That Mitchell and Webb Look - Moon Landing Sketch
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- If you disagree with Robert Webb's previous criticism of the UK-based charity supporting gender non-conforming children Mermaids, feel free to donate here:
mermaidsuk.org...
I always mention that the Russians confirmed the landing, you know, the guys that would have every reason to call it a lie.
what if they're in on it? huh? what then? wouldn't you support an enemy's lie if their people are questioning it largely? because it'd be funny?
@@aymuhspunj i cant believe you’re the first to reply yea comment that’s 10 years old
@@gazza42069 damn right.
@@gazza42069 That sounds like a fun game actualy. I will write a replay and see if the guy anwasers me.
Hey dude, how is going. This comment is 10 years old. How is life been after so many years? Is that Dio?
When Stanley Kubrick was asked to make a film of a fake moon landing he was such a perfectionist he insisted on filming it on location.
I preferred this comment when the other two people made it before you.
@meow purr yes, and the giant boosters at the end of the rocket were just for show.
He did film a Vietnam war movie in London.
Gee, how original.
@@119beaker And he did a 18th century movie about the Seven War's Year in 1975
I like how they faked a failed attempt and a rescue mission. THAT's attention to detail.
and they even faked a horrible disaster where three astronauts perished in a test mission (apollo 1).
your comment needs more likes. Haha! They're all about realism about the NASA theatre. Proper method actor types.
@@dawidczerniak5177 lolol male karen
@@rtarbinar No, they actually did murder the three astro-nots, but it took place during a ground exercise. Two were sacrificed because the third was being openly critical that going to the moon was not going to be possible. You’ll be happy to know that they did indeed fake the deaths in the Challenger shuttle explosion decades later-blew up an empty rocket.
They had to spice up the narrative to keep the sheep entertained-the same mask wearing sheep we see today. It works.
It's like I've always said : logistics is the mortal ennemy of conspiracy theories.
And that has never been more true than it is now
What about the Manhattan project
@@captainjimmy6947 What about it?
@@captainjimmy6947 It proves logistics is the mortal enemy of conspiracy theories. The man who sold the uranium to the US had already transported it to New York before they even contacted him to purchase it because he saw the logistics and travel going on in Nevada and knew what they were up to and knew they would need the uranium. The publishers running the top physics magazines knew research into a nuke was going on because all the top physicists/nuclear scientists has suddenly changed their mailing address to the middle of the Nevada desert. Kodak knew a nuke had been tested because their water supply was being contaminated at the factories and was causing film to become exposed inside it's packaging from the radiation, in fact they were able to tell from weather patterns and the location of the water roughly when and where the nuke has been tested.
And spelling.
"perhaps we should release the Mars landing footage"...I love the way they slip in another cospiracy theory that completely contradicts the first.
There was no need to fake the landing on the moon. It was all about timing. Step 1: wait until the moon is underneath earth. Step 2: take rocket to edge of the Flat Earth. Step 3: FALL OFF the Earth ON TO the waiting moon below. QED.
+DDG Aaah if only it were that easy. You gotta fall off the Earth with STYLE, otherwise you're just gonna miss da moon.
+DDG WRONG!!!!!!! Step 3: Profit ;)
funkyironman69
You misspelt "prophet"! :P
DDG
Same thing right? ;p
funkyironman69
But but... Jesus said that rich people should be squished and shoved through the eye of a needle. Or something. I'm shakey on exact details :P I'll squish and let you all know :P
"well the main one to be honest, is the massive rocket" -- this line absolutely kills me
The thing I find really interesting is that Michael Collins , who remained in the orbiter capsule, was the most isolated person in the history of the world. When he travelled around the dark side of the moon, he was the furtherest distance from another human that anyone has ever been.
Erm... Wrong.
What about that time I was riding my bike and took a short cut through a field and didn't see anyone for like 8 minutes? 🚲
@@Boo..... yeah, that's fairly isolated. But Michael Collins was the greatest distance from another living thing anyone has ever been.
@@dougwhiley4028
R/whooooosh
🤦🏻♂️
Dude, I was clearly joking.
Did you really think I thought I was the most isolated human ever because I was once alone on a field...
🤷🏻♂️
@@Boo..... no, I knew you were joking. But I just think it's interesting what Collins experienced. There was no certainty that the moon landing pod would be able to dock with his moon orbiter craft, or that any of them would set foot on Earth again. Scary stuff.
I would have loved to have his job.
My friends keep saying that we landed on the moon, but I don't ever remember doing it. I'm pretty sure it would be difficult to forget. Perhaps they landed on the moon, and because we're together most of the time, I've somehow become an assumed presence in their recollection of the event. Either way, I don't remember a period of time where we were apart long enough for them to have received sufficient training, and then actually complete the moon landing mission. Could they be lying to me?
And we won the premier league last year
@@diabl2master and we won the 2nd world war, go us!
Given the number of things we do, but don’t ever remember doing, it think it’s statistically far more likely that you simply forgot. I don’t remember the last time I had peaches and cream, but I don’t go around denying it. Nor do I go around calling my friends liars.
@@albertbatfinder5240 the OP probably doesn't even remember posting this, nearly ten years ago.
@@albertbatfinder5240 Unless you forgot calling them liars. And it was probably condensed milk.
