We all know that the moon landing was faked. It was filmed by Stanley Kubrick. However, because he was such a perfectionist he demanded that they film on location.
Grant Hurst i like a comment like yours! Here is mine: just because a young bride wears a white dress at her wedding doesn't guarantee she is a virgin.
We have landed many times on Mars. We have sent countless probes through the solar system, all the way to Pluto, and beyond (Voyager 1 and 2) And some uneducated morons still can,t believe we landed on the Moon ???? IF we faked the Moon landings, why "fake" it SO MANY TIMES ??? The education system has failed BIG time...
@@jocec3283 we all know about the Mars probes and moon probes. This has nothing to do with education, it has to do with whether or not you think the narrative told by Cold War government agencies (on both sides) is actually reliable ... 🙄
I don't know why this guy seems oddly obsessed with agreeing with everything the government says. You get Apollo 11 in 1969 and Apollo 17 in 1972. That's 7 missions in 3 or 4 years. All of the humans that have ever walked on the moon have been Americans and no human has walked on the moon since 1972 (52 years). Not from Russia, China, India, or Japan.
Lane 3192 Ignorance is alive and well. There are some pretty dumb people running around. There is a long list of arguments why this entire Moon Hoax allegation is simply insane. For starters, you’d have to believe that the 400,000 people who worked on the Apollo program have managed to keep a coverup secret for 50 years. Add to that the notion that scientists around the world have been fooled by analyzing “phony” moon rocks, soil, thousands of photos, film, thousands of scientific papers, hardware, tracking, telemetry, data, billions of pages of documentation, etc. And then there is this idea that Stanley Kubrick filmed Apollo. All one has to do is compare the 2001 Space Odessey moon-surface footage to Apollo’s real images, film. There is a huge difference. Kubrick made no attempt to try and simulate the moon’s 1/6 surface gravity because it was too difficult, impractical. Its laughable, yet conspiracists continue to sell the hoax. Why? Fake news is big business $$$ The estimated 5,000 Apollo surface photos and hours of astronauts surface EVA's video are far too complex to have been faked by Hollywood in the early 60s..
@@thomaslewis7883 First, Nasa wasn't/ isn't a big warehouse with 400,000 people working hand in hand . It's compartmentalized with everyone doing their part. If only a few head people know what's really going on , then I believe it's very possible for a secret to be held for 50 years. Wouldn't it be pretty silly to make a movie set look exactly the way you made "the real moon" set look? Well the funny thing is , scientists have been "fooled" by phony scientific papers (what ever the hell that's supposed to mean), hardware, data, etc... Look into it a little deeper. Ok, so why haven't we been back in 50 years. Please , don't say we don't have the technology anymore like Don Pettit said. haha Is it a money thing, it cost too much? But we will be going in what is the date now 2024? Isn't it kinda funny that no other country has landed a human on the moon? Is our 1969 Technology that far advanced that NO one today can get back to the moon? You believe what you want, a little common sense would tell you , you've been lied to.
@@lane3192 So Boeing or say Airbus could fake multiple Moon, Mar Missions and we would never know.?LOL Speak for yourself.No ones fooling anyone I know with fake Moon landings.haha.Sorry, impossible without NASA possessing some kind of mythical magical powers. LOL.NASA had 38,000 men, women at its facilities, and another 375,000 men, women working for the 20,000 subcontracting companies hired by NASA for the 12-year lunar program. The Soviet Union would have immediately announced that the Moon landing was a fake. 1969 was the height of the Cold War, the US was bogged down in Vietnam, we were having violent protests in the streets, Had someone found evidence of American faking 9 Moon flights,6 landings, it would have triggered a scandal 100x worse than Watergate that would have forever changed how Americans viewed its government and leaders. The Soviets would have won the cold war. The Soviet Union said nothing, because they were part of Apollo program, watching every launch, recovery, tracking, listening, observing, etc,.They even tried to land their robotic Luna [soil sample return mission ] spacecraft before Apollo 11 to bust the party and claim "first on a lunar surface", and "the first recovery of lunar surface samples", unfortunately, Luna crashed..NASA even shared lunar samples [ large rocks ] with the Soviets as 3 later Soviet Luna missions were successful, recovering 326 grams / 11.5 ounces of lunar regolith [fine soil and small pebbles ]. As a side note, the Soviets were asked to join Apollo as a partner,they declined only to have their own manned Moon program shut down after repeated failures of their N -1 heavy-lift booster rocket.
@@thomaslewis7883 Well, Nasa faked moon landings in 1969, I'm sure Boeing or whoever could fake it too. So I still ask the question, why haven't we been back to the moon or farther? In 50 years our planes have advanced quite a bit. In 50 years cars have advanced quite a bit. In 15 years our phones have advanced quite a bit. But in 50 years, not too much has advanced as far as space travel goes. That doesn't throw up a red flag in your common sense thinking?
@@lane3192 Common sense?. Yes, I understand why NASA ended the Apollo program in 1972. Budget cuts and waning public interest. You're not interested in Apollo, despite it being part of the public domain for over 50 years.. So how do you generate public interest and acquire funding when thousands of naive ignorant people are telling everyone to cut NASA's funding.? You educate the public. Thankfully the public is excited again..Were going back to the Moon.."Artemis 2024".Unfortunately, we haven't figured how to warp space, so we still use combustion rockets. You can't fake moon landings. Science won't allow it. That's all you need to know.
@@paulscottfilms PLUS NASA has *contradicted* the APOLLO MISSIONS! Now Nasa said they *CAN NOT* send *ANY* humans past the lethal radiation in the Van Allen belts!! ua-cam.com/video/Kji7H_brBa4/v-deo.html I guess NASA is coming clean
Moon landings stopped after Apollo 17 in 1972 because we mainly went to the moon as a political goal which obviously meant we no longer had a need to go after the goal was fulfilled and in the eyes of the public we were just wasting money. And we have made many space achievements since then, albeit typically unmanned (i.e. sending a spacecraft to Pluto). The reason we haven’t returned to the moon is because there is less incentive than there was in the 1960s, not because we can’t do it.
In my opinion the most convincing part is the way the dust flies around. There's no turbulence so the whole set would have to be in vacuum! Sounds easier to just film on site at this point
@rattusstatus3524 . I'm not sure why you find it difficult to believe they had vacuum chambers even though it is well documented. One was the size of a football field, on which they were testing the rockets. Apollo was filmed on these testing facilities.
I believe the moon landings happened but what you're saying is not only easily accomplished by filming on an indoor set, it's actually a notorious problem with filming outdoor scenes in a studio. Ironically, the same phenomenon that makes studio simulated outdoor scenes seem fake, would work in favor of making simulated moon footage seem more authentic.
Anybody with even a basic understanding of telescopes can tell you why the HST can't resolve lunar detail. How does it see so far away ? Ask yourself just how big the objects are that it's capturing.
If you were in a space ship, with a pair of binoculars, try seeing a quarter in the middle of a football pitch. Good luck finding the Apollo spacecraft.
@@paulscottfilms There is nothing in doubt . But , politely , I skimmed the transcript - you know it's bad when they mention 'Capricorn One' (LOL!) , & the rest is just the usual dogshit . Go ahead & believe it if it makes you happy .
I would not give NASA other credit than that of relying on popular gullibility. As they say: the bigger and shameless the lie, the hardest to reject it and disprove it
@@GuxTheArtist Shouldn't be a problem for other nations to debunk it. Especially those that have been to the Moon and don't see eye to eye with USA, even openly go against US diktats on a daily basis. But they all corroborated USA's story. Because?
In one of my retouching classes in college, I made it my final project to doctor a moon landing photo, putting the Star Trek ship in the background and replacing all the USA labels and iconography with its Russian equivalent. Fun class.
@@susangeorge5399 Huh? What are you talking about? The buggy (lunar rover) operated on batteries, not oxygen. Are you under the impression that it used an internal combustion engine?
@@rockethead7 i thought everyone knew that we were dropping big block v8's in our moon buggies. we didn't know how to use batteries in vehicles until recently with the tesla, idiot /s
Besides the footage and all that seems pretty legit to me, my brain tells me, if we can't go to the moon now with our current technology, how it was even possible over 50yrs ago.
Because it's not the matter of ability, but having the actual physical hardware to do so. Can we do it right now? No, because we don't have the literal hardware to do so. Can we build the necessary hardware to do so? Yes we can.
Besides all of the airline records and videos of Concorde going mach 2, that seems pretty legit to me, my brain tells me, if we could fly 100 people at mach 2 for 3000 miles before, but now we can't with our current technology, how was it possible that the 1969 Concorde even existed?
You mean apart from conclusive proof that they landed 12 men on the Moon, achieved near-miraculous fly-bys, orbits and landings on various planets and moons, put up an astonishing telescope, and successfully flew Artemis 1 to the Moon last autumn, beginning their programme to return to landing humans on the Moon? Whereas you've got... what? "I don't understand what I'm looking at therefore fake."
@@paulbeardsley4095 Never did I say it’s not real, you’re putting words in my mouth. It’s 2023 and no man has set a foot in the moon as they previously hoped. That’s all I mean with my comment.
@@vndroz6793hope didn’t get them to the moon last time either. Dump trucks of tax dollars did. And that line of dump trucks will probably never be as long again.
240k miles..= 384k km..? but granted.. would be interesting to find out what the astronauts' greatest fears were (& whether the red cyanide tabs were real, or just a urban legend..😀)
@@anonymoose6873 that, imho, would be where I could see tablets being used; any other sort of failure (suit failure, meteor strike depressurization, atmosphere entry failure etc would happen so fast death would (hopefully) be instantaneous), but death by hyperventilation triggered by excess CO2 is not a good way to go
When you tell the truth and your child doubts it, the first thing you never say is "You're a conspiracy theorist". You look forward to explaining and proving every detail to your child. This also applies to the current hoaxes.
If any moon landing deniers ever actually wanted answers to their doubts/questions, I'd eat my hat anyway. Universally, they PRETEND to ask questions, but they know, in advance, that they will never accept the answers. This is vastly different than a child asking honest questions.
Well your child has hope. So you give it a go. You and the adults who believe in flat earth, do not. So no point. Tough world I know out there when no one wants to explain things in a way that makes it make sense to YOU. But the UA-cam videos you like make you feel right and vindicated and the nasa videos someone else likes are WRONG and faked.
@Marc Douglas Vogt Here's a little tip. Fight ignorance online. If you want to understand how NASA visited the Moon 9 times and landed on the surface 6 times. Get a good education and study hard. While we might not be able to prove Oswald acted alone in the assassination of JFK., we can prove NASA visited the Moon 9 times. Anybody who is unable to separate scientific fact from fictional pseudoscience needs to enroll back in school. There is no excuse for not knowing based on an unwillingness to examine authoritative cited and sourced evidence from respected individuals. Claiming a Moon rock is fake requires scientific evidence from a lunar geologist, yet conspiracists insist if Joe Blow says he's a geologist and the half-ton of Moon rock is fake, then it must be true.. If the earth is flat, Apollo was a hoax. The same non-evidence supports both claims. Ignorance is alive and well on the WWW.
@@Godscountry2732 God’s Word says in Isaiah 45:18 KJB that “…he formed it (earth) to be inhabited.” No verse says that God formed the moon to be inhabited by man - or visited for that matter either. The moon is a luminary and gives off her OWN light according to Isaiah 13:10, Ezekiel 32:7, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:24, and Revelation 21:11 KJB. God created the moon (and the sun) and placed them in the second heaven to be lights to divide the day from the night, to give light upon the earth, and to rule the day (sun) and the night (moon). They also divided the light from the darkness. They were not created to be inhabited, my Friend. Why were the “lunar photos” so dark? Where was the light that the moon was emitting? Based on the fact that the moon gives off her “own light,” me thinks there is a problem here. But, of course, you’re going to tell me the KJB is false. So, what men tell you is accurate, but what God tells you is not. Don’t be foolish, my Friend. Don’t be spoonfed information that sounds good to the ear but contradicts scripture. But - your choice, my Friend 😊
This guy deserves a “Most Gullible” trophy which he’d proudly display because NASA is just so honest no government agency could ever do this, so the joke’s on those who do notice a muddy elephant in the snow.
The unintentional irony at this stage is as hilarious as it is staggering. And meanwhile the crap online conspiracy theory that you yourself hang on their every word is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
@@yassassin6425Best not use the term 'conspiracy theory' because it suggests to the reader that you've lost the argument. 'Challenging the narrative' might be a better term to use, as it doesn't have connotations of the argument having been lost.
@@yassassin6425Yassa, so what you're saying is that Carl is a person who thinks that bad people could get together with other bad people to do something bad? That's all 'conspiracy theorist' actually means, so that includes 99.9% of us. Also, it's just an over-used term which someone throws into the discussion when they're losing an argument, and all they're doing is saying that someone belongs to a group comprising 99.9% of people. Yassa, in this context, you could use a much more powerful term which puts your opponent into maybe only 10% of the people, such as 'narrative denier'. Kaboom! See how Carl reacts to that!
@@thomaslewis7883 Oh dear another muppet who has had his delicate sensibilities offended. Haven´t been back to the moon is the main reason i reckon it all crap, and i´ve heard many excuses as to why they haven´t returned and none make any sense. But many ignorant idiots believe everything mainstream media puts out because they dare not think for themselves.
They are having massive problems now even with more advanced technology, 2 dates have been cancelled due to male function or something August 2022 and September 2022 . These problems are occuring because it never happened before
What in the world are you talking about? SLS has never even lifted off before. Delays are normal in space travel. Mercury/Gemini/Apollo had countless similar delays.
You think no Apollo mission was delayed or went wrong sheesh The problems we have is because we dont have proper engineers anymore. Apollo F1 engines had to be hand adjusted. The morons America is producing nowadays dont want to get their hands dirty
The star one in particular makes a ton of sense. If you look at pictures from our spacecrafts that orbit other planets like Jupiter or Saturn you never see stars around the planets in those pictures
The 'moving flag' is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. The film clearly shows the astronaut moving the flag pole. Once he is done placing the flag, it doesn't move; which is exactly what one should expect to see.
@felix mendez _You want evidence? How about this for starters. Here there are only a few of the counteless pieces of evidence of the hoax:_ _a) "Astronauts" being incapable of giving a straight answer in their Apollo 11 press conference, when asked if they saw any stars while on the Moon and having to consult among themselves to be able to provide an answer._ Your point (a) is bullshit. Neil Armstrong gave a PERFECTLY STRAIGHT ANSWER. There was no need for them to "consult among themselves" nor did they do so. Patrick Moore asked them two questions - the first was about how "firm" they found the lunar surface, and the second was "when you looked up at the sky could you actually see the stars and the solar corona, in spite of the glare?". Buzz Aldrin then answered the first question, causing a delay between Moore's second question and Armstrong's answer. Armstrong then answered (with the straightest of straight bats): "We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. Uh…I don’t recall, during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona, what stars we could see". Armstrong here has clearly not realised that Moore was asking about the visibility of the Solar Corona from the lunar surface. This is quite understandable, as to attempt to see the corona Armstrong would have had to look directly at the Sun. Perhaps Moore thought his sun visor would have made this possible. In any event the reasons for Armstrong's misunderstanding are moot - for he clearly did so because in his reply he gives an answer that refers to the "period of time that we were photographing the solar corona". The Solar Corona photography took place before the landing, from the Command Module, when all 3 astronauts were together. They had just entered the Moon's shadow and were scheduled at this point to photograph the corona "peeking out" from behind the Moon. (These photographs are on record). Mike Collins either witnessed this photography or participated in it - so he gave a VERY NATURAL response to Armstrong's reply: "I don’t remember seeing any" (which tallied with Armstrong's own answer). And there it is. Collins was not responding to Patrick Moore's question, but to Neil Armstrong's answer. A perfectly INNOCENT AND NATURAL exchange. Patrick Moore realised the misunderstanding, but let it pass - probably because there were many of his professional colleagues waiting to ask their own questions. HOWEVER, when Moore got the chance to interview Armstrong 'one on one' for his BBC 'Sky at Night' program the following year, he took the opportunity to get the information he was looking for at the Press Conference. He asks the same question, but this time, to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, he splits the question in two. They are the FIRST TWO QUESTIONS he asks. You can hear them here: ua-cam.com/video/PtdcdxvNI1o/v-deo.html How can such a misunderstanding (on the part of Hoax Believers) arise from such a simple exchange at the Press Con? Are people so incapable of comprehending the meaning of words? The answer is that these people are so prejudiced by their desire to believe that the Moonlandings were faked, that they allowed their critical standards to drop and jumped onto the interpretation that they WANTED to hear. The "non-agreement" and "confusion" about what the Apollo astronauts saw from the surface became a REPEATED LIE. Now it has been answered. Please don't repeat that lie again.
felix mendes ... Your entire post is total BS, but I will just point out one of your "points" (h). All of the lunar landings were made near the lunar morning terminator. And the reason is that the surface temperature is "cooler in those "days". Yes a Lunar "day" is about 15 Earth days long. The idea that the surface temperature recovers from 250 F below zero the 250 F above zero "instantly" shows you have no understanding of thermal dynamics. You are correct that the Moon has no atmosphere, so only the surface is heated. This is also why the suits are white and reflective to help protect from the heat. The surface temperature at the landing sites were approximately 130 F. Remember the night side had cooled to -250 F over the 15 days of darkness and penetrated considerably in the soil. It takes a while for this soil to warm up and it likely reaches the highest temperature in the late afternoon which would be 11 or 12 "Earth days" later. All of you other points have similar glaring failures. To less educated people they can seem to make sense.
Swinde Okay, please explain the “glaring failures.” When you say something, at least back up your claims. I’m not on either side btw. That means I believe either way, hoax or not, could be a possibility.
@@kitcanyon658 son? son??? haahaa it always makes me laugh when I hear something use the term "son" Do me a favor shut da fk up & go open up your canyon wide for manbear.....HAAHA drop em boi
@@HassaanALal They went to the moon on manned mission 9 times, 6 of those times landed. 24 people went to the moon, 3 of those went twice. 12 of them walked on the surface.
Wait a minute. The radiation in the Van Halen belt shouldn't have been too much of a problem, being that they could have avoided certain" hot spots," but what about the temperature? The Van Halen belt consists of Plasma; both " cold Plasma," AND" hot plasma." Cold plasma is about a few thousand degrees Celsius, and hot plasma is WWAAAYYY hotter. The only type of metal that can PROBABLY sustain those types of temperatures is titanium, and we all know that the shuttle isn't made out of titanium. And even if that was the case, they would have had to avoid EVERY hotspot perfectly, in order to reach the 🌒 without burning up. Now let's talk and the radio waves. I don't know about you, but I don't think that raido waves can go through plasma. They either get absorbed, or the bend. I'm not flat Earth theorists, but I'm about 62% sure that we didn't go to the Moon!!!
@@philcoombes2538 yes they are. There's red plasma and yellow plasma, and according to NASA they conveniently made the voyage while avoiding all the red plasma spots, that's remarkable!!
Yes, but it was ludicrously expensive and served mainly propaganda purposes, so _of course_ nobody wanted to go back - the reward to expenses ratio just wasn't good enough back then.
@Suzie.q Popcorn123 Actually the on board computer (Apollo) was in some ways better than today! Small systems today crash completely if they cannot cope. Although in 1969 the computer was overworked it still carried on working and doing most of it's programming. Way back in the 60's CGI had not even been thought of. Stanley Kubrick would have loved it if it had existed then!
BrushyMtnGolfer We went to the moon to prove technology superiority over the Soviet Union. After we landed (and we did land), the country had no incentive to go back, for the cost was too high for what we’d actually get back.
Fantastic intro Mr. Beat. My father always said that a great teacher can convey their message in a way that someone who isn’t interested can either understand the lesson or gain an interest in it. My brothers don’t care for history the way I do. But I’ve showed them quite a few of your videos and they friggin love them. Thank you, Mr. Beat
If anything the flag should flutter MORE on the moon (while being handled) than on earth when there is no wind. Any non-rigid entity (flags, cables, straps) will still flail around like crazy in low gravity, as they keep their momentum from any movement and will even 'ripple' when they reach their point of tension. They will do this for longer than on earth as gravity doesn't pull it in one direction to 'fix' them.
But if there is no atmosphere on the Moon, there is no wind - so why is the flag waving? Is this the proof that conspiracy theorists have been seeking? Look again at the image, and in particular along the top edge of the flag, and you will find the answer. A telescopic pole has been extended along the top in order to make the flag fly proudly (yes, NASA really did think of everything). "Because it’s been set up like this, it appears to be waving in the wind," Ojha explains. "All the wrinkles are there because it’s literally been screwed up for four days en route to the Moon."
@@GoodBoy-nx3oy Yes. It’s telling that most Apollo deniers have very poor scientific knowledge (they typically express silly ideas about radiation and heat transfer) and often don’t even know the history that they are disputing (“How come there was never a second landing?”).
It would have been very difficult to simulate 1/6 G outside of a tank of water. It is quite apparent the astronauts were experiencing lunar gravity and weren't in water.
to simulate 1/6 G is so difficult that they achieved a poor effect of it in fact, if you ever cared to look. It is so obviously fake you need to wonder why people prefer to believe what they are told like using their own brains were not an option
@@jerrylee2425 one of the things that made me the most skeptical of the whole thing was the press conference. Like I don't know what happened to those people, but that is direct opposite of how human beings behave after success that is unimaginable. Imagine risking your life for several days and then achieving the biggest thing in human history only to be at the press conference like you're sitting at the murder trial....and you're the convicted guy.... :// very suspicious. The best evidence that something's wrong with the story is, they're not going back. It's been 50 years now and I predict they simply will not be going and everyone will keep pretending and lying. There's also the lost telemetry tapes from the first mission, diferences between videos and photos that should've shown the same thing.... all kinds of problems like space radiation, perfect photos [not even one was out of focus or missed - every photo is almost like National Geographic cover LOL
@@jerrylee2425 Yeah it's that "my mommy would never lie to me" kind of psychology. I guess people prefer to lie to themselves, that to admit they've been deceived.
That should tell you all you need to know friend. Because guess what? We CAN'T get there. Never could. If we could. We would. But we can't. So we don't. If people just use there heads seeing this lie is really a no brainer
So you'd prefer for humanity to not think freely and to find ways to get "back" to the moon. While NASA,the Space specialist, is scamming tax payers for billions annually lol
What i don't understand is that there is a lot less gravity on the moon than on Earth, which is why i was told the astronauts had to wear heavily weighted boots etc or they would float away. Yet when they kick the moon dust up it falls just as quick as it does on Earth, why doesn't it float away?
1) No astronaut wore any weighted boots. 2) Moon dust doesn't float away because the moon has gravity. 3) If you have an issue with the rate that the dust falls, calculate it. Calculate the initial velocity of the dust, and the time it spends in its arc until it hits the ground again. Physics 101. I mean, the math/physics has been done a few million times already, but, since you say that it's wrong, calculate it. Demonstrate your claim.
Notice also that fine dust here on Earth makes dust clouds that fall slowly, because the air slows its fall. There's no air on the Moon, so no dust clouds form and the dust goes down as fast as it goes up.
Except for everything being wrong in your post, yeah, good one. You figured it out!!!!! The suits were heavy. They were somewhere around 200 lb so weighting the shoes was not necessary. Do you get how gravity works? If there is gravity, things won't float away.
@@charliebay9441 Air pressure or direct pressure moves matter (dust) There isn't any on the moon. Watch the footsteps, se how the dust is pushed out from beside the boot into the air? That can't happen.
Actually, this is how it worked. The Unified S-Band System used the 2025-2120 MHz band for uplinks (earth to space transmissions) and the 2200-2290 MHz band for downlinks (space to earth transmissions). Both bands are allocated internationally for space research and operations even today. A hybrid of radio communications and landline communication, both were full duplex (as was the Apollo capsule comms) meaning both ends could talk and listen at once, just like any other phone call. The conversion from radio system to landline system was done at a shore station, in the case of Apollo one of the radio telescopes or the point-to-point microwave links across the country that were also commonplace in that decade.
@@Jay-vr9ir I agree, but lunar scientists, aerospace engineers, and nerds don't need to confirm if "Tricky Dick" made a phone call to the Moon,to establish whether NASA is telling the truth.Individuals lie, cheat, and steal all the time; science doesn't.
@@meldaghost Yes, lots of cheese.LOL, Lunar conspiracists' don't know what they don't know. Sadly they teach this ignorance to their children. I believe the internet's promotion of fake conspiracy theories and misinformation are the biggest threats to democracy.
Moon landing deniers don't want to accept the fact that at the time of the Apollo missions, it was literally impossible to fake the landings in a TV studio.
@@MediaLieDetector "NASA stating that Low earth orbit is all they can do IS." Currently doesn't mean they didn't do it previously. If you don't have a big rocket capable of taking you to the moon right now, you're not going to the moon. You don't just store Saturn V rockets in a warehouse somewhere, for use whenever you feel like it.
If there's very little gravity and it's like a vacuum than how come the dust or dirt falls back to the surface of the moon so fast that is being kicked up from the rover wheels . The dust having no gravity , a vacume atmosphere and no moisture should just hang into a cloud behind it. Not fall rapidly in formation to the ground
Is this a joke? The moon has 1/6th gravity of Earth, not zero. Do the math from there. I mean, do you really believe there hasn't been a single physicist anywhere on Earth for the past 50 years to notice this "problem" you think you spotted? And, sorry, if you expect a cloud, you clearly don't understand what a vacuum is. A cloud forms when the atmosphere suspends particles of stuff (dust/water/whatever) in the air. No atmosphere/air, no cloud. I'll cut you a bit of slack about the rover wheels, because most of that footage was shot in 16mm at 6 FPS, then sped back up to 24 FPS when they play it back (it's sped up). So, in a lot of that footage, yes, the dust appears to fall faster than it should, and there's no way for you to know that unless you understood in advance that it was being sped up. But, c'mon man, clouds in a vacuum?
I'm so tired of UA-cam blocking 75% of my replies. Good grief. No atmosphere = no cloud. You don't understand what a vacuum is. And, 1/6th gravity is not 0 G.
Lol, The moon had 1/6 gravity, so dust would fall right back down. There is no AIR. NO ATMOSPHERE to suspend dust, So it goes up, and comes right back down. There is no billowing, no dust suspension to keep dust afloat. Vacuum just means no air pressure.
I'm saying when you watch the rover kicking up the dust behind it it falls exactly like it does on earth . Slightly less gravity should mean it falls slower and less organized, then you factor in no moisture it should float longer than the moist dirt does here not just spit up and emmediately drop straight down .I know there's no wind to blow it away .
Well, if UA-cam hadn't blocked my first reply, I already explained that they shot most rover clips at 6 FPS, and played them back at 24 FPS. So, most of the videos you may have seen are running 4x faster than real-time. The rest of what you said was complete nonsense.
@@DANTHETUBEMAN That's more or less what I had to do. Can you imagine what it was like for me....with people saying "oh, your dad went to the moon" etc
*A FUNNY THING HAPPENED* WHEN NASA SENT NINE APOLLO MISSIONS OUT TO THE MOON Six of those missions went down with a two man crew to the Lunar surface Those were Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 Now how about that !
How strange that people has to jump, and move slowly on the moon, but sand from the rover does not. The sand that is thrown in the air is falling as on Earth.
because of size. the moon is smaller than earth, so it has less gravity. Mars is half the size of earth, meaning it is much bigger, and has more gravity.
The dust settles FASTER than on Earth. Dust clouds don't form in a vacuum. Without air resistance, the dust will drop back to the ground like a pile of bricks.
Calculate it. Submit those calculations to science journals. But, I will warn you, if you calculate it using this video's rover/sand, you're looking at a greatly sped-up copy. He obviously increased the pace to save time. But, if you download the original rover videos and play them at the original frame rates, you can easily do the calculations to prove you're correct. What are you waiting for? I'm sure nobody else has ever calculated it in the past 50 years... right?
Mr Beat Can you do every president's biggest accomplishment like The New Deal signed by Franklin Dealno Roosevelt and the The Civil Rights Movement signed by Lyndon Baines Johnson?
The new deal wasn't really an accomplishment unless debt was the goal. If you do cival rights (maybe you have I am still playing catch up) please start with Ike's policies not just Johnson.
each full moon crumbles away over the waning fortnight, with the bits going to make new stars (to replace the ones that fall to Earth); each full moon is thus entirely new, supplied piecewise from the sun during the waxing fortnight (both of these processes take place during the daytime, of course, which is why you don't see actually see the bits moving at night..) ...which is why moon landings are fake - as it takes a fortnight to get there (the "3 day trip" is just a CCP-orchestrated mass hypnosis); as they would have to arrive there when the moon is "full", it means they would have to leave when it is "new", but as a "new" moon isn't physically there, they don't know where to point the rocket..
@@benjaminaraya8073 the Apollo stuff is just me, granted, but the moon-into-stars theory is that of one Ivan Denisovich Shukov, as reported by the author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn..
Because that is the logical answer an educator like himself would come to. Of all government agencies I think NASA is the least of the average Americans worries as far as malicious intent.
Learn all about RADIO. You've heard of radio haven't you Mr McCray ? And do you have a huge parabolic Radio transmitting / receiving Dish (Antennae) in your backyard ?
Perfect signal? Huh? Who told you that? Nobody who listens to the radio broadcasts or watches the TV signal ever describes them as perfect. I mean, take the very first landing as an obvious example. Within about 5 seconds of lighting the main engine, communications got so bad that you couldn't even make out what anybody was saying. They couldn't get the S-band antenna to give a clean signal, and nearly had to switch to backup communications. How about Apollo 16, when the S-band antenna froze up, and they DID have to switch to backup the entire time? I mean, I could go on for hours here. Before complaining about something, is it too much to ask that you actually understand it first?
@@marksprague1280 Mark, more insults, by the way, no support necessary. I don’t owe a penny, own property, very comfortable from a professional career. Don’t worry about me.
Huh? What are you talking about? They DID go again!! There were 9 manned moon missions, 6 of which landed. The first manned lunar mission was Apollo 8 in 1968. The last was Apollo 17 in 1972. Good grief. Sorry, but if you think there was only one lunar mission, that's how little you understand about the topic, you're really not in a position to even have an opinion.
@@rockethead7 we never went any of those times. All faked. We don't have the technology to send humans thru can Allen radiation belts. Even NASA admits this fact. Oops!!
@@BeatlesFan1975 What are you talking about? NASA has never claimed we cannot go through the Van Allen belts. You are taking one or two sentences and twisting the context.
These skeptics Never include professional photographers, or folks like me who actually DO work on sound stages in CA, and I HAVE filmed "moon like asteroid surfaces with astronauts" and keeping the dust down was a major pain in the ass, as was getting the 'star drops' to be visible against the glare of the foreground 'moonlet' we had made. The only way they ever got the stars was to Way underexpose the foreground and then reshoot it without the stars. When you see the dust kicking up from the rover's tires, it falls straight down instantly- no hang time.
There's a great video by a professional explaining a lot (but not even all) of the reasons we couldn't have faked the moon landing here: ua-cam.com/video/_loUDS4c3Cs/v-deo.html
That's not true. They asked the man in charge of the company that made the camera's they used a question regarding something that took place. I admit forgetting the details, but anyone that wants to know the truth can do an easy search to find it. The man was obviously an expert and the bottom line was that he smiled and said,.' I can't explain that',...……..meaning, whatever was being questioned could not have happened according to this expert. I'll look for the details, but it's a known story, you must have heard of it.
Sorry, but temperature doesn't work like you think it does. A vacuum doesn't have a temperature. Things inside a vacuum can have a temperature, but, it doesn't work the way you're pretending to understand.
@@rockethead7 From NASA: "Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Has measured temperatures as low as -410°F (-246°C) in craters near the moon's poles. Scientists have also compiled data from the orbiter to create maps of the moon's surface temperature at different points in its orbit"
@@timjoseph887 So what? The astronauts were never at the poles in those craters. So, I fail to understand your point. I said that a vacuum doesn't have a temperature. I said that things in a vacuum can have a temperature (i.e. the rocks and dust). Why do you think the temperature of the rocks in craters at the poles are important regarding Apollo?
Why not find a credible witness to support your claim and add to that evidence that will stand up in court then sue NASA. Think of the money you will make.
The "identical backgrounds" at 5:20 are caused largely by the fact that the moon has no atmosphere, because this makes distant objects appear to be very close; on Earth, distant objects always become bluish and hazy, but this doesn't happen on the moon, so we assume that sharp and clear objects on the moon are closer than they really are.
Waiting for someone to say that there was a massive 0 atmosphere building that was constructed and then demolished for the film. The mental gymnastics will make your head spin.
Still spewing your fake questions, eh? You have proven repeatedly that you don't care about the answers. So, why do you keep pretending to ask questions?
QUOTE: "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. -- James A. Van Allen"
@@rockethead7 Go have a look again at the contraption sitting on the "moon" and tell me that even made it off the "moon", let alone the outer portion of the Van Allen Belt. And somehow we lost that technology so we can't go back. How convienient. Know when your being lied to. That space craft looks like a bunch of 6th graders built it in science class. How ridiculous.
Although huge temperature variations occur on the Moon, the astronauts were never actually exposed to them. The maximum temperature on the Moon is +260F at lunar noon but with no atmosphere this refers to surface temperature not atmospheric temperature. Every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise. One Moon day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly 15 Earth days, and the astronauts were only on the Moon for a maximum of 3 Earth days, so they weren’t there long enough for the Sun to be at its highest and hottest. There are only two ways heat can transfer on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the Sun’s reflection on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light, so very little heat would have transferred to them. The second is by conduction from direct contact with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as the dust, soil and rock on the lunar surface is loose and doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further. Water from a tank in the backpack flowed through the Liquid Cooled Garment (a web of fine tubing within the spacesuit) into a heat exchanger and then out through tiny pores in a metal sublimator plate (turning from a solid directly into a gas) where it was exposed to the vacuum of space. The consequent pressure drop froze the water, forming a layer of ice on the outside of the plate. Once the water under the plate cooled to a user-comfortable temperature, it was returned to the LCG and the water in the plate would re-freeze, sealing the plate and stopping the cooling process. Thus, heat rejection with automatic temperature control was accomplished with no sensors or moving parts to malfunction. 12lb of feedwater gave about eight hours of cooling.
I love how they say "It would take tens of thousands of people around the world to pull this off" and then admit they are one of them. The masses follow the narrative.
Can you even be serious about this? Are you even remotely aware of what the nuts claim? It's like they're reading from a script. They make the same old debunked claims about a "moon hoax" that have been explained a billion times over. You can't go to one of these videos' comment threads without seeing: "Apollo was fake. Where are the stars?" "Apollo was fake. Who took the video of the first steps on the moon?" "Apollo was fake. How did they get through the Van Allen belts?" "Apollo was fake. Aldrin said so." If anybody is guilty of following a narrative, it's the people denying Apollo. It's not a "narrative" to respond to questions with the correct answers.
He meant the people working on the thing, not normal people, then he would have said millions, not tens of thousands. All the engineers, all the people in Houston, the Soviets watching closely
For anyone here in the section; of The Moon landing isn’t faked -_- If you look closely to the footages and photos and know how photography and physics work its easy to see that it is not faked. I like to think that moon landing deniers are just jealous because they never accomplished something huge in their life. 1. Why the flag seem to wave. First of all, the flag wasen’t waving, there is a hidden pole holding the flag into place that is attached to the standing pole for the photo the Apollo astronauts took because a droopy flag doesn’t look good for the picture, once you take a close peek at the photo you can see an outline of a upper pole holding the flag giving the illusion that its waving. In one of the footages we can also see the upper pole for a one second before one of the astronauts hid it from camera view. 2. Why the Astronauts dint jump high. Because they dint choose too -_-. Common misconception by moon landing deniers thinks you can always jump high on the moon no matter how much we use our potential energy as we squat. while it is true that gravity on the Moon is weak compare here to Earth due to its lower mass it doesn’t mean we can jump very high no matter how much potential energy we store before we jump, physics still matters everywhere in any object of the universe regardless if you’re on Earth or not. The Astronauts just dint use much of their potential energy to use produce enough kenetic energy inorder to jump very high. To put it simply, they just dint bend low enough to jump high they only jump by their feet not with their knees. 3. Why are there no stars. if you look at the pictures and the footages, its really easy to tell that the main reason you cannot see stars is because the Astronauts were on the day side of the moon 😑. even if they landed on the dark side of the moon where the sun isn’t shining, you still can’t see the stars with cameras as cameras at the time have very low quality like old video phone cameras from the 2000s. 4. Why does there seem to be light on the shadow side of the capsule seen in the photo where one of the Astronauts is climbing down. Easy, light can bounce off the ground like a spring, they don’t hit the ground like meterorites and light isn’t a physical object, its electromagnetic radiation. I want you to close your eyes and imagine you go to a dark room with a board on your hand with a tiny object on it and have a table light shinning on your model as far as the sun looks like, you can see that the area of the tiny object where light doesn’t shine is shinning a bit instead of being a full silhouette, why? Simple because light travels at a rapid speed faster than sound it bounces of the ground and reflects back on the dark side of the object which is why it isn’t completely dark. Our education system is really f*cked and sadly these conspiraterds fell victim to it or they decided to not listen or not learn deeper than the extent of conspiracy theories that is made out of suspicion, ignorance, jealousy, etc. Whats ironic is these guys are the very reason why got intrested into science in the first place.
THANK YOU it seems like more people think it was faked when it really wasn’t. The hoax that we didn’t land on the moon was started by the Soviets, the very people who lost and wanted to find anyway they could win by proving NASA was cheating
The star thing you mentioned is wrong. The real reason is because the moon is so bright they have to turn down exposure so much that you can’t see the stars
Holy Moly this last comment made me cringe. Our education system is really f*cked and sadly these conspiraterds fell victim to it or they decided to not listen or not learn deeper than the extent of conspiracy theories that is made out of suspicion, ignorance, jealousy, etc. Maybe you should have paid attention in English class? The fact that your spelling is this poor, Makes me doubt you even attended class. What is a period? A comma? Jesus F Christ. Do you assume that everyone who does not agree with the common story is ignorant and jealous? Best part of this is that; The reasons you are giving for certain circumstances IE - The lack of stars seen in space from the moons surface? NASA literally stated it was an exposure issue. Yet you say its because they are on the Day side of the moon, Oh boy. I am hoping you realize that the moon is in tidal lock with the earth. The fact that you even think for one second that is the cause for lack of stars in the space above confounds me beyond most words. Space maybe the final frontier - But the moon landings were 100% made in a hollywood basement. You can refer to my comments above to understand why politically this event happened.
People who claim that the lighting is wrong, that is a studio set with multiple light sources actually fail their basic test everywhere there is always multiple lightsources as light reflects. Especially off highly reflective white space suites, the reflective lunar regalith and of course the LEM was covered in mirror like mylar. There is nothing unusual in moon photographs other than they are very rare and were taken by only 12 individuals on another world ...........
I get so mad when people tell me the moon landing is fake saying stuff like "the math doesn't add up Xd" when they have zero basic knowledge of what this math would even look like
you get so mad because ofcourse cant admit the sad reality after believing it all your life! Countries like India have live streamed their successful moon mission so transparently & effortlessly that it makes one wonder why does "superpowerful uncle sam" huffs and puffs even to prove their missions are success, yet so unconvincingly!
@@isuzuikamaki5477 "Countries like India have live streamed their successful moon mission so transparently & effortlessly" Do you know what else India did? They showed their orbital photos of some of the Apollo landing sites, including images of the Apollo landers' descent stages, flag shadows, etc. So, you believe India when they land on the moon (probes), but you don't believe them when they use those very same probes to confirm Apollo? "huffs and puffs even to prove their missions are success, yet so unconvincingly!" Dewdrop, NASA and the US government have put ZERO effort into "proving" anything. They publish the records, as they're required to do by law, and they have volunteers who upload terabytes of Apollo stuff. But, they spend zero time or money on trying to convince crackpots that they're crackpots.
It amazes me that people will believe in stories about talking snakes and magic apples without ever asking for any sort of evidence, yet can't wrap their head around the idea that some of their fellow humans were smart enough to figure out how to send astronauts to the moon and back. These are usually the same people who don't what the periodic table is used for, and think that the quadratic formula is "a difficult math problem".
@felix mendez The only moron here is some ipendejo named Felix Mendez. I see you are still DEEP mining your intergluteal cleft for more bullshit excuses.
We've also had XB-70 Valkyrie - a nuclear-armed, deep-penetration strategic bomber with six engines, capable of cruising for thousands of miles at Mach 3+ while flying at 70,000 feet (21,000 m). Come on, you.
@@jameslavalley2647 Wow, you're as stupid as the bloke a few weeks ago who argued that we can't have gone to the Moon because his television in 1969 was black and white! Talk about a non sequitur!
@@glassofmilk6988 Yes, I've watched it. My question is this. "How can an intelligent person with common sense sit and watch 3 plus hours of a foreign-made film insulting Americans space program and not once ask if the pseudoscience, half-truths, and outright lies shown in "American Moon" are based on historical and scientific evidence." I guess not". That's why American's educational system gets a D minus. An elementary school teacher commented on a UA-cam Moon hoax video that she teaches her 4th and 5th graders the Moon landings were hoaxed.👍 She then when on to say,"So far, no one said anything to me" 😢. A licensed and educated teacher is unable to separate science fact from pseudoscience. That's why I make sure I devote an hour a day to fighting ignorance. I imagine she was suspended, fired, and or required to take some additional training. I didn't bother to follow up, but she's not the first teacher caught wasting students' time. Thankfully the students waste no time posting videos, Tweets of their teachers and professors' ignorant comments to social media.👍
@@Arctic_Adjuster It doesn't take a Ph.D. in science to figure out 27 American astronauts visited the Moon. Imagine President Kennedy, leader of the free world, telling congress," Hey, let's be honest; no amount of money will put Americans on the Moon. "Let's borrow the $28 billion [ $250 billion in 2021 ] from taxpayers and pocket the money".🤣 ."If we do get caught, I'll explain. " The Soviets were breathing down our backs and Jackie likes expensive things". Will generate a virus around 2020, blame China, and repay taxpayers with a few simulcast checks. Problem solved.😉
Ahhh. At last. A new theory: Photoshop has actually been around for decades before the computers that run it have. Must be a cover up. Alien technology maybe?
Still looking forward to the sequel, going back soon. Just use the same equipment that worked almost flawlessly on at least 8 Appollo missions from 1968 to 1972 Just film the whole event next time !
You've actually heavily added to my skepticism of the moon landings authenticity. I'd never looked it into but you showed me several concerning claims and refuted none of them in an substantive way. You just brought up the claims and basically admitted you don't have a good counter point to almost al of them besides "take NASAs word for it".
So NASA faked it 6 times total. And the logic to pull off the greatest Hoax in Human history with the whole world watching not just once but 6 times.. What to give everyone extra oppurtunities at exposing the Hoax?
Well, you're correct. He's not the best speaker on these issues. I am very certain that I'm in the top 1% of people when it comes to knowledge about Apollo, and I'd never say some of the stuff that he says. But, about all I can tell you is that the real sources for understanding Apollo aren't UA-cam videos to begin with. Go study Apollo itself. Don't watch videos to make up your mind. This guy isn't the best source. But, of course, he's a million times better than the sources that think it's fake. But, it really doesn't matter. The facts stand on their own, regardless of who represents them (or misrepresents them, in the case of the deniers).
you dont believe the SIX, YES SIX moon landings occurred for several reason. reason 1: you are stupid. 2: you have the research skills of a water bear. 3: you have the i.q of a lab rat 4: you have a net worth of MINUS $15 5: you still drive a 1972 pinto that you STILL havent paid off 6: your highest academic achievement was 3rd grade in 1963
@@rockethead7 your senses are not fooling you, humans are! Why don't you trust what you experience? How can you ignore yourself while listening to or reading other peoples manipulation of senses?
Thanks brother does the moon has it door which can not affect the world when you are entering am not sure of going to the moon might be new planets not moon those people are decieving
Depending who you ask, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. But then again, depending who you ask, the earth is flat or oblate, and the CIA, Cubans, Mafia and LBJ clubbed together to buy an Italian rifle. Anyway, I'm going out now to share a beer or two with Elvis.
That friend is a fair assessment of the situation. But as time goes on. Does not common sense tell you something? Let me ask you this friend. If we could do it then, why can't we do it now?
@@Xendava I have long thought that the moon landings may not have happened. If they did land, there's prob no need to return, as there's nothing of interest on the moon. Its just a lifeless rock.
it was not possible they did, but all heavy lift USSR rickets could deliver unstoppable 100 kiloton Tzar Bomba nuclear destruction on the USA, so EVERYTHING was done to shut down that country. and we won.
the intact dust below the rocket engine is sufficient proof they never set foot on the moon , this is absolutely undebunkable, myth busters would NEVER dare to replicate this experiment(even at a much lower power)
Hilarious! Who told you such a thing? Was it a conspiracy video? How about AS11-40-5921? See that most of the dust has been blown away, down to the compacted regolith and rock layer? See those radial striations from the rocket blast? Did you watch a conspiracy video that showed you a couple of low-res shallow angle shots, and told you the dust wasn't disturbed, and you never lifted a finger to check for yourself?
@@rockethead7rocky, unfortunately you're outnumbered, and you're beginning to realise it given your desperate comments. More people now believe the moon landings to be fake than those who believe them to be real. Stop collaborating with the enemy, there's a good chap.
I have more power in my little mobile phone than they had in all their computers in the 60s and 70s, and we're usable to return to the moon? Because we never went to the moon
We're unable to return using Apollo because major portions of the infrastructure have been scrapped and would need to be rebuilt (although we will be goin back soon with Artemis). You know, you currently can't fly in a supersonic commercial airliner, I guess that means the Concorde was also a hoax?
Why isn't your mobile phone going to the moon? Gee, is it because getting to the moon has nothing to do with mobile phones, or computers? My mobile phone has more processing power than all of the computers during Apollo, therefore herpes is fake, because my phone hasn't cured herpes. If herpes was real, my phone would have cured it by now. I mean, do you see how silly you sound? Why would you think computers are relevant to landing on the moon? The reality is that they were prepared to go to the moon with no onboard computers at all (but, yes, they needed the big IBM mainframes on the ground). Sure, without onboard computers, they wouldn't have landed where Apollo 15 or 17 landed (in the middle of mountains and valleys, where precision landing was crucial). But, for the open area landings, they'd have gone with or without the onboard computers. So, why is your cell phone even relevant?
IMO, the more important question is whether the US had the capacity (in terms of materials) to land on the moon. If you know the mass of the earth and moon, and you have the aerodynamic models we have today, you can figure out if a vessel, of known shape, mass, engine output, fuel flow rate and fuel capacity (at each stage), is capable of making it to orbit, transferring to the moon, landing, lifting off again and coming back. I'm no expert on the technology used in 1969, but there have been hundreds of thousands of aerospace engineers since then performing similar calculations for other trips, engineers from every country including America's 'rivals'. If it were technologically impossible for the Apollo mission to have succeeded, we would have known by now. And if they were technologically capable, it would have been harder to orchestrate an effort to keep such a giant conspiracy under wraps while working on a 'fake mission' than it would be to just complete the mission as intended.
It's technologically impossible for humans to build some of the things built on Earth even if they would have had modern equipment but people still insist they did instead of giving credit to Giants or aliens.
@@gowdsake7103 it's been proven we could not move them and set into place. some of those giant stones weigh over 100,000 pounds and are the size of a semi trailer, good luck.
Walked on the Moon Apollo 11 Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, Apollo 12 Charles Conrad, Alan Bean, Apollo 14 Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 15 David Scott, James Irwin, Apollo 16 John Young, Charles Duke, Apollo 17 Gene Cernan, Harrison Schmitt. Orbited the moon Apollo 8 Frank Borman, Bill Anders, Jim Lovell Apollo 10 Tom Stafford, (John Young, Eugene Cernan) Apollo 11 Michael Collins Apollo 12 Dick Gordon, Apollo 13 Jack Swigert, Fred Haise, (Jim Lovell) Apollo 14 Stuart Roosa Apollo 15 Al Worden Apollo 16 Thomas Mattingley Apollo 17 Ron Evans
Vacuum pressure outside their suits means they wouldn't have been able to move around because the expansion would make it impossible to move, period. Simple physics.
A lot of people spent a lot of time overcoming that very issue when they were designing the Apollo space suits, and it’s what almost killed Alexei Leonov during the first ever EVA on Voskhod 2.
.... you do realize that you can build a suit to avoid that by.... you know... not being a conspiracy theorist that's so afraid of challenge it's a wonder they can tie their shoes, right? It's basically built like a net around a balloon physically restricting it from being able to expand past a certain point. It's almost like you can put effort in and do hard things!
The Lunar Roving Vehicle had a mass of 460 pounds (210 kg) and was powered by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide batteries with a charge capacity of 121 Ah each, yielding a range of 57 miles (92 km).
@@Jan_Strzelecki how did they get it on the lander and then off onto the surface? did it come in pieces and did they have to put it together? where did it all fit?
@@Jcs000 They didn't. It was folded in three and carrier strapped to the exterior of the Lunar Module. Search UA-cam for "lunar rover unfolding", and the first three videos will demonstrate animations of how it happened and actual footage of unfolding.
@@Jan_Strzelecki Jan, this was all set out in photographs, an excellent documentary and I believe video footage. There is loads of stuff out there for people to actually read for themselves. Or perhaps that idea is no longer valid! I certainly would not put anything on a post without knowing or even attempting to find out this basic stuff for myself! I am losing the will to live with these people, we are doomed if this lot take charge! :-)
60 years later...with far greater technological advancement still no one has flown a mach 7 airplane again.. Pure Logic 20 years later...with far greater technological advancement still no one has flown on a commercial supersonic airliner again.. Pure Logic 50 years later...with far more schools still no moon landing denier can read or write.. Pure Logic
The Artemis 1 was launched in November 2022 carrying the Orion spacecraft. The Orion spacecraft orbited the moon and returned. They are going to return to the moon.
Multiple robotic missions have made it, mapped the entire Moon, including snapping pics of the Apollo sites. Also landed on the Moon. You people wouldn't know logic if it sat in your face and farted up your nose.
That is why I can't wait for Artemis 3 to land on the moon, then it would be quit obvious that the reason it took so long is because people didn't think it was worth the money to go back.
A module containing equipment , rocket engine, fuel and 2 astronauts must be heavy, much heavier than an astronaut's weight, yet 4:10 shows those module legs or pads simply did not leave an imprint on the soil , neither was there any blast crater below the engine , the soil below the module legs was hardly disturbed, as if the module was lifted up and placed there artificially. 7:58 from Chinese module leg shows the soil was displaced outward, an imprint was visible around the landing pad. The landing did disturb the layer of soil.
_A module containing equipment , rocket engine, fuel and 2 astronauts must be heavy, much heavier than an astronaut's weight, yet __4:10__ shows those module legs or pads simply did not leave an imprint on the soil_ ... How can you tell? We can't see under the pads, so we don't know whether it's leaving an imprint or not. _neither was there any blast crater below the engine_ As expected - the exhaust of the descent engine wasn't energetic enough to remove a noticeable amount of the regolith during the final stage of the landing. _the soil below the module legs was hardly disturbed_ Actually, the soil under the LM _has_ been disturbed. On closeup photos of _Apollo_ 11 we can see a distinct radial pattern with soil being displaced outwards, and a gouge made by one of the sensor probes, due to LM drifting a little bit before touchdown.
The lunar surface is hard rock beneath dust; NASA used a low pressure (for greater reliability) rocket engine on the LEM that was firing at only 3,000 pounds thrust before landing so along with the very thin atmosphere and low gravity there was not enough pressure to produce a crater; and the blast deflected dust sideways. The astronauts were much lighter than the lander, but their boots were much smaller than the lander's approximately 3-foot (91 cm) diameter footpads. Pressure (or force per unit area) rather than mass determines the amount of surface compression. If you look carefully at some photos you can see disturbances beneath the surface on some Apollo landings.
why put gold foil on aluminum poles used for landing struts? did it look more NASA nominal, more space age, that was not temperature critical area. it's set dressing. looks funny to me like a x-mass tree.
@@DANTHETUBEMAN Radiative heat transfer is to the magnitude of the fourth power, way more affective than conductive or convective heat transfer. Essentially, photons travel unabated in vacuum, carrying all of its heat until it strikes something absorptive or emissive. So those legs, if unprotected, would heat up badly and would probably compromise the entire craft.
We can't even go to the moon in 2021 what makes you think we landed there in 1969. Also, who was filming when the Astronauts left the moon, there is video of that, it just makes me wonder who was filming them leaving. If it was some camera then how did they get the video from the camera to show the world? Hmmmm
_We can't even go to the moon in 2021 what makes you think we landed there in 1969._ Because we can't go to the Moon today because the hardware isn't ready yet. _Also, who was filming when the Astronauts left the moon,_ A remotely operated video camera. Please do your research.
and way more fakery too...all these nations plaaying games with these mars and moon landing nonsense...all faked in deserted places and studios..facts and descrepancies dont back up any of the big claims
Bruh imagine training for years and risking your life by going to the moon just so that 55 years later millions of people can call you a coward and a fraud.
@@pelocitdarney5718 As vaccines of all kinds are the products of scientific medical research, and therefore, a human endeavor, mistakes do happen. Nothing is risk free. I was one of the tens of thousands of children who received the Polio Vaccine at school. There was no risk to our lives. World wide, millions of children avoided getting Polio. The original Polio Vaccine was a complete success. However, there were problems with the later Polio Vaccine as it was contaminated. Still, not all that serious, but a real concern. I see you've been desperately searching the narrative to find something, anything, that's going to support your anti-vaccine agenda. *People like you who are pushing a deceitful narrative that the Corvid-19 Vaccinations have been killing many people are disgusting individuals who should be called out on their deceit every time they present their nonsense. You are actually a menace to society*
I was in a great shocked when Pres.Nixon who was in the White house spoke to the men on the moon using the dial phone ...uninterrupted way back in 1969
Why? The phone call was something called an autopatch. Very simple technique. Ham radio operators were using it back in the 60s to connect phones into HF rigs, allowing people to communicate with soldiers in Vietnam over the phone. Actually the phone call was one of the low tech things on the _Apollo_ mission.
Stars and their constellations would appear exactly the same if photographed from ANYWHERE in the Solar System. The reason they do not show in the Moon photos are simply the exposure time was too short for them to register on the film or in a video. The cameras were set for very short exposures to register bright objects correctly.
@@pvn2474 Dimmer objects require longer exposure. Bright objects like Astronauts in white suits ned only a short exposure such as 1/ 250 second. However, even a bright star needs up 30 seconds to register on film. Very bright planets such as Venus or Jupiter will still need several seconds to get an image.
@@pvn2474Also, apart from just the exposure, the moon also has day and night cycles, just like how you cant see the stars during the day on earth, except the sky on the moon is always black
The Radiation Belt, chanhes in severity every year, It is on record, that in1969, it was at a record high. But what the HELL, you might get lucky.----Off you go !
Dr. James Van Allen, the person whom the belts (plural) are named after, said that trips through them would not have been deadly was, in a word, nonsense. I think it's pretty much a given that he knew more about those belts than you do.
Tell me, Philip, why are you under the impression that the Van Allen belts matter at all for Apollo? What video told you that? I mean, the Soviets sent two dogs into the very worst part of the belts to test how long animals could live in them. They died after 3 weeks. Apollo went through the worst part in 15 minutes. James Van Allen certainly didn't think Apollo would have a problem. The problem comes with prolonged exposure (which is why they didn't/don't send craft like the shuttles, Mir, ISS, Skylab, etc., into those belts, because those missions last a long time). But, it's no big deal to be exposed for 15 minutes. This is no different in concept to getting a CT scan. Sure, you wouldn't want to get those every day or something, because that kind of constant radiation exposure would eventually be fatal. And, they always put the technicians doing them every single day behind some good shielding. But, if you need a CT scan, it's not harmful if you don't do it too often. How much do you actually understand the various types of radiation and what their effects are? Or, is your understanding of the Van Allen belts limited to a 30 second video clip you intentionally took out of context?
@@sidiksamion3 So, you're saying that the same guy who tried to get Armstrong to swear on the Bible that he landed on the Moon used a different, fake Bible to get other astronauts to swear that they landed on the Moon? Doesn't it invalidate your entire point?
JFK once said, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." The key word here is "hard". Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth when he said, "It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth." Then we have the statement of Von Braun's where he said we were 3 years behind the Russians. Are we to believe the US suddenly caught with the Russians? Then we have the daytime tempreture on the moon which is 250 degrees Fahrenheit (120° C, 400 K). The heat would have damaged the emulsion on the film. There are countless other things, but to be honest I can't be bothered anymore with this foolishness. We did not go to the moon, learn to accept it and move on.
Note 2 things about the von Braun quote. He said "... will fly DIRECTLY from the earth to the moon ..." That is supposing a single stage rocket that will do all of the liftoff, landing, second liftoff, return, and re-entry. That's why he and the others developed a multi-stage rocket instead. And the next paragraph from that same book (Conquest of the Moon, 1953) said: "From the space station's orbit, however, a journey to the moon becomes feasible. In the orbit we can construct the type of vehicles we require for the lunar trip, in the same way that we can build the space station. These vehicles will already have a speed of 15,840 miles per hour - the speed of the space station as it moves around the earth. Since we have this running start, we will not need excessive amounts of propellants or very powerful rocket motors" Take away the space station, put the rocket in orbit, and voila! You have what he and others worked out for Apollo. You deniers never miss a chance to cherry-pick and quote-mine. As to the film melting, the measured surface temperature during Apollo 11 ranged from -10F to 44F. The extremes were never reached in any mission, as they always landed in lunar morning. I'm not surprised you can't be bothered with the rest, as you have already shown that you allow yourself to be taken in by people who either don't know what they're talking about or are liars, and never look any further.
''It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility...'' hence the stages ahahahahahahahahahah what a bunch of morons you are... can not understand basic english and pretend to understand scientific topics ahhahahahaha
We all know that the moon landing was faked. It was filmed by Stanley Kubrick. However, because he was such a perfectionist he demanded that they film on location.
+Grant Hurst Haha! Typical Kubrick. And it probably took them 8 years to film.
Grant Hurst that was good.
Grant Hurst i like a comment like yours! Here is mine: just because a young bride wears a white dress at her wedding doesn't guarantee she is a virgin.
Funky--just because our government shows us pictures of Neil Armstrong walking around in a spacesuit, that doesnt guarantee we went to the moon.
Watch Adam ruins everything
One small step for man, one giant argument for mankind.
Those that have reached the age of reason are not arguing about the moon landings. The rest have only reached the age of denial somewhere around 12.
Underrated😂😂😂😂😂😂
Political stunt.. Political argument.
The step never happened
@@nmew6926 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂
The Soviets in 1969: How the hell did Americans land on the moon?!
American scientists in 2021: How the hell can we land on the moon?!
he film"" American Moon "" there will be no doubt left in your mind
ua-cam.com/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/v-deo.html
@@paulscottfilms If you're gullible, that is.
We have landed many times on Mars.
We have sent countless probes through the solar system, all the way to Pluto, and beyond (Voyager 1 and 2)
And some uneducated morons still can,t believe we landed on the Moon ????
IF we faked the Moon landings, why "fake" it SO MANY TIMES ???
The education system has failed BIG time...
@@jocec3283 we all know about the Mars probes and moon probes. This has nothing to do with education, it has to do with whether or not you think the narrative told by Cold War government agencies (on both sides) is actually reliable ... 🙄
@@GameDevNerd Never cared about any governments' narratives.
I only care about scientific facts, evidence and logical reasoning.
6 years later since the video and still havnt gone...back
we haven't gone back because of lack of government funding and lack of reason to go back.
We literally within the last few years we've like three new probes
I don't know why this guy seems oddly obsessed with agreeing with everything the government says. You get Apollo 11 in 1969 and Apollo 17 in 1972. That's 7 missions in 3 or 4 years. All of the humans that have ever walked on the moon have been Americans and no human has walked on the moon since 1972 (52 years). Not from Russia, China, India, or Japan.
@@AstroFrogYT and they went 6 times before (between 1969 - 1972)
@@Kat-zj5kd coz they were funded
It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled .
Mark Twain
Lane 3192 Ignorance is alive and well. There are some pretty dumb people running around. There is a long list of arguments why this entire Moon Hoax allegation is simply insane. For starters, you’d have to believe that the 400,000 people who worked on the Apollo program have managed to keep a coverup secret for 50 years. Add to that the notion that scientists around the world have been fooled by analyzing “phony” moon rocks, soil, thousands of photos, film, thousands of scientific papers, hardware, tracking, telemetry, data, billions of pages of documentation, etc.
And then there is this idea that Stanley Kubrick filmed Apollo. All one has to do is compare the 2001 Space Odessey moon-surface footage to Apollo’s real images, film. There is a huge difference. Kubrick made no attempt to try and simulate the moon’s 1/6 surface gravity because it was too difficult, impractical. Its laughable, yet conspiracists continue to sell the hoax. Why? Fake news is big business $$$ The estimated 5,000 Apollo surface photos and hours of astronauts surface EVA's video are far too complex to have been faked by Hollywood in the early 60s..
@@thomaslewis7883 First, Nasa wasn't/ isn't a big warehouse with 400,000 people working hand in hand . It's compartmentalized with everyone doing their part. If only a few head people know what's really going on , then I believe it's very possible for a secret to be held for 50 years.
Wouldn't it be pretty silly to make a movie set look exactly the way you made "the real moon" set look?
Well the funny thing is , scientists have been "fooled" by phony scientific papers (what ever the hell that's supposed to mean), hardware, data, etc... Look into it a little deeper.
Ok, so why haven't we been back in 50 years. Please , don't say we don't have the technology anymore like Don Pettit said. haha Is it a money thing, it cost too much?
But we will be going in what is the date now 2024?
Isn't it kinda funny that no other country has landed a human on the moon? Is our 1969 Technology that far advanced that NO one today can get back to the moon?
You believe what you want, a little common sense would tell you , you've been lied to.
@@lane3192 So Boeing or say Airbus could fake multiple Moon, Mar Missions and we would never know.?LOL Speak for yourself.No ones fooling anyone I know with fake Moon landings.haha.Sorry, impossible without NASA possessing some kind of mythical magical powers. LOL.NASA had 38,000 men, women at its facilities, and another 375,000 men, women working for the 20,000 subcontracting companies hired by NASA for the 12-year lunar program. The Soviet Union would have immediately announced that the Moon landing was a fake. 1969 was the height of the Cold War, the US was bogged down in Vietnam, we were having violent protests in the streets, Had someone found evidence of American faking 9 Moon flights,6 landings, it would have triggered a scandal 100x worse than Watergate that would have forever changed how Americans viewed its government and leaders. The Soviets would have won the cold war.
The Soviet Union said nothing, because they were part of Apollo program, watching every launch, recovery, tracking, listening, observing, etc,.They even tried to land their robotic Luna [soil sample return mission ] spacecraft before Apollo 11 to bust the party and claim "first on a lunar surface", and "the first recovery of lunar surface samples", unfortunately, Luna crashed..NASA even shared lunar samples [ large rocks ] with the Soviets as 3 later Soviet Luna missions were successful, recovering 326 grams / 11.5 ounces of lunar regolith [fine soil and small pebbles ]. As a side note, the Soviets were asked to join Apollo as a partner,they declined only to have their own manned Moon program shut down after repeated failures of their N -1 heavy-lift booster rocket.
@@thomaslewis7883 Well, Nasa faked moon landings in 1969, I'm sure Boeing or whoever could fake it too. So I still ask the question, why haven't we been back to the moon or farther? In 50 years our planes have advanced quite a bit. In 50 years cars have advanced quite a bit. In 15 years our phones have advanced quite a bit. But in 50 years, not too much has advanced as far as space travel goes. That doesn't throw up a red flag in your common sense thinking?
@@lane3192 Common sense?. Yes, I understand why NASA ended the Apollo program in 1972. Budget cuts and waning public interest. You're not interested in Apollo, despite it being part of the public domain for over 50 years.. So how do you generate public interest and acquire funding when thousands of naive ignorant people are telling everyone to cut NASA's funding.?
You educate the public. Thankfully the public is excited again..Were going back to the Moon.."Artemis 2024".Unfortunately, we haven't figured how to warp space, so we still use combustion rockets. You can't fake moon landings. Science won't allow it. That's all you need to know.
How do people have some doubts while you clearly filming this episode on the moon
Fair point
It was fllmed in Stanley Kubrik's massive studio . Not all of us can be quite as stupid as you, remember to take you RNA injection.
@@paulscottfilms What
@@legocamdude1 I think he's talking about the latest craze.
Injecting nano particles into your system to clot your blood
@@paulscottfilms PLUS NASA has *contradicted* the APOLLO MISSIONS! Now Nasa said they *CAN NOT* send *ANY* humans past the lethal radiation in the Van Allen belts!! ua-cam.com/video/Kji7H_brBa4/v-deo.html
I guess NASA is coming clean
51 years now.
@@AndreAngelantoni 53
No time in human history has a super successful technological achievement ended in "Just Stopped".
Except for Apollo.!!!
_No time in human history has a super successful technological achievement ended in "Just Stopped"._
Sure it has.
The Concorde, for example.
My last TV was 3D. When it broke down I wasn't able to get another one.
Moon landings stopped after Apollo 17 in 1972 because we mainly went to the moon as a political goal which obviously meant we no longer had a need to go after the goal was fulfilled and in the eyes of the public we were just wasting money. And we have made many space achievements since then, albeit typically unmanned (i.e. sending a spacecraft to Pluto). The reason we haven’t returned to the moon is because there is less incentive than there was in the 1960s, not because we can’t do it.
@@pluto6383 But sir - nobody STILL has ever left earth orbit. You just drink the KoolAid and believe it.
@@marblox9300 I think you know people have been to the moon and are just trolling.
If we really landed on the Moon in 1969..There would be a McDonalds and a Walmart by now!
remember all the space domes they promised us in the 80s?
Yeah and you two are idiots for believing any of the ad copy. Everyone knows that stuff is pure fluff.
Lol
Absolutely
STARBUCK$
Well 6 years have past any updates 😂😁
And not one new manned Missions in 55 years.
In my opinion the most convincing part is the way the dust flies around. There's no turbulence so the whole set would have to be in vacuum! Sounds easier to just film on site at this point
Rattus, Not just a vacuum, but at one sixth of the Earth's gravity. And no atmosphere.
you have no idea how manyf weird effects can be achieved one way or another on a movie set
@@GuxTheArtist Especially in the sixties when LSD was involved.
@rattusstatus3524 .
I'm not sure why you find it difficult to believe they had vacuum chambers even though it is well documented. One was the size of a football field, on which they were testing the rockets.
Apollo was filmed on these testing facilities.
I believe the moon landings happened but what you're saying is not only easily accomplished by filming on an indoor set, it's actually a notorious problem with filming outdoor scenes in a studio. Ironically, the same phenomenon that makes studio simulated outdoor scenes seem fake, would work in favor of making simulated moon footage seem more authentic.
Anybody with even a basic understanding of telescopes can tell you why the HST can't resolve lunar detail. How does it see so far away ? Ask yourself just how big the objects are that it's capturing.
Absolutely, it's not rocket science! The flat earth brigade etc cant understand why aircraft cant be seen from space either. Doh!
The film"" American Moon "" there will be no doubt left in your mind
ua-cam.com/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/v-deo.html
If you were in a space ship, with a pair of binoculars, try seeing a quarter in the middle of a football pitch. Good luck finding the Apollo spacecraft.
@@paulscottfilms There is nothing in doubt . But , politely , I skimmed the transcript - you know it's bad when they mention 'Capricorn One' (LOL!) , & the rest is just the usual dogshit . Go ahead & believe it if it makes you happy .
Yet satellites can resolve licence plates from space?
This should be called " I'll give NASA the benefit of the doubt"
Fr
I would not give NASA other credit than that of relying on popular gullibility. As they say: the bigger and shameless the lie, the hardest to reject it and disprove it
@@GuxTheArtist Shouldn't be a problem for other nations to debunk it. Especially those that have been to the Moon and don't see eye to eye with USA, even openly go against US diktats on a daily basis. But they all corroborated USA's story. Because?
@@GuxTheArtist And you would know about big lies, having swallowed some. Go get an education and learn how it all happened instead of recycling shite.
I suggest the title, "I've given this matter a grand total of about 17 minutes of thought and approximately 4 minutes of research."
In one of my retouching classes in college, I made it my final project to doctor a moon landing photo, putting the Star Trek ship in the background and replacing all the USA labels and iconography with its Russian equivalent. Fun class.
The film"" American Moon "" there will be no doubt left in your mind
ua-cam.com/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/v-deo.html
@@paulscottfilms Don't worry. I know Earth is vaguely spherical and that the moon landing was real. I was just having some fun.
Dune buggy needed oxygen to operate right?
@@susangeorge5399
Huh? What are you talking about? The buggy (lunar rover) operated on batteries, not oxygen. Are you under the impression that it used an internal combustion engine?
@@rockethead7 i thought everyone knew that we were dropping big block v8's in our moon buggies. we didn't know how to use batteries in vehicles until recently with the tesla, idiot /s
Besides the footage and all that seems pretty legit to me, my brain tells me, if we can't go to the moon now with our current technology, how it was even possible over 50yrs ago.
Because it's not the matter of ability, but having the actual physical hardware to do so.
Can we do it right now? No, because we don't have the literal hardware to do so.
Can we build the necessary hardware to do so? Yes we can.
Besides all of the airline records and videos of Concorde going mach 2, that seems pretty legit to me, my brain tells me, if we could fly 100 people at mach 2 for 3000 miles before, but now we can't with our current technology, how was it possible that the 1969 Concorde even existed?
We could go, we just haven't wanted to pay for it. Artemis might change that.
@@MrWeezer55 finding money for stuff has never been an issue for the American govt.
we could go in a nano second, but we destroyed that technology.
It’s 2023 and NASA still has nothing
You mean apart from conclusive proof that they landed 12 men on the Moon, achieved near-miraculous fly-bys, orbits and landings on various planets and moons, put up an astonishing telescope, and successfully flew Artemis 1 to the Moon last autumn, beginning their programme to return to landing humans on the Moon?
Whereas you've got... what? "I don't understand what I'm looking at therefore fake."
@@paulbeardsley4095 Never did I say it’s not real, you’re putting words in my mouth. It’s 2023 and no man has set a foot in the moon as they previously hoped. That’s all I mean with my comment.
@@vndroz6793hope didn’t get them to the moon last time either. Dump trucks of tax dollars did. And that line of dump trucks will probably never be as long again.
@vndroz6793 You said "NASA still has nothing." If you meant something else you should have said something else.
🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻 Fake! Never happened 🤷🏼♀️
Imagine flying 290,000 km away from everything you've ever known.
and imagine leaving the stove on
And imagine how scary the apollo 13 was
240k miles..= 384k km..?
but granted..
would be interesting to find out what the astronauts' greatest fears were (& whether the red cyanide tabs were real, or just a urban legend..😀)
@@philcoombes2538 imagine getting stranded on the moon and slowly running out of oxygen
@@anonymoose6873 that, imho, would be where I could see tablets being used; any other sort of failure (suit failure, meteor strike depressurization, atmosphere entry failure etc would happen so fast death would (hopefully) be instantaneous), but death by hyperventilation triggered by excess CO2 is not a good way to go
When you tell the truth and your child doubts it, the first thing you never say is "You're a conspiracy theorist". You look forward to explaining and proving every detail to your child. This also applies to the current hoaxes.
There is a vast difference between an innocently ignorant child and a willfully ignorant adult.
If any moon landing deniers ever actually wanted answers to their doubts/questions, I'd eat my hat anyway. Universally, they PRETEND to ask questions, but they know, in advance, that they will never accept the answers. This is vastly different than a child asking honest questions.
Well your child has hope. So you give it a go. You and the adults who believe in flat earth, do not. So no point. Tough world I know out there when no one wants to explain things in a way that makes it make sense to YOU. But the UA-cam videos you like make you feel right and vindicated and the nasa videos someone else likes are WRONG and faked.
@@marksprague1280 Indeed.
@@marksprague1280 spot on...
Here's a little tip, if you want to try to know things, stop believing everything first. -marc27
stop spamming
@Marc Douglas Vogt Here's a little tip. Fight ignorance online. If you want to understand how NASA visited the Moon 9 times and landed on the surface 6 times. Get a good education and study hard. While we might not be able to prove Oswald acted alone in the assassination of JFK., we can prove NASA visited the Moon 9 times. Anybody who is unable to separate scientific fact from fictional pseudoscience needs to enroll back in school. There is no excuse for not knowing based on an unwillingness to examine authoritative cited and sourced evidence from respected individuals. Claiming a Moon rock is fake requires scientific evidence from a lunar geologist, yet conspiracists insist if Joe Blow says he's a geologist and the half-ton of Moon rock is fake, then it must be true.. If the earth is flat, Apollo was a hoax. The same non-evidence supports both claims. Ignorance is alive and well on the WWW.
@@Godscountry2732 God’s Word says in Isaiah 45:18 KJB that “…he formed it (earth) to be inhabited.” No verse says that God formed the moon to be inhabited by man - or visited for that matter either. The moon is a luminary and gives off her OWN light according to Isaiah 13:10, Ezekiel 32:7, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:24, and Revelation 21:11 KJB. God created the moon (and the sun) and placed them in the second heaven to be lights to divide the day from the night, to give light upon the earth, and to rule the day (sun) and the night (moon). They also divided the light from the darkness. They were not created to be inhabited, my Friend. Why were the “lunar photos” so dark? Where was the light that the moon was emitting? Based on the fact that the moon gives off her “own light,” me thinks there is a problem here. But, of course, you’re going to tell me the KJB is false. So, what men tell you is accurate, but what God tells you is not. Don’t be foolish, my Friend. Don’t be spoonfed information that sounds good to the ear but contradicts scripture. But - your choice, my Friend 😊
or as I say, "it's not what I believe that counts, its what can be proven, that really matters"
This guy deserves a “Most Gullible” trophy which he’d proudly display because NASA is just so honest no government agency could ever do this, so the joke’s on those who do notice a muddy elephant in the snow.
The unintentional irony at this stage is as hilarious as it is staggering.
And meanwhile the crap online conspiracy theory that you yourself hang on their every word is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic monetised or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is completely free of vested interest and agenda? Righto then.
@@yassassin6425 ✔Well said.
@@yassassin6425Best not use the term 'conspiracy theory' because it suggests to the reader that you've lost the argument. 'Challenging the narrative' might be a better term to use, as it doesn't have connotations of the argument having been lost.
@@pelocitdarney5718
No, it's perfectly apposite. Thanks anyway.
@@yassassin6425Yassa, so what you're saying is that Carl is a person who thinks that bad people could get together with other bad people to do something bad? That's all 'conspiracy theorist' actually means, so that includes 99.9% of us. Also, it's just an over-used term which someone throws into the discussion when they're losing an argument, and all they're doing is saying that someone belongs to a group comprising 99.9% of people. Yassa, in this context, you could use a much more powerful term which puts your opponent into maybe only 10% of the people, such as 'narrative denier'. Kaboom! See how Carl reacts to that!
The comments here show a need for an increase in the education budget.
Exactly, folks today are dumb as rocks
@alpha beta Heh Heh, well said.
@alpha beta Anyone who believes the 12 year Apollo program was a hoax is an ignorant idiot. Libraries are free.
@@shaundouglas2057 Anyone who believes the 12 year Apollo program was a hoax is an ignorant idiot. Libraries are free.
@@thomaslewis7883 Oh dear another muppet who has had his delicate sensibilities offended.
Haven´t been back to the moon is the main reason i reckon it all crap, and i´ve heard many excuses as to why they haven´t returned and none make any sense. But many ignorant idiots believe everything mainstream media puts out because they dare not think for themselves.
They are having massive problems now even with more advanced technology, 2 dates have been cancelled due to male function or something August 2022 and September 2022 . These problems are occuring because it never happened before
What in the world are you talking about? SLS has never even lifted off before. Delays are normal in space travel. Mercury/Gemini/Apollo had countless similar delays.
male function lol
Spot on!
Isn`t "male Function" what they need viagra for?
You think no Apollo mission was delayed or went wrong sheesh
The problems we have is because we dont have proper engineers anymore. Apollo F1 engines had to be hand adjusted. The morons America is producing nowadays dont want to get their hands dirty
The star one in particular makes a ton of sense. If you look at pictures from our spacecrafts that orbit other planets like Jupiter or Saturn you never see stars around the planets in those pictures
We don't have to prove the fraud. They have to tell us why 70% of people don't believe it 50 years later. This is unique.
none of those are real either. every "space photo" on the internet is photoshop
Put down the crack pipe. It's turning your brain to mush.
@@1gallimaufry it's easier to fool all of the people than convince them they have been fooled.
but they were all fake! they couldn't accurately calculate alleged star positions so they didn't bother
"We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, former CIA director
Even your foundational truths are ridiculed by mainstream narrative today
@@s.jackson6885 correct...it's all BS
The 'moving flag' is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. The film clearly shows the astronaut moving the flag pole. Once he is done placing the flag, it doesn't move; which is exactly what one should expect to see.
@felix mendez No, there aren't.
@felix mendez _You want evidence? How about this for starters. Here there are only a few of the counteless pieces of evidence of the hoax:_
_a) "Astronauts" being incapable of giving a straight answer in their Apollo 11 press conference, when asked if they saw any stars while on the Moon and having to consult among themselves to be able to provide an answer._
Your point (a) is bullshit. Neil Armstrong gave a PERFECTLY STRAIGHT ANSWER. There was no need for them to "consult among themselves" nor did they do so.
Patrick Moore asked them two questions - the first was about how "firm" they found the lunar surface, and the second was "when you looked up at the sky could you actually see the stars and the solar corona, in spite of the glare?".
Buzz Aldrin then answered the first question, causing a delay between Moore's second question and Armstrong's answer.
Armstrong then answered (with the straightest of straight bats):
"We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. Uh…I don’t recall, during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona, what stars we could see".
Armstrong here has clearly not realised that Moore was asking about the visibility of the Solar Corona from the lunar surface. This is quite understandable, as to attempt to see the corona Armstrong would have had to look directly at the Sun. Perhaps Moore thought his sun visor would have made this possible. In any event the reasons for Armstrong's misunderstanding are moot - for he clearly did so because in his reply he gives an answer that refers to the "period of time that we were photographing the solar corona".
The Solar Corona photography took place before the landing, from the Command Module, when all 3 astronauts were together. They had just entered the Moon's shadow and were scheduled at this point to photograph the corona "peeking out" from behind the Moon. (These photographs are on record).
Mike Collins either witnessed this photography or participated in it - so he gave a VERY NATURAL response to Armstrong's reply:
"I don’t remember seeing any" (which tallied with Armstrong's own answer).
And there it is. Collins was not responding to Patrick Moore's question, but to Neil Armstrong's answer. A perfectly INNOCENT AND NATURAL exchange.
Patrick Moore realised the misunderstanding, but let it pass - probably because there were many of his professional colleagues waiting to ask their own questions.
HOWEVER, when Moore got the chance to interview Armstrong 'one on one' for his BBC 'Sky at Night' program the following year, he took the opportunity to get the information he was looking for at the Press Conference. He asks the same question, but this time, to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, he splits the question in two. They are the FIRST TWO QUESTIONS he asks. You can hear them here:
ua-cam.com/video/PtdcdxvNI1o/v-deo.html
How can such a misunderstanding (on the part of Hoax Believers) arise from such a simple exchange at the Press Con? Are people so incapable of comprehending the meaning of words?
The answer is that these people are so prejudiced by their desire to believe that the Moonlandings were faked, that they allowed their critical standards to drop and jumped onto the interpretation that they WANTED to hear.
The "non-agreement" and "confusion" about what the Apollo astronauts saw from the surface became a REPEATED LIE.
Now it has been answered. Please don't repeat that lie again.
felix mendes ... Your entire post is total BS, but I will just point out one of your "points" (h).
All of the lunar landings were made near the lunar morning terminator. And the reason is that the surface temperature is "cooler in those "days". Yes a Lunar "day" is about 15 Earth days long. The idea that the surface temperature recovers from 250 F below zero the 250 F above zero "instantly" shows you have no understanding of thermal dynamics. You are correct that the Moon has no atmosphere, so only the surface is heated. This is also why the suits are white and reflective to help protect from the heat.
The surface temperature at the landing sites were approximately 130 F. Remember the night side had cooled to -250 F over the 15 days of darkness and penetrated considerably in the soil. It takes a while for this soil to warm up and it likely reaches the highest temperature in the late afternoon which would be 11 or 12 "Earth days" later.
All of you other points have similar glaring failures. To less educated people they can seem to make sense.
Swinde Okay, please explain the “glaring failures.” When you say something, at least back up your claims.
I’m not on either side btw. That means I believe either way, hoax or not, could be a possibility.
@felix mendez And you need to stop watching this conspiracy crap. You are just parroting what has already been debunked a million times.
seeing a stage hand, overhead boom mic, grips and gaffers in the shot , but Mr Beat still gives NASA benefit of the doubt. LOL this guy funny
You know perfectly well those things never happened.
Shut up
Damn right. I'm beginning to think Pigs In Space might not have been real.
And like a true hoax nut he can’t man up this evidence. What a hard fail, son.
@@kitcanyon658 son? son??? haahaa it always makes me laugh when I hear something use the term "son" Do me a favor shut da fk up & go open up your canyon wide for manbear.....HAAHA drop em boi
I find it very hard to believe man was on the moon in the late 1960s, yet I can't take a date to the moon in 2021.
@Joaquin you cant, it's not possible with current tech to escape earth into space
@@HassaanALal Its funny how NASA had the tech to do that in 1969, but not now.
@@ahnguyen1 exactly, they would have gone 5 to 10 times by now if it was so possible for them.
@@HassaanALal they went six times bro
@@HassaanALal
They went to the moon on manned mission 9 times, 6 of those times landed. 24 people went to the moon, 3 of those went twice. 12 of them walked on the surface.
The fact the Russians have never disputed it is good enough for me
Yeah you’d think the Soviets would be ALL over that stuff. But… they weren’t…
Soviet’s were broke saved them billions spending on trying to do the same thing they cut there funding after more to spend on there military
@@rustyshackleford234 Yeh well you would never believe them anyway you Russiaphobes
they were in on the con
@@Paul-nu7nj Yeah, right 🤣
Accidentally they landed on Sahara Desert
I fell the Astronauts were meant believe they actually reached the moon 🌛 infact even they were even fooled
Wait a minute. The radiation in the Van Halen belt shouldn't have been too much of a problem, being that they could have avoided certain" hot spots," but what about the temperature? The Van Halen belt consists of Plasma; both " cold Plasma," AND" hot plasma." Cold plasma is about a few thousand degrees Celsius, and hot plasma is WWAAAYYY hotter. The only type of metal that can PROBABLY sustain those types of temperatures is titanium, and we all know that the shuttle isn't made out of titanium. And even if that was the case, they would have had to avoid EVERY hotspot perfectly, in order to reach the 🌒 without burning up. Now let's talk and the radio waves. I don't know about you, but I don't think that raido waves can go through plasma. They either get absorbed, or the bend. I'm not flat Earth theorists, but I'm about 62% sure that we didn't go to the Moon!!!
LOL - Van Halen belt
GodmindNY NYC
Running with devil was one favs, I’m about 98.375% no one has stepped foot on moon
where, relative to Earth's atmosphere, are these plasmas..?
@@philcoombes2538 yes they are. There's red plasma and yellow plasma, and according to NASA they conveniently made the voyage while avoiding all the red plasma spots, that's remarkable!!
@@astralmindny9055 A ref please, so I can see what NASA said..?
50 years since the first mission and we just stopped going and no other country has been able to do it in all this time. Sure we went
Yes, but it was ludicrously expensive and served mainly propaganda purposes, so _of course_ nobody wanted to go back - the reward to expenses ratio just wasn't good enough back then.
BrushyMtnGolfer I was a skeptic in 68 and more 2019
@Suzie.q Popcorn123 Actually the on board computer (Apollo) was in some ways better than today! Small systems today crash completely if they cannot cope. Although in 1969 the computer was overworked it still carried on working and doing most of it's programming. Way back in the 60's CGI had not even been thought of. Stanley Kubrick would have loved it if it had existed then!
BrushyMtnGolfer We went to the moon to prove technology superiority over the Soviet Union. After we landed (and we did land), the country had no incentive to go back, for the cost was too high for what we’d actually get back.
Exactly its all bs. We went to low earth orbit thats about it.
Fantastic intro Mr. Beat. My father always said that a great teacher can convey their message in a way that someone who isn’t interested can either understand the lesson or gain an interest in it. My brothers don’t care for history the way I do. But I’ve showed them quite a few of your videos and they friggin love them. Thank you, Mr. Beat
If anything the flag should flutter MORE on the moon (while being handled) than on earth when there is no wind. Any non-rigid entity (flags, cables, straps) will still flail around like crazy in low gravity, as they keep their momentum from any movement and will even 'ripple' when they reach their point of tension. They will do this for longer than on earth as gravity doesn't pull it in one direction to 'fix' them.
Yes, there is no air resistance to stop it flapping straight away.
But if there is no atmosphere on the Moon, there is no wind - so why is the flag waving? Is this the proof that conspiracy theorists have been seeking?
Look again at the image, and in particular along the top edge of the flag, and you will find the answer. A telescopic pole has been extended along the top in order to make the flag fly proudly (yes, NASA really did think of everything).
"Because it’s been set up like this, it appears to be waving in the wind," Ojha explains. "All the wrinkles are there because it’s literally been screwed up for four days en route to the Moon."
you realize they had a horizontal bar on the flag to prevent that from happening..
In pure words it more tending to do shm( simple harmonic motion) people dont know about these stuff so they say its fake
@@GoodBoy-nx3oy Yes. It’s telling that most Apollo deniers have very poor scientific knowledge (they typically express silly ideas about radiation and heat transfer) and often don’t even know the history that they are disputing (“How come there was never a second landing?”).
Yes, we went to the moon.
Anyone who says we didn’t is just mad because we didn’t find any cheese there.
Anyone who says we did is just mad because we still cannot go there
kids: moon landing never happened
china: I think I saw something on the satellite picture
you mean the soup dragon isn't real?
It would have been very difficult to simulate 1/6 G outside of a tank of water. It is quite apparent the astronauts were experiencing lunar gravity and weren't in water.
The film was not live and slowed down to half speed.
to simulate 1/6 G is so difficult that they achieved a poor effect of it in fact, if you ever cared to look. It is so obviously fake you need to wonder why people prefer to believe what they are told like using their own brains were not an option
@@jerrylee2425 one of the things that made me the most skeptical of the whole thing was the press conference. Like I don't know what happened to those people, but that is direct opposite of how human beings behave after success that is unimaginable. Imagine risking your life for several days and then achieving the biggest thing in human history only to be at the press conference like you're sitting at the murder trial....and you're the convicted guy.... :// very suspicious. The best evidence that something's wrong with the story is, they're not going back. It's been 50 years now and I predict they simply will not be going and everyone will keep pretending and lying. There's also the lost telemetry tapes from the first mission, diferences between videos and photos that should've shown the same thing.... all kinds of problems like space radiation, perfect photos [not even one was out of focus or missed - every photo is almost like National Geographic cover LOL
@@ArcadeMusicTribute You see it! To bad to many love the lie.
@@jerrylee2425 Yeah it's that "my mommy would never lie to me" kind of psychology. I guess people prefer to lie to themselves, that to admit they've been deceived.
I love how humanity wastes more times debating if something is real or not, instead of trying to find more ways to get there...
That should tell you all you need to know friend. Because guess what? We CAN'T get there. Never could. If we could. We would. But we can't. So we don't. If people just use there heads seeing this lie is really a no brainer
What do you mean "more" ways to get there? They've never even figured out a single way to get there.
So you'd prefer for humanity to not think freely and to find ways to get "back" to the moon. While NASA,the Space specialist, is scamming tax payers for billions annually lol
@@Xendava I take it neither you nor Josh are aware of the Artemis Program?
@@Xendava Considering all evidence points to us having already gone there, I don't understand how you could say otherwise.
What i don't understand is that there is a lot less gravity on the moon than on Earth, which is why i was told the astronauts had to wear heavily weighted boots etc or they would float away. Yet when they kick the moon dust up it falls just as quick as it does on Earth, why doesn't it float away?
1) No astronaut wore any weighted boots.
2) Moon dust doesn't float away because the moon has gravity.
3) If you have an issue with the rate that the dust falls, calculate it. Calculate the initial velocity of the dust, and the time it spends in its arc until it hits the ground again. Physics 101. I mean, the math/physics has been done a few million times already, but, since you say that it's wrong, calculate it. Demonstrate your claim.
Notice also that fine dust here on Earth makes dust clouds that fall slowly, because the air slows its fall. There's no air on the Moon, so no dust clouds form and the dust goes down as fast as it goes up.
@@rockethead7 Save your breath. These braindeads float of faith, not science. Just like those flat Earth retards.
Except for everything being wrong in your post, yeah, good one. You figured it out!!!!!
The suits were heavy. They were somewhere around 200 lb so weighting the shoes was not necessary.
Do you get how gravity works? If there is gravity, things won't float away.
@@charliebay9441 Air pressure or direct pressure moves matter (dust) There isn't any on the moon. Watch the footsteps, se how the dust is pushed out from beside the boot into the air? That can't happen.
The best part was when Nixon phoned the moon from his oval office landline...
Actually, this is how it worked. The Unified S-Band System used the 2025-2120 MHz band for uplinks (earth to space transmissions) and the 2200-2290 MHz band for downlinks (space to earth transmissions). Both bands are allocated internationally for space research and operations even today. A hybrid of radio communications and landline communication, both were full duplex (as was the Apollo capsule comms) meaning both ends could talk and listen at once, just like any other phone call.
The conversion from radio system to landline system was done at a shore station, in the case of Apollo one of the radio telescopes or the point-to-point microwave links across the country that were also commonplace in that decade.
Nixon would never do something that was not true .
@@Jay-vr9ir I agree, but lunar scientists, aerospace engineers, and nerds don't need to confirm if "Tricky Dick" made a phone call to the Moon,to establish whether NASA is telling the truth.Individuals lie, cheat, and steal all the time; science doesn't.
Never thought of that one either.. . LOL
Direct line so they didn't forget to bring home some. Moon cheese.
@@meldaghost Yes, lots of cheese.LOL, Lunar conspiracists' don't know what they don't know. Sadly they teach this ignorance to their children. I believe the internet's promotion of fake conspiracy theories and misinformation are the biggest threats to democracy.
Moon landing deniers don't want to accept the fact that at the time of the Apollo missions, it was literally impossible to fake the landings in a TV studio.
😂😂😂😂😂
@@MediaLieDetector prove me wrong. Show me the late 1960's technology that allowed us to mimic 1/6th of Earth's gravity in a vacuum in a TV studio.
@@dkart96 Doing so would not be scientifically relevant to this topic. NASA stating that Low earth orbit is all they can do IS.
@@MediaLieDetector " Doing so would not be scientifically relevant to this topic."
It would literally be the ONLY thing relevant to the topic.
@@MediaLieDetector "NASA stating that Low earth orbit is all they can do IS."
Currently doesn't mean they didn't do it previously. If you don't have a big rocket capable of taking you to the moon right now, you're not going to the moon. You don't just store Saturn V rockets in a warehouse somewhere, for use whenever you feel like it.
answer to the title: just yes
wrong
@@atlas8827
Right.
If there's very little gravity and it's like a vacuum than how come the dust or dirt falls back to the surface of the moon so fast that is being kicked up from the rover wheels . The dust having no gravity , a vacume atmosphere and no moisture should just hang into a cloud behind it. Not fall rapidly in formation to the ground
Is this a joke? The moon has 1/6th gravity of Earth, not zero. Do the math from there. I mean, do you really believe there hasn't been a single physicist anywhere on Earth for the past 50 years to notice this "problem" you think you spotted? And, sorry, if you expect a cloud, you clearly don't understand what a vacuum is. A cloud forms when the atmosphere suspends particles of stuff (dust/water/whatever) in the air. No atmosphere/air, no cloud. I'll cut you a bit of slack about the rover wheels, because most of that footage was shot in 16mm at 6 FPS, then sped back up to 24 FPS when they play it back (it's sped up). So, in a lot of that footage, yes, the dust appears to fall faster than it should, and there's no way for you to know that unless you understood in advance that it was being sped up. But, c'mon man, clouds in a vacuum?
I'm so tired of UA-cam blocking 75% of my replies. Good grief. No atmosphere = no cloud. You don't understand what a vacuum is. And, 1/6th gravity is not 0 G.
Lol, The moon had 1/6 gravity, so dust would fall right back down. There is no AIR. NO ATMOSPHERE to suspend dust, So it goes up, and comes right back down. There is no billowing, no dust suspension to keep dust afloat. Vacuum just means no air pressure.
I'm saying when you watch the rover kicking up the dust behind it it falls exactly like it does on earth . Slightly less gravity should mean it falls slower and less organized, then you factor in no moisture it should float longer than the moist dirt does here not just spit up and emmediately drop straight down .I know there's no wind to blow it away .
Well, if UA-cam hadn't blocked my first reply, I already explained that they shot most rover clips at 6 FPS, and played them back at 24 FPS. So, most of the videos you may have seen are running 4x faster than real-time. The rest of what you said was complete nonsense.
Imagine landing on the Moon and your kids grow up and say you faked it.
Imagine growing up and believing in something that never happened.
@@Ruda-n4h it didn't bro. Wake up. Not one real video or one real picture. All CGI bullshit
imagine faking it and your kids say you went.
@@DANTHETUBEMAN
That's more or less what I had to do.
Can you imagine what it was like for me....with people saying "oh, your dad went to the moon" etc
@Huỳnh Châu Quốc Huy of course. You have to understand that technology is much older than you think. They just spoon feed it to the public.
people in 2050 asking themselves, did we really go to the moon?.. come on grow up, we didnt go to any moon
*A FUNNY THING HAPPENED* WHEN NASA SENT NINE APOLLO MISSIONS OUT TO THE MOON Six of those missions went down with a two man crew to the Lunar surface Those were Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 Now how about that !
Click on *Sort by* then click on *Newest first*
@@apolloskyfacer5842 BOT replying on every post!
@@geoffbirchall7552 Mr Birchall, the troll of many YT user names replying to every post !
@@apolloskyfacer5842 bot!
How strange that people has to jump, and move slowly on the moon, but sand from the rover does not. The sand that is thrown in the air is falling as on Earth.
good point!
because of size. the moon is smaller than earth, so it has less gravity. Mars is half the size of earth, meaning it is much bigger, and has more gravity.
The dust settles FASTER than on Earth. Dust clouds don't form in a vacuum. Without air resistance, the dust will drop back to the ground like a pile of bricks.
Calculate it. Submit those calculations to science journals. But, I will warn you, if you calculate it using this video's rover/sand, you're looking at a greatly sped-up copy. He obviously increased the pace to save time. But, if you download the original rover videos and play them at the original frame rates, you can easily do the calculations to prove you're correct. What are you waiting for? I'm sure nobody else has ever calculated it in the past 50 years... right?
@Lee cornell
Huh? Are you under the impression that we have any of those craft to even send?
So awesome to see this man making this video while standing on the moon!!
Must be no wind there
I wish he was
HEH
@@MrDaiseymay Yes, and even without an astronauts costume!
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) is better movie than "moon landing" 1969
Hi, Im in 2024 and wondering. What's the update on this report? Mr Beat?
Mr Beat Can you do every president's biggest accomplishment like The New Deal signed by Franklin Dealno Roosevelt and the The Civil Rights Movement signed by Lyndon Baines Johnson?
I can't believe I haven't done those topics yet!
The new deal wasn't really an accomplishment unless debt was the goal.
If you do cival rights (maybe you have I am still playing catch up) please start with Ike's policies not just Johnson.
New deal was a pile of garbage, you should freshen up on your history
@@bitcoinwillendjewishsuprem3744 Classic example of the American education system. We're taught a much perverted version of history.
how could we have landed on the moon when the Great Space Dragon eats a piece of it every night then regurgitates it??? Checkmate, scientists!
each full moon crumbles away over the waning fortnight, with the bits going to make new stars (to replace the ones that fall to Earth); each full moon is thus entirely new, supplied piecewise from the sun during the waxing fortnight
(both of these processes take place during the daytime, of course, which is why you don't see actually see the bits moving at night..)
...which is why moon landings are fake - as it takes a fortnight to get there (the "3 day trip" is just a CCP-orchestrated mass hypnosis); as they would have to arrive there when the moon is "full", it means they would have to leave when it is "new", but as a "new" moon isn't physically there, they don't know where to point the rocket..
Woah ... you’re so stupid about the phase of moon
@@benjaminaraya8073 the Apollo stuff is just me, granted, but the moon-into-stars theory is that of one Ivan Denisovich Shukov, as reported by the author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn..
the film"" American Moon "" there will be no doubt left in your mind
ua-cam.com/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/v-deo.html
@@benjaminaraya8073 NASA has already *CONTRADICTED* their own "supposed" MOON Landings in this video!!
ua-cam.com/video/Kji7H_brBa4/v-deo.html
You should’ve just named this video why I agree with NASA
@KrispyKrackers88 Maybe not
Because that is the logical answer an educator like himself would come to. Of all government agencies I think NASA is the least of the average Americans worries as far as malicious intent.
This bloke is a Nasa fan.
What about the fact they had perfect signal to record everything when today we barely get good signals with advanced technology
Learn all about RADIO. You've heard of radio haven't you Mr McCray ? And do you have a huge parabolic Radio transmitting / receiving Dish (Antennae) in your backyard ?
Click on *Sort by* then click on *Newest first*
@@apolloskyfacer5842 bot!😂😂😂😂
Perfect signal? Huh? Who told you that? Nobody who listens to the radio broadcasts or watches the TV signal ever describes them as perfect. I mean, take the very first landing as an obvious example. Within about 5 seconds of lighting the main engine, communications got so bad that you couldn't even make out what anybody was saying. They couldn't get the S-band antenna to give a clean signal, and nearly had to switch to backup communications. How about Apollo 16, when the S-band antenna froze up, and they DID have to switch to backup the entire time? I mean, I could go on for hours here. Before complaining about something, is it too much to ask that you actually understand it first?
@@rockethead7 ✔Right on.
“WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON” for all the sheeple annoyed at me saying this!😀
No, we're merely sad that there is one more mental defective that the taxpayers will have to support.
@@marksprague1280 Mark, more insults, by the way, no support necessary. I don’t owe a penny, own property, very comfortable from a professional career. Don’t worry about me.
Your opinion can't change facts
@@raptorwhite6468 not my opinion, the truth is obvious to anyone who has eyes to see.
@@geoffbirchall7552 Could you at least provide any proofs so I can see where you made a mistake that led you to believing that?
When did we every do ANYTHING one time in 1969 and then never again?!
We didn't go
Huh? What are you talking about? They DID go again!! There were 9 manned moon missions, 6 of which landed. The first manned lunar mission was Apollo 8 in 1968. The last was Apollo 17 in 1972. Good grief. Sorry, but if you think there was only one lunar mission, that's how little you understand about the topic, you're really not in a position to even have an opinion.
@@rockethead7 we never went any of those times. All faked.
We don't have the technology to send humans thru can Allen radiation belts.
Even NASA admits this fact.
Oops!!
@@BeatlesFan1975
What are you talking about? NASA has never claimed we cannot go through the Van Allen belts. You are taking one or two sentences and twisting the context.
money. and the us basically had to or else it would lose the cold war.
what happened to our $12 trillion in the years since? follow the money...
These skeptics Never include professional photographers, or folks like me who actually DO work on sound stages in CA, and I HAVE filmed "moon like asteroid surfaces with astronauts" and keeping the dust down was a major pain in the ass, as was getting the 'star drops' to be visible against the glare of the foreground 'moonlet' we had made. The only way they ever got the stars was to Way underexpose the foreground and then reshoot it without the stars. When you see the dust kicking up from the rover's tires, it falls straight down instantly- no hang time.
Yes. And that can only be accomplished in a vacuum. There are no vacuum chambers in existence large enough to fake this.
There's a great video by a professional explaining a lot (but not even all) of the reasons we couldn't have faked the moon landing here: ua-cam.com/video/_loUDS4c3Cs/v-deo.html
That's not true. They asked the man in charge of the company that made the camera's they used a question regarding something that took place. I admit forgetting the details, but anyone that wants to know the truth can do an easy search to find it. The man was obviously an expert and the bottom line was that he smiled and said,.' I can't explain that',...……..meaning, whatever was being questioned could not have happened according to this expert. I'll look for the details, but it's a known story, you must have heard of it.
Omg yes why don’t they include me 🙄🙄
@@MrMarco855 from "American Moon" documentary?
Moon Hoax people can look at a still photo of the flag and claim it is moving. I think this points to the mental Health of those involved.
Well I think with the temperatures minus 300 Fahrenheit the astronauts and their spacesuits , they will freeze together
The measured surface temperature during Apollo 11 was -23C to 7C.
Sorry, but temperature doesn't work like you think it does. A vacuum doesn't have a temperature. Things inside a vacuum can have a temperature, but, it doesn't work the way you're pretending to understand.
@@rockethead7 From NASA: "Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
Has measured temperatures as low as -410°F (-246°C) in craters near the moon's poles. Scientists have also compiled data from the orbiter to create maps of the moon's surface temperature at different points in its orbit"
@@timjoseph887
So what? The astronauts were never at the poles in those craters. So, I fail to understand your point. I said that a vacuum doesn't have a temperature. I said that things in a vacuum can have a temperature (i.e. the rocks and dust). Why do you think the temperature of the rocks in craters at the poles are important regarding Apollo?
Holy shit. We landed on the moon? When.
July 20, 1969
@@xiphactinusaudax1045 WOOOOSH
@@Luigipopdrop Whoosh!
@@Luigipopdrop jokes must be funny to be a joke. Kurt's comment was not funny, therefore not a joke, therefore illegal woooosh
still developing technologies to circle the Moon, landing will be done some 10 years later after it
We want our tax dollars back and all those crooks thrown in jail
Why not find a credible witness to support your claim and add to that evidence that will stand up in court then sue NASA. Think of the money you will make.
@@Rob-tc3ty You're a fucking idiot. Every fake moon landing conspiracy has been thoroughly debunked.
You mean the current democRats in office? I totally agree
Also, if we were going to fake a moon landing would we choose the ugly model of the lunar lander as the ship? Hell no!
@Suzie.q Popcorn123 What do you mean by we can't?
The "identical backgrounds" at 5:20 are caused largely by the fact that the moon has no atmosphere, because this makes distant objects appear to be very close;
on Earth, distant objects always become bluish and hazy, but this doesn't happen on the moon, so we assume that sharp and clear objects on the moon are closer than they really are.
Yes, Apollo deniers just don’t get that the Moon is an actual other world!
Stop lying. Sick and tired of liars like you. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies. Just STOP!
same sound stage
Waiting for someone to say that there was a massive 0 atmosphere building that was constructed and then demolished for the film. The mental gymnastics will make your head spin.
NASA, never a straight answer...
My question is how did they get that contraption back through the Van allen belt
Still spewing your fake questions, eh? You have proven repeatedly that you don't care about the answers. So, why do you keep pretending to ask questions?
exactly !
@@rockethead7 because I haven't gotten an answer yet.
QUOTE:
"The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
-- James A. Van Allen"
@@rockethead7 Go have a look again at the contraption sitting on the "moon" and tell me that even made it off the "moon", let alone the outer portion of the Van Allen Belt. And somehow we lost that technology so we can't go back. How convienient. Know when your being lied to. That space craft looks like a bunch of 6th graders built it in science class. How ridiculous.
Day temperature +240 degrees .. no problem, we have aircon tinfoil suits !
What atmosphere does the moon have to hold that +240 degree temperature?
Although huge temperature variations occur on the Moon, the astronauts were never actually exposed to them. The maximum temperature on the Moon is +260F at lunar noon but with no atmosphere this refers to surface temperature not atmospheric temperature. Every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise. One Moon day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly 15 Earth days, and the astronauts were only on the Moon for a maximum of 3 Earth days, so they weren’t there long enough for the Sun to be at its highest and hottest.
There are only two ways heat can transfer on the Moon. The first is radiation, both directly from the Sun and from the Sun’s reflection on the surface. The astronauts’ spacesuits were designed to reflect almost 90% of the light, so very little heat would have transferred to them.
The second is by conduction from direct contact with the surface. This is also an ineffective process as the dust, soil and rock on the lunar surface is loose and doesn’t conduct heat well and the astronauts’ boots were insulated, slowing down conduction even further.
Water from a tank in the backpack flowed through the Liquid Cooled Garment (a web of fine tubing within the spacesuit) into a heat exchanger and then out through tiny pores in a metal sublimator plate (turning from a solid directly into a gas) where it was exposed to the vacuum of space. The consequent pressure drop froze the water, forming a layer of ice on the outside of the plate. Once the water under the plate cooled to a user-comfortable temperature, it was returned to the LCG and the water in the plate would re-freeze, sealing the plate and stopping the cooling process. Thus, heat rejection with automatic temperature control was accomplished with no sensors or moving parts to malfunction. 12lb of feedwater gave about eight hours of cooling.
do you feel stupid much? ahahahahah
@@milanforever7014 I don't feel stupid if that's directed at me - Happy New Year.
@@Ruda-n4h no dude.. it was addressed to the first comment.. happy new year ;)
I love how they say "It would take tens of thousands of people around the world to pull this off" and then admit they are one of them. The masses follow the narrative.
In over half a century, nobody has produced an alternative narrative. “They, uh, faked it somehow” does not count.
Can you even be serious about this? Are you even remotely aware of what the nuts claim? It's like they're reading from a script. They make the same old debunked claims about a "moon hoax" that have been explained a billion times over. You can't go to one of these videos' comment threads without seeing:
"Apollo was fake. Where are the stars?"
"Apollo was fake. Who took the video of the first steps on the moon?"
"Apollo was fake. How did they get through the Van Allen belts?"
"Apollo was fake. Aldrin said so."
If anybody is guilty of following a narrative, it's the people denying Apollo. It's not a "narrative" to respond to questions with the correct answers.
He meant the people working on the thing, not normal people, then he would have said millions, not tens of thousands. All the engineers, all the people in Houston, the Soviets watching closely
For anyone here in the section; of The Moon landing isn’t faked -_-
If you look closely to the footages and photos and know how photography and physics work its easy to see that it is not faked. I like to think that moon landing deniers are just jealous because they never accomplished something huge in their life.
1. Why the flag seem to wave.
First of all, the flag wasen’t waving, there is a hidden pole holding the flag into place that is attached to the standing pole for the photo the Apollo astronauts took because a droopy flag doesn’t look good for the picture, once you take a close peek at the photo you can see an outline of a upper pole holding the flag giving the illusion that its waving. In one of the footages we can also see the upper pole for a one second before one of the astronauts hid it from camera view.
2. Why the Astronauts dint jump high.
Because they dint choose too -_-. Common misconception by moon landing deniers thinks you can always jump high on the moon no matter how much we use our potential energy as we squat. while it is true that gravity on the Moon is weak compare here to Earth due to its lower mass it doesn’t mean we can jump very high no matter how much potential energy we store before we jump, physics still matters everywhere in any object of the universe regardless if you’re on Earth or not. The Astronauts just dint use much of their potential energy to use produce enough kenetic energy inorder to jump very high. To put it simply, they just dint bend low enough to jump high they only jump by their feet not with their knees.
3. Why are there no stars.
if you look at the pictures and the footages, its really easy to tell that the main reason you cannot see stars is because the Astronauts were on the day side of the moon 😑. even if they landed on the dark side of the moon where the sun isn’t shining, you still can’t see the stars with cameras as cameras at the time have very low quality like old video phone cameras from the 2000s.
4. Why does there seem to be light on the shadow side of the capsule seen in the photo where one of the Astronauts is climbing down.
Easy, light can bounce off the ground like a spring, they don’t hit the ground like meterorites and light isn’t a physical object, its electromagnetic radiation. I want you to close your eyes and imagine you go to a dark room with a board on your hand with a tiny object on it and have a table light shinning on your model as far as the sun looks like, you can see that the area of the tiny object where light doesn’t shine is shinning a bit instead of being a full silhouette, why? Simple because light travels at a rapid speed faster than sound it bounces of the ground and reflects back on the dark side of the object which is why it isn’t completely dark.
Our education system is really f*cked and sadly these conspiraterds fell victim to it or they decided to not listen or not learn deeper than the extent of conspiracy theories that is made out of suspicion, ignorance, jealousy, etc.
Whats ironic is these guys are the very reason why got intrested into science in the first place.
THANK YOU it seems like more people think it was faked when it really wasn’t. The hoax that we didn’t land on the moon was started by the Soviets, the very people who lost and wanted to find anyway they could win by proving NASA was cheating
The star thing you mentioned is wrong. The real reason is because the moon is so bright they have to turn down exposure so much that you can’t see the stars
Holy Moly this last comment made me cringe.
Our education system is really f*cked and sadly these conspiraterds fell victim to it or they decided to not listen or not learn deeper