed, it’s taking a bit longer.
@@Hobbes746 did the Space Station !SS cost $150 billion? JFK later regretted his "Send a man to the moon and return him safely speech" stating he wished he had promoted the idea of abolishing world hunger and mass starvation - $300 billion would provide farms and deep water wells for every village on Earth
@@Hobbes746 what "hard data" you talking about? Most important data is telemetry witch NASA said was lost in a fire. Classic Hollywood story. so many journeys to the Moon and... 0 video recording of the journey between Earth and the Moon lol
@@mihaimih4669 At the end of each mission, the data gathered during the mission was reviewed, analyzed, and where necessary, transferred to archives. The data consists of several parts: 1. audio and video. All of those were retained. 2. Science data from instruments on board. This data went into the PDS, ready to be used by scientists. 3. Engineering telemetry from the spacecraft: data from sensors that monitor spacecraft parts. This was vital during the missions, because it was the source for troubleshooting. At the end of the mission, this data became obsolete. When Apollo ended, NASA had a warehouse full of tapes whose data had already been reviewed and transferred. These tapes were then reused for Landsat. NASA has never claimed the important data was “lost in a fire”. We can verify this because all of the data is still available today, much of it in _public_ archives. The only data they *discarded* was the now-useless engineering telemetry.
So, in the 50s and 60s it took 15-20 years to reach the moon. But then we "forgot" how. So in 2002 we tried again with much more advanced technology yet 20 years on we still are nowhere near the moon? Seems logical.
We didnt forget. There was just no reason to go there anymore. NASAs budget also got scaled back significantly and work safety became more popular, making space flight even more expensive.
@@miked3723 Bullocks! We did not "forgot" how to make the Saturn V. We "lost" the ability to build more. After the Apollo program ended and funding got cut, assembly lines got scrapped. Companies that built essential parts went out of business or pivoted to something else. Hell, the F1 first stage engines were hand made! Technology moved on. The blueprints for the Saturn V most certainly still exist as do the blueprints for the command module, service module and LEM. To find those same parts, to re-constitute the assembly lines, to find knowledgeable staff to work those lines, is almost prohibitively expensive. Better to start fresh with the experience we gained. Which is exactly what companies like Space-X are doing with the Falcon Heavy.
I appreciate your personal insights on how to communicate with those who don't believe that the Apollo programme happened, Kate. It's my experience too that rational arguments directed calmly and persistently to such people tend to either win them over or, at the very least, wear them down from their position of denial in most cases.
I personally don't have time for morons.
I've argued with a few about this. Many of them unconsciously used the plot of "Capricorn One" to refute the moon landing.
smears ... modus operandi ?
My favorite pieces of evidence involve the Japanese orbiter SELENE that took topographic scans of Apollo 15 site region, and the landscape perfectly matches with the one in the background of EVA photos. Another undeniable telltale sign is the behavior of lunar dust and regolith in videos. No amount of trickery can fake the full scope of its physical behavior. Slowing down the footage doesn't account for unusually long range of dust that is thrown off, only changes in gravity can cause the range of thrown objects to be affected, there was even a scientific paper done on LRV rooster tails on Apollo 16. Slowing down the footage would also mean everything else moves slowly, but astronauts still make swift moves and equipment on their suits still flaps quickly while they jump. Funny story, by the way.
I have a feeling Buzz would've forgiven you somehow! And what a great pic, it deserved more than just 0.5 seconds exposure! I just wish Buzz decked that guy enough that he wasn't able to get back up! Anyway, I met Gene Cernan a few years ago! 😁
Did you watch the Last Man on the Moon documentary? It’s really great. :)
The best proof of the moon landings is the Soviet Union's congratulations to the US on the successful moon landings.
They would have jumped on any fakery lol
This is very true!
OR they were also sick of wasting billions on a project with no hope of success and took the first off ramp available to them?
@@miked3723 Is that a serious question? LOL
What to say to the Apollo program camera maker, Mr Jan Jundberg, when he can't explain the photos?
The best come back is to ask them if they think the earth is flat and if not, why not. its a lot harder than you think. It ends up as a game of whack-a-mole; its not enough to answer one objection, we are expected to refute them all else they think they've won the argument.
The same goes for moon landing deniers ...
Excellent.. thanks!
Also from all of the tech created from the Apollo era lends itself to making it to the moon , with powdered drinks like Tang, sunglasses. Math equations generated. Hydrogen fuel cells and on and on. Movies like Star Wars were good ,but you could still tell. Photoshop or good quality editing was not around until 90's during the middle of the Space Shuttle era. I think most believe shuttle built the International Space Station which anyone can see fly over head every so often at night.
At the behest of Queen Victoria, my Great Grandfather walked on the moon in 1888, and I have his bound journals to prove it!
So I am not shocked that the Americans managed also to do it 81 years later! 🇬🇧🏆🇺🇲
You should've mentioned the Russians tracking Apollo 11 to the moon and back using data from the Jodrell Bank radio telescope
When Astronauts squeeze water from a container "in space" and it produces a bubble of water floating "in space" and then they drink the bubble of water !
My question is - after they drink the bubble ! Is the water still floating ?
Kinda water is sticky so it will be sticking to your insides whilst you are floating
@@Booga-tz8kj how convenient
@@steigerbower There aren’t big empty spaces inside the human body for water to float in.
Strange thing to say yet ill say it who ever you lost recently is standing beside you on your right shoulder.
explain thre van allen belt survival
@thechroniclesofnessworld6584. I'm too lazy to explain to you. Take a Radiation Safety Class like me to find out.
Ok. "They survived the Van Allen belt"
Easy. The radiation levels in the van Allen belts are far lower than the deniers claim they are.
This comment section is like a church religious fervor conflated with national myth by people who have never passed a college physics course, let alone crack a physics text book.
Might help your case if we could all see an analysis of those elusive telemetry tapes ... the hard data of what is heralded as the greatest technological achievement of mankind ... that took place over 50 years ago. Like the difference between 1900 tech and 1950s tech. ?! Can you reference a published scientific paper in a respected peer reviewed journal in which scientists refer to each other as stupid. Did ya'll take trig base or calculus based physics. I took both cuzz I transferred from a state college to the University of CA at Irvine where trig based physics was not quite up to their standards. Why haven't we gone beyond low Earth Orbit for 50 years?
The hard data is available in numerous reports on the NASA Technical Report Server. And in the science data archived in the Planetary Data System.
We haven’t been back to the moon yet because Apollo was the most expensive engineering program in history. And once the goal of beating the Russians to the moon was achieved, nobody was willing to spend that kind of money on a mere scientific program, as opposed to a national prestige program as Apollo was.
The effect of going to the moon with a smaller budget is seen with Artemis: with 1/25 the annual budget that Apollo enjoyed, it’s taking a bit longer.
@@Hobbes746 did the Space Station !SS cost $150 billion? JFK later regretted his "Send a man to the moon and return him safely speech" stating he wished he had promoted the idea of abolishing world hunger and mass starvation - $300 billion would provide farms and deep water wells for every village on Earth
this was a pretty good back and forth on this issue ... thanks for not using insults nor smears etc.
@@Hobbes746 what "hard data" you talking about? Most important data is telemetry witch NASA said was lost in a fire. Classic Hollywood story.
so many journeys to the Moon and... 0 video recording of the journey between Earth and the Moon lol
@@mihaimih4669 At the end of each mission, the data gathered during the mission was reviewed, analyzed, and where necessary, transferred to archives.
The data consists of several parts:
1. audio and video. All of those were retained.
2. Science data from instruments on board. This data went into the PDS, ready to be used by scientists.
3. Engineering telemetry from the spacecraft: data from sensors that monitor spacecraft parts. This was vital during the missions, because it was the source for troubleshooting. At the end of the mission, this data became obsolete.
When Apollo ended, NASA had a warehouse full of tapes whose data had already been reviewed and transferred. These tapes were then reused for Landsat.
NASA has never claimed the important data was “lost in a fire”. We can verify this because all of the data is still available today, much of it in _public_ archives.
The only data they *discarded* was the now-useless engineering telemetry.
So, in the 50s and 60s it took 15-20 years to reach the moon. But then we "forgot" how. So in 2002 we tried again with much more advanced technology yet 20 years on we still are nowhere near the moon? Seems logical.
Maybe they moved the film set into the Epcot centre so they couldn't do any more movies?
We didnt forget.
There was just no reason to go there anymore.
NASAs budget also got scaled back significantly and work safety became more popular, making space flight even more expensive.
@@mgordon1713 Im sorry in NASAs own words they "forgot" how to make rockets like the Saturn V.
@@miked3723 Bullocks! We did not "forgot" how to make the Saturn V. We "lost" the ability to build more. After the Apollo program ended and funding got cut, assembly lines got scrapped. Companies that built essential parts went out of business or pivoted to something else. Hell, the F1 first stage engines were hand made! Technology moved on. The blueprints for the Saturn V most certainly still exist as do the blueprints for the command module, service module and LEM. To find those same parts, to re-constitute the assembly lines, to find knowledgeable staff to work those lines, is almost prohibitively expensive. Better to start fresh with the experience we gained. Which is exactly what companies like Space-X are doing with the Falcon Heavy.
@@miked3723 Source?