"So, we're not actually going to make any kind of saving in terms of the cost of a massive rocket?" Totally hilarious. :) "Fake the footage of the fake Moon landing ON the Moon?" Icing on the cake!
A quarter of Americans surveyed could not correctly answer that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, according to a report out Friday (Feb 15, 2014) from the National Science Foundation.
To the question "Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth," 26 percent of those surveyed answered incorrectly.
Just over half understood that antibiotics are not effective against viruses.
Are you aware of a phenomenon known as the "bible belt"?
Carbon 12 That it's a 'bible belt' has been refuted, and we know better now.
It's a 'bible sphere'
David Olden Not enough upvote buttons.
You owe me a new keyboard, I was drinking coffee!
Well, technically, the Earth, Sun, and all the planets actually orbit the center of mass of the solar system which isn't at the center of the Sun.....
Did they land on the moon when it was big and fat or when it was small and skinny (because skinny would have been much harder)?
"Pop to the moon" hilarious
as you do
what if we built a large wooden badger?
Shut up and go and change your armour.
The Mythbusters cracked two of the popular ones, where people were saying the shadows were edited, and a footstep had irregularities on it. The shadow one the mythbusters made a scaled down duplicate of the sand, and it had almost the exact same features. Don't really remember the footstep one, but they proved that one to be real too.
It was proven in a vacuum chamber.
The footsteps one was about why the sand held its shape even with the absence of moisture in the sand
Apparently sand just keeps its shape for some reason in a vacuum
Of course Kubrick faked the Moon landing. But he was such a perfectionist he insisted on doing it on location. :)
But he only needed 7 takes (one was botched, though).
Kubrick made a total hash of the moon sequence in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Landing on the moon is just math. The people who don't think it was possible clearly don't understand basic physics. Once you are in orbit, you are (at least) halfway to anywhere. The difficulty wasn't the tech, it was the scale... and when you give engineers the drive to fullfil a dream of humanity within their lifetimes, nothing is too big.
The people who made it possible deserve more respect than assholes saying that what they did was a lie.
this is why everyone cheered when Buzz Aldrin punched that one conspiracy lunatic in the face, it was a glorious moment
@@Blackgriffonphoenixg no human as ever left earth it’s impossible the van Allen radiation belt makes it so.
@@theONE-ws8lh Not according to our understanding of the Van Allen Radiation Belt. The radiation is not all that high, and they pass through those belts very quickly. The majority of the radiation they will endure is from the sun itself, and that is negligible on your average two week trip.
@@theONE-ws8lh liar. Just because you're too willfully ignorant to understand why it is possible to pass quickly through the van Allen belts, that will never justify your vile dishonesty.
ah, but if you get to orbit, you are halfway to your anywhere. and once you are halfway to anywhere, you then must go half of the remaining distance. and then half again, and again, and again... and you can never truly arrive! checkmate, atheists!
This video needs to be sent to every moon landing denier. It shows perfectly how ridiculous they are in one comedy sketch.
I mean, they usually deny it based on the idea that it CAN'T be done, not that it was faked just because. Not that that's any less silly, but it means this sketch doesn't exactly debunk their argument.
@@rockspoon6528 but if you have to build a rocket that in theory could do it, why no just do it?
@@mathewferstl7042 I'll gladly continue this conversation when you develop a reading comprehension capacity beyond a 1st grade level.
@@mathewferstl7042 there is no reason why the rocket would in theory be able to go to the moon. You can build a rocket that could never go to the moon, then claim it did. That is more like what the conspiracy theory is about, as I understand it.
@@mathewferstl7042 Because that is what they want to believe 😃😉. They got the Soviet Union covers up for them, through their connection with Prince Phillip.
The part of the moonshot that scared the Soviets (and they intended to scare us with) was the ability to actually go to the moon, surely, would mean they could actually hit a city with an ICBM.
The Germans hit plenty of cities with ballistic missiles in WW2. It’s not that hard. Heck the Soviets already had the technology too by 1969.
@@JimmySailor They were mostly missing actually. Also hitting a city on the other side of the world is much harder.
also also, designing and building a moon rocket is a very different promlem than designing and building an ICBM. Moon rockets had to be launced a few minutess after they were fueled up while an ICBM has to sit on fully fueled up & ready to launch for months on end.
@@JimmySailor The Germans hit (actually mostly missed) cities about 200 miles away. Hitting Moscow from bases in the United States is a rather more complicated venture.
No, the Moon is an archetypal symbol of the female. Shooting a big aluminum phallus at the Moon is showing sexual dominance. The US intelligence headshrinkers were certainly well aware of the psychological effect that would have on the Soviets.
@@NoJusticeNoPeace The big aluminium phallus part didn't even make to orbit, but fell back to Earth and burnt up in the atmosphere. What's the sexual implication of that?
I like how they’re not even attempting an American accent 😂😂
That's how Americans really speak.
@@mochynddu723 lol no it’s not 😂
@@JayJay5244 You have only met fake ones.
@@JayJay5244 I'm American, it's how we speak.
@@willchurch8376 Yeah totally… Pledge of allegiance we always did in this accent 😂
QUESTION EVERYTHING!
...No, not me, everything else!
by all means question everything, that doesn't mean don't believe anything
WARNING: This comments section is full of moon landing deniers trying (and often failing) to rebut the arguments made in this COMEDY VIDEO.
Yeah, but they're just as funny as the skit. :)
Daniel Finegold thanks
"This comments section is full of moon landing deniers..."
Far from being full, I'm struggling to find any moon landing deniers here.
@@LAnonHubbard Then you just need to read more comments. There are many of them, and other conspiracy followers unfortunately.
@@albertjoseph754 read more. Didn't find any. Maybe I give up too easily.
If you rearrange the letters in "illuminati", you get "aitiillnum", or you can get "luna ilmiati" which can almost spel "luna imitator" luna=moon, Batman faked the moon landing.
That's impressive. Even more so is the fact that if you take a random bunch of numbers and letters, replace them with every 35th vowel in the Bible starting from Kings 3:14, then discard them and have a spliff, you notice your hands looks really weird.
WRITE THAT DOWN WRITE THAT DOWN
You could also shuffle all letters in the word "illuminati" in *ANY* random order and it would be all gibberish, *BUT* if you re-order them in the exact original order again then you will get the word "Illuminati" again. Mind = blown.
It gets better. If you take the letters from "Illuminati" and mix them with "Freemasons", you can waste EVEN MORE hours without accomplishing anything!
@@0x777 Seems like something a freemason with ties to the Illuminati would say. I'm onto you 0x777 or should I say 0x666!
One of my favourite M&W sketches.
As everyone knows, everyone in Washington in 1968 had an English accent. :)
Washington is a hoax perpetuated by MI5 ;)
@@jonathanclarke5878 they traveled back in time to insure US victory in the Revolutionary War and pull the strings of the current government, obviously.
Weird, considering most aliens speak English with an American accent
Just scanned through the comments hoping to find some idiot who actual thinks the moon landing was faked who I can argue with. No such luck lol, well done youtubers :)
Check now, lol.
They came in droves.
dragonblack955 no my friend... they come in tin foil hats!!
There must be some, this is youtube. If you want some lunatics to argue with try looking at some 9/11 videos you'll find plenty of "truther" idiots who genuinely believe that the US government staged the whole thing. I've chatted to some of these nutters in the past and they're quite entertaining.
***** yeah, things have changed since I made that comment lol
When you realize that faking the moon landing would have been exponentially more difficult than actually just doing it...
Anytime I hear a new conspiracy theory on the net, I replay it in my head as a M&W sketch and it instantly exposes how ridiculous it is
This is how they really faked the moon landing it was done on the moon itself :P
+SMSFF7 They had to create artificial gravity in a fake moon studio on the moon so that they could fake moon gravity.
No, the only way we know to create gravity is to do it the way nature does it - with a bloody huge mass of something. The fact is that we had to build a replica moon to life-sized scale in order to mimic the Moon's gravity to make proper fake footage. You guys just don't appreciate what a technical marvel the whole Fake Moon Landing Mission was, and how the USA broke the USSR in their race to be the first superpower to fake the Moon Landings. I've even heard there is secret footage of Kennedy making an historic speech in which he says: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of faking a man on the Moon and faking his safe return to Earth."
@@noneofyourbeeswax01 They were going to build a life size replica, (it was to much work) so they actually built small scale sections of the moon here on earth, and different scales of moon. They only faked going half way because they were tired that day. @$$troNOTs lost film of them wiping all the dust off the tin foil landing gear to get the perfect picture on the moon, maybe they will find the lost footage some day to show how tin foil was spotless.
Yes, the infinate question of accountability. No matter who i say, they will just ask who controls them. I answer that question, they ask who controls them. Either they will reach an established entity that they distrust, or they will reach a point where a further entity is not present they just assert that one of there goto "bad" entities is in control.
Haha, excellent find!
So if they payed every employee off to not talk all at once, say, a mere $1000 each, then the bribes alone would cost almost half a billion dollars (based on the employment in 1965), this is 1965 money and $1000 isn't enough to bribe most people to ensure this -alleged- level of silence :-) awesome
@spacehopperballs They were also able to put the entire set with all the film crew into a near perfect vacuum so that when any dust was thrown up it would fall in a perfect parabola and not get caught in air currents. This is impossible even with today's technology.
Well, to be fair, they would make savings on the mun lander and on testing mos tof the equipment that was involved-life support, spacesuits, etc. It can translate into significant fuel savings since they only really would need to send this stuff into LEO, and payload would be significantly lighter.
P.s. YES WE DID GO THERE. Open up google and look up some books on the topic if you think we didn't. Derive tsiolkovsky's rocket equation from basic principles and clculate the delta-v that saturn 5 had, then compare it to the delta-v needed to go and land on the moon(you can also calculate that, it takes like 3 lines of derications) if you are really paranoid and think that everyone is lying to you.
Not to mention, if memory serves, the people behind the mission had the foresight to put a reflector there, just for this kind of situation. Any average joe with a not-so-average laser can prove the moon landing really happened.
But for the hoax to work you have to bribe all the NASA employees and anyone else who was supposed to work on the project to keep quiet. I imagine that would amount to quite a significant cost.
Also the Russians would have been able to track it with their radar and would have known if it was only in low earth orbit.
You would still have to build the entire Apollo Guidance Computer, otherwise AGC simulators would be nonexistent.
This is the greatest debunker of conspiracy theories, humanity owes you, Mitchell & Webb
Don't get too crazy. Some times baddies actually do lie together.
Actually....that's a 66% description of history! But anyhow...
I love the idea that there could have been a meeting like this where people actually did a cost/benefit analysis and decided it would be cheaper to actually go to the Moon than it would be to believably fake going to the Moon.
i'm surprised Mitchell didnt go into one of his outburst "of course it's more expensive to go to the moon" with how inaccurate that is! Lunar landing really involved 4 big rockets with the first 3 being used as "rehearsals"
Commander Hadfield sent me.
True, I forgot to mention that mission. Young and Cernan landed on the Moon as commanders of Apollo 16 and 17, only the commander - Stafford was left out. I would've been pissed if I was him.
Nice to get some intelligent sketch shows once in awhile
@pcvideogamer: Awesome! I’m glad you enjoyed Moon Machines. BTW I just love how the Playtex lingerie people turned out to be the only outfit actually able to make practical spacesuits. Almost as much as the perverse use of a rocket’s turbopump and fuel as a hydraulic pump and working fluid for the gimbal mechanism (on top of the fuel being used to cool the nozzles and the turbopump exhaust being used for an extra bit of roll control.)
Elaborate dear one!
All hail the bra ladys!
I like how these U.S. government officials all have British accents :)
David Mitchell is hilarious.
I see trees of green........ red roses too
I see em bloom..... for me and for you
And I think to myself.... what a wonderful moon.
@agt155 Actually, real conspiracy theorists do stuff like that all the time. They say that the WTC buildings on 9/11 fell "in their own footprint", which is "proof" of Controlled Demolition. When it's pointed out that they didn't, they say that the fact that the debris covered such a wide area is proof of explosives. And if you ask them if their first claim was wrong, they ignore you or try to change the subject.
The moon is a giant ball of cheese, and somewhere on the surface are Wallace and Grommit, eating the cheese. Thats why there are so many craters.
The moon is just the back of the sun.
I never thought of it like that. Does anyone else know that???
Then I suppose, 'DDG' would be wrong??
"Step 1: wait until the moon is underneath earth. Step 2: take rocket to edge of the Flat Earth. Step 3: FALL OFF the Earth ON TO the waiting moon below. QED."
The moon would not be 'under' the Earth, because it is 'the Sun' in the daytime???
Hmmmmm?? ;-))
if we moon people...what does the sun do?
Nope, they are both separate, haven't you ever seen the the moon during daylight hours ? The sun is in one part of the sky and the moon at another part ..
Well they kept that a secret…..it explains why it shines…the light is still on….although dimmer….hmm
Shane Warne's wife thought the moon was just the sun coming out at night
I love how related your avatar is to the conversation :D
Love the satire. Some people just don't understand how much easier it is to send people to the moon than to fake it. Occam's Razor is a great principle to stand by in this matter
Just mention Van Allen belts to them
Id like one of these blue glowing tables
I wish I could show my philosophy professor this, his own country making fun of his ridiculous beliefs on the moon landing.
"philosophy professor" Why would you even take such a bloody useless course in post secondary education..?
If you wanted a basis in philosophy you should have just read a few books. Instead, you funded a fucking moron's retirement fund.
on the contrary, my philosophy professor linked this video in the course material
@pcvideogamer: The diffraction limit given by sin θ = 1.22 λ ÷ D implies a telescope needs to have an aperture (or a baseline in the case of inteferometry scopes like the VLT) about 1km wide to see at 20cm resolution on the Moon, good enough to see a good picture of the LEM. We’re not quite there yet. BTW, watch the awesome Moon Machine series.
I know it's a comedy sketch, but I'm a little surprised they didn't factor the saved cost of fuel into it
The difference between a rocket that looks like it could go to the moon and one that actually can go to the moon is tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. It's pretty lazy satire, the other two sketches are better.
@@cynicalpenguin good joke.
@@cynicalpenguin To be fair, the rocket has to be seen to leave the earth by a huge number of people so that part has to be real. Once it's travelling in space it's operating on momentum and using less fuel than a car pulling out of a drive because it's travelling in the void of space and it's escaped the pull of gravity from the large body it has escaped. That's how probes get to travel so far in space.
@spoogegoat yes it's amazing the ingenuity of some people, the use of slap-dash quick fixes which in turn saved lives (re: Ap-13) - incidentally my father has something to do with NASA... he worked for the MOD here in the UK and when i was a child brought home for me these amazing models of the Lunar-rover and Sat-V... blew me away, he used to lecture on space-travel and had ties with President Carter.. all very hush hush, never told me anything about it apart from to inspire me, anyways cheers
Moon-hoax nuts: _Wow, this is a really great documentary!_
They could’ve saved a bunch of money by simply trotting out the massive rocket they used on the very real, but oddly top secret, Mars landing.
Wait, how did they not have the technology at the time if they already captured alien space craft? ;)
+Carbon 12 Because if they use alien technology, people will ask "Where did you get all that advanced tech"? No, it's vitally important to keep the alien space craft a secret.
Do you know how long it took to reverse engineer the alien ship's energy source? The flemgh matrix alone took us...
Erh...
I gotta go.
Yes. Tens of thousands of people contributed in some way to the Apollo missions.
Somewhere in Washington...three American government agents apparently have British accents.
You do realise this is a comedy sketch?
alfandersengm
And I'm finding additional comedy.
the revolution was another hoax apparantly
@spacehopperballs
It is correct, that one doesn't nees a reflector on the moon to get a reflcetion with a laser beam. But: you need a reflector to have one exactly defined spot, which can be measured against in a reproducable way. At least if one wants to measure the distance to the precision of a few centimeters. The moon is not like a polished marble, you know! So you want to have a small(!) point of reflection and not a wide area with lots of rocks and craters in it.
lol i hate it when people argue for the moon landing conspiracy and i some how have not much to say to argue against it then i watch this sketch and realize how easy it is to make them look dumb thank you mitchell and webb!
Sheer, comedy genius!
Take THAT, Apollo Truthers!
{:o:O:}
I wonder when they're going to finish painting the far side of the Moon, I'm getting bored looking at the same side year after year.
ua-cam.com/video/peMY6htOcjE/v-deo.html
We can see this was shown on the BBC HD channel, but uploaded in 240p.
not to forget the two hour long live broadcast from the moon, all in all with the astronauts moving cameras around.
I mean, if you built the giant rocket to go to them moon, you could easily have a secret hatch in the bottom of the rocket for them to escape from before you fling it pointlessly into space, then play the pre recorded footage at the right time. That way you wouldnt have to pay over 100 rocket scientists for several years to figure out for to actually get from earth to the moon... But seeing as the mars base was under construction at the time I guess that sort of science would be a break time hobby for the boffins
I'm going to the Mars base soon to work for 6 months
This is probably the last place we should have a serious discussion about moon landing and conspiracy theories in general, but I honestly have to point out something that to me seems obvious, but somehow escapes the most vehement anti-conspiracy people, which is that, as long as you have to simplify and recontextualize the actual theories, it means that you are not really proving anything, you are just deliberately misinterpreting the obvious, thus in no way helping, but actually motivating the conspiracy theories even more.
In this sketch, we have a couple of great examples of this. When they mention the Mars landing, everyone jumps on the bandwagon of believing that the same people that question the Moon landing also believe in the Mars landing theory. No one seems able to take into account the possibility that these two theories are being held by different people, for different reasons. I guess it's just easier to debunk stuff if you first change what that stuff actually is. The thing is, as long as you have to do that, the people you are trying to convince only get more suspiscious, because of said manipulation. Another gross simplification that, granted, is just part of the comedy in the sketch, but is also what people in the comments grasp as serious argument more than willingly, is them making it seem like you would have to build a fully operational rocket capable of going to the Moon, just so as to fake it. Also, the notion that the price of staging a moon landing mission is a factor, when the premise is that the US simply didn't have the know-how to actually do it, making this argument a false dichotomy. Obviously, if the US could do it, they would have. The theory goes that they couldn't, so they faked it. Same goes for all other popular debunks, as well as most popular theories. People who are doing the debunking are often as misinformed as are the actual theorists, sometimes even worse than that. In fact, I would argue that most conspiracy debunkers probably know less about the subjects they are debunking than the actual theorists. Why? Because the former are much more prone to believing perceived authorities, regurgitating their arguments, instead of taking the time to understand the concepts involved. They aren't really invested in the issues, they just want the systems to be fluid and functional, so for them, nothing is sacred. Lies are as good as truth when it comes getting what you want, right?
All of these things should be obviously problematic to anyone carrying an ounce of brain, but for some reason they are not. So it just gets me thinking: how come all these people behaving as if they are the rational ones who have to deal with stupid shit - how come they seem unable to think rationally? How is it that they are willing to take such feeble arguments as proof, while at the same time acting as if they value logic and science? It just baffles me.
The most important point I am trying to bring accross here is this. If you truly want to have a world with as little traction when it comes to truth and world stability, you have to take the time and make sure that your efforts aren't yielding the opposite results. Twisting the arguments while debating with people who already mistrust the system isn't the way to go. Mocking people who already think that being mocked is a symptom of brainwashing also isn't the way to go. Obviously, there will be some who are just fanatical and truly crazy when it comes to theories, but most people are just suspiscious and not really sure who they can put trust in. Most people are just aware that the world we live in is far from perfect and want to get to the bottom of that. Fanatical defense of such systems makes you an accomplice, whether you like it or not. Only well thought out, informed and clearly demonstrable arguments can bring about agreement among the majority of the population.
It's natural for people to defer to authorities for subjects they don't have enough knowledge, because vast majority of them do not have the time to research and deep-dive into various topics of that nature, nor do they care enough to do it.
That's my main problem with the moon landing conspiracy theories, the motivation for doing it is extremely weak relative to how relevant the moon landings actually are to modern society. Unless someone is an astronomy enthusiast, nobody cares about the moon landings and faking them would have not served a purpose then and it's especially pointless to keep the lie going for half a century.
It's warranted to be skeptical about it, especially the more you deep dive into the subject. And you are right that most people just believe without knowing any better, I've personally witnessed many people who didn't even realize that manned moon missions haven't "happened" since the early 70s. But the reason they didn't know that is because they didn't give a shit because it's such a minor event in the grander context of human history and culture.
Ironically, that's also a big argument for why moon landing conspiracy could've worked. I'm sure you're aware of various debunkers saying "it's impossible to silence tens of thousands of people who worked on the project", which is really ridiculous when you think about it because at the end of the day, there's division of labor and the vast majority of people who worked on Apollo had no interest or access to the entire information related to the project. In other words, just because someone worked on the rocket that doesn't mean they knew if the lunar lander was bullshit, for example. Or that they somehow gave a fuck more than just doing their specific part of the job and getting paid.
I'm pretty skeptical about it myself and I try to bring up the subject as conversation with friends and colleagues a lot and what I noticed is that nobody really cares, especially since we're not americans so there's no "national pride" involved. It's just a random bit of science trivia and nothing else. That to me is the strongest argument against the moon hoax theories, it just seems like too much work for little benefit.
@@kthy0056 I agree with most everything you said, and you brought up some excellent additional points. As it stands, I am not really sure about the moon landing, mostly because I haven't devoted enough time to it to make a sort of judgement, but I agree it's mostly irrelevant now.
That said, at the time of it (supposedly) happening, it was a big fucking deal, because governments were not only racing to prove their technological supremacy (which is a race still very much relevant today, and was especially important during cold war), but the very notion of claiming space territory was still very open to interpretation, so I'm sure anyone who managed to be the first to land would have been deemed, or woud have at least deemed themselves, to be the rightful owners of said territory. More recent history teaches us very well as to how these seemingly weak arguments could have been abused to provide excuses for hideous acts, with the US pretty much standing out at that department for decades now. So in my mind, this is the primary motivating factor. If people would be willing to look a bit more closely, they would have realized how plausible this whole theory is, relating to the fact that many governments, and especially the US, have had a history of widespread manipulations and lies, some of which they were caught partaking in and still somehow managed to wiggle out of it. This, I think, is mostly due to people's lack of ability to face the chaos of a crumbled system. When it comes down to it, most Americans will rather keep themselves willfully ignorant than rid themselves of the "most powerful nation in the world" narrative. We can see these days that even lagging behind other countries isn't enough to squash these fairytales. We see the US dollar being propped up indefinitely despite it being almost completely hollow and we see war after war being created out of nothing, so as to keep up the pace with more economically advanced nations. When you see the lengths they are willing to go to and the maneuvering moral space their people are willing to allow them, it just makes for such a fertile ground for any number of lies.
This last sentiment would, in my mind, explain why they would keep up the lie for so long. It's about the image and about getting stuck too deep in the lies to be able to backtrack, or re-brainwash the public. But, if they ever wanted to low-key reveal that it was all a lie, this would be the era to do it in, when truth is made all but irrelevant and where we have armies and armies of head-nodders and yes men, ready to destroy anyone who dares question the main narratives.
I still lean the tinyest bit towards it being true, in my underinformed state, but I take great enjoyment in debating anyone who I deem approaches the subject without really thinking about it.
Thanks again for your detailed reply!
The problem with the "moon landing was faked" hypothesis is that there is no evidence for the proposition! Perhaps you would like to give us the best bit, the one that we would all find hard to ignore.
@@MrDorbel you're missing my point. First of all, I already stated that I'm not suggesting the moon landing was faked. Second, I was talking about how people who are actually supporting the main narrativese when it comes to the "conspiracy theories" often know very little about the subject an wouldn't be able to themselves prove what they stand for. So I'd say, if you want to get into this, you would be the one who would have to offer evidence, and the theorists would then debunk those until there is either no evidence left, or there was evidence good enough so that no one can debunk them well.
As far as the moon landing goes, it's not that there's clear evidence it did not happen, it's about what evidence has been brought out to support it, and if that evidence could have been faked, as well as whether there were circumstances that would warrant such a hoax to be organized at all. One problem most "main narrative" people have is that they expect clear evidence for some of the worst things happening in this world, as if the systems perpetrating them would allow for such evidence to survive, if exist at all.
Let's agree that, from our vantage point, here in the 21st century, it's more or less irrelevant whether or not the moon landing was faked. Let's also say that it's useless arguing about it right now, when all relevant evidence would have been long disposed of, even if they did exist. But let's look at some more current events such as, for example, what happened with the Epstein affair and how quickly anyone who even raised a question about this obviously fishy set of circumstances was labeled a conspiracy theorist and laughed off into oblivion. The man somehow managed to kill himself in a top security prison, with no guards present, cameras not working, even though he should have been the most treasured and important person in recent history. His partner for many years gets arrested and we cannot hear a word about her for years now, except some lame MMS narratives about how she couled have possibly been coerced into doing what she did, thus prepargin an excuse even before we actually find out what exactly she did. Also, this is a convenient way to divert the storyline from who was taking part in these events to what Epstein and her were responsible for. And so on, the point isn't to delve into this particular case, it's just that we can clearly see how the system acts when it has something to protect or hide. We do not need to ask ourselves what evidence we have to support the theory, we only need to ask ourselves how the system would be acting if it had nothing to hide. And that's simple. They would protect Epstein, they would make sure to find out everything about his dealings, would then arrest and prosecute all the perpetrators and do it transparently. Then there would be no need to speculate on what evidence you or I have, because it's not our job to gather said evidence. It's the job of the system to not give us reason to doubt them.
And once you establish the willingness of the system to lie, the fact that there's so many conspiracy theories out there is only their fault.
@@oNtuobAwoH Your premise assumes that people who deny the moon landing approach the subject rationally. You offer zero evidence to support this assumption and your entire model collapses both in reality and in theory.
I like how they assumed the secret service would be in charge of faking the moon landing because of how spooky-sounding the name is, even though in reality they're just the president's bodyguards who are also in charge of anti-counterfeiting for some reason
Every moon landing conspiracy argument destroyed in two minutes.
Fool you trust Nixon
How? NASA got billions in funding from the Tax payers. The money didn't come out of the president's pocket. In fact, the manufacturers and contractors involved in the construction of the rocket all had corporate and personal ties to the then in-power government. Look into it :)
@@xFirstAidx all moon missions were during Nixon
@@Jayhazy23 Correct. Nixon and his government didn't get the bill for the Apollo missions, tax payers paid for it. So the argument that it cost too much to fund a fake moon landing doesnt make sense
@@xFirstAidx They were fake
Love it. Bless these Masters of the Craft. :)
The part I've always liked to point out is that Russia had a space program, and thus could track a rocket, and was in competition with us. They'd have been the first ones to cry foul if we didn't actually do it.
also the fact that the Russians later sent a unmanned mission to the moon to collect rocks, and they were the same rocks that the Americans brought back when they went
@@lewis0705 What are you talking about?
@@BunniRabbi what? just read? did you reply to the wrong person?😭😭😭
@@lewis0705 No, I'm asking what you are referring to. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can phrase that.
@@BunniRabbi my comment couldn't be any clearer. I've never been so confused by someone's reply to one of my comments before lmao. like what😭😭
RIP Neil Armstrong... :'(
The massive rocket without the people, life support and the moon lander will be a lot cheaper.
+Koch Bro but how do you explain the moon rocks, the laser reflectors and the video of humans and objects behaving in micro gravity on earth and moon orbit ? oh.. you cant.
+Koch Bro Yes, that's true, but then there is all the costs of the fake sets and crew needed to fake it. Plus all the money that you have to pay them to keep quiet about it. So, probably wouldn't be cheaper in the end.
Actually most of the time with rockets it's the engines that's the expensive bit, and the Sat Five has some pretty fucking huge engines.
Koch Bro ...except those where built as well. Spare equipment from Apollo is in museums in America and preliminary programmes such as Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter& Ranger. Pictures from Chinese/European/Soviet/Indian pribes show the same topography as the US probes. An Apollo upper stage was spotted by a telescope several years ago. Apollo 14's upper stage was images by a telescope in the ground in 1971. Soviet Lunar soil sample match US samples. Photographs on the surface of the moon don't show stars, as you would expect if you understand how film absorbs light. Gravity at one sixth of Earth as evident in Apollo 15 s experiment. Apollo 11 was tracked from Germany, there where broadcasts recorded independently from NASA at the time. 3 million people saw Apollo 11 take off, so the Saturn V really could fly. The VAB exists, the F1 test stand still exists, Astronaut training facilities at Houston exist. The launch pads exist . The transporter exists. All the equipment exists in museums. The microchips in your computer exist, derived from Apollo. The moon hoax conspiracy has to be one of the weakest conspiracy theories, yet people still believe it. I think it comes from suspicion of experts, believing they are lying, it's a way of making sense of seemingly inexpicable events.
No, it won't. The vast majority of the budget for going to the moon went into engine design and the safety systems required to store rocket fuel safely without the vehicle exploding on the launchpad. That is some very complex engineering and costs an insane amount of resources to develop, let alone build.
And it _was_ built, I've seen it with my own eyes.
@spacehopperballs
... lots of consumables. Everything one needs to stay alive for at least half a year. Food, water, air, clothing, waste managment, containers to live in, ... In case of an emergency - a rescue vehicle back, etc. Todays requirements are much higher then in the Apollo era. Then it was sufficient to just go there. But today that is not enough.
As for too risky. Most of the astronauts were test pilots, some were active combat pilots. They knew how to handle risky situations.
Conspiracy theorists: We never went to the moon, radiation belt etc
Also conspiracy theorists: we have alien tech at area 51
You know there is more than one conspiracy right?
Truth is surely stranger than fiction. In fact, the decision to go to the moon was taken by two guys in a car park.
The Moon landing proved a very unexpected thing about Humans - > They don't know how shadows work!
At geostationary orbit you will receive 3,000,000 REMs annually under normal to low solar activity
3,000,000/365days=8219REM/day. 550 REM for a sample population would cause radiation sickness and about 50 percent deaths. Astronauts protected with only a spacesuit during normal-length extra-vehicular activity at geostationary altitude could receive about 0.43 REM per day under minimum to moderate solar activity conditions, which is sufficient to damage the eyes and other vital organs.
If only we could go to the moon again. Nah we cannot, NASA by mistake destroyed all the data. Believable eh?
nobsocket
@@few2rock it is the truth. Do your research
@@lelobest stop blindy believe every conspiracy theory out there. Don't just listen to idiots preaching on UA-cam and do a proper research.
@@few2rock NASA said that. Not a conspiracy theory. Facts are facts. You may not like them but that's what they are
@@lelobest They scrapped 50 years old technology that would serve no purpose today, so in your eyes that means we can't go to the moon again? We can, but for what purpose? It's just a piece of rock.
@spoogegoat thank you for your reply... incidentally i saw the entire 'moon machines' series you suggested... amazing... spent a good few hours enjoying that so thanks for the recommendation, it was inspiring and to think some people believe they never went to the moon... well thats all paranoid fantasy to me now... so thanks for putting me back on track and for the insights, cheers
Why would the fake rocket need to be capable of going to the moon?
Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, Just by bloody looking at a rocket, you can tell how far it would actually get to and the amount of fuel it's got pumping out.
That's really cool. Thanks!
That... and because the soviets were tracking it all the way there and back.
ChainAlgorithmOfficial Also the British.
*****
"That's what stopped them"?
please say you're not a hoax believer
@bloodstream: Sadly; you cannot. The Apollo astronauts did however leave a rectro prism on the Moon that astronomers can point a laser at and have it reflected back.
@CessnaDriver2 THANK YOU! Finally someone talks some sense and mentions the LRO
@AussiePolitics I am not saying that a thorough knowledge of say, alchemy, is necessary for a chemist. Knowing what alchemy IS and some of its claims, however, enables one to discredit it and focus chemistry. Objectivity and THOUGHT are very valuable attributes. If more people formed their own opinions, the world would be populated with many more intelligent people. If people thought more, they might have much fewer problems.
I wouldn't have said anything if it was just a comedy sketch. But as Mitchell is in it, the cost of the fuel would be saved. And building a dummy rocket is far cheaper than an actual rocket. Space food is more expensive. Catering for 3 astronauts is thus not cheap.
"And building a dummy rocket is far cheaper than an actual rocket." yeah but you still need to design and build a rocket that's capable of going to the moon in terms of the design because otherwise people would just check the blueprints and design and go "hang on, this wouldn't work", and you still have to launch it for everybody to see
Utter silliness. Everyone knows that we went to the moon because we thought it was made of cheese; and we know that we actually did go to the moon because the reason we never returned was finding out that it isn't made of cheese.
(Behold the power of cheese.)
:P
To be fair, there’s also the cost of paying and training the astronauts, not to mention training and paying an enormous ground crew, plus the buildings where they work, and of course, worst of all, the catering.
Not to mention stopping the soviets from invading as british NASA employees...
wait a second... FUUUUCK
Faking a moon landing while landing on the moon. Leo would be proud. WE HAVE TO GO DEEPER!
After a few weeks he realized that a longer delay was possible , he instantly changed.
You can check on the moonlanding 1969 channel at about 6 month ago.
Funny shit !
@AurorusTech
Ah yes. I previously understood matters to be such that the flag was visible with current equipment, but I've learned about the dimensions and the abilities of the current equipment since.
@CalyxAsgard Rather, manned space flight is unjustifiably expensive for the returns it brings while computational power pays for itself many times over. Hence the standard of development. Aerospace technology hasn't advanced much since the 60s, while electronics has advanced several million fold.
Mirrors were also left on the moon to aid in performing experiments.
First Mitchell and Webb sketch I watched, still funny.
@AngelBiLove
"Once you have been presented, you are faced with the question of what to say. The Queen is always addressed as "Your Majesty" on the first count and thereafter as "Ma'am"; according to Buckingham Palace, this should rhyme with jam, not palm."
...and don't get me started on the extraordinary difficulties getting the lighting right in the 60s. Try doing that stuff with lamps, folks!
Actually "Einsteinian" (if that term was used, which it is not) would refer to the general theory of relativity. That's not the same thing as quantum mechanics.
But anyway, KapStuf is right. Newton hasn't been disproven. He also never postulated that mechanics work that way, he simply said that he can observe objects that behave that way. Which is completely correct.
@spacehopperballs
No. The reason, they didn't go back to the moon is pretty simple: Because it costs money to get there. Lots of money!
If you have been to Hawaii last year and you have the choice of either going back to Hawaii this year or to Tahiti, and you can afford only one trip, what will you do? I don't think it is a very hard guess that you will go to Tahitit. Why? Because you already have been in Hawaii!
My favourite bit of your reply was the matter of fact way in which you addressed them as 'Weewee' hahahaha
I'm saying that Russian telescopes could follow the progress of the rocket. Where do you think the rocket went after it lifted off?
Also, why does the fact that it was fortunate that the Americans managed to do it first make it less credible? That's like saying that because it was "veeeery" lucky that I only just managed to catch the bus in time, means that you should doubt that I caught it at all.
Pure gold.
@Mattnesss I am not saying that knowledge of for example, astrology, would be helpful for an astronomer, but that in order to make the decision to become an astronomer instead of an astrologer, one must understand the difference between the two. One must know what astrology is before one can say it is unscientific (which it is). Investigation of multiple viewpoints is greatly beneficial to the development of informed opinions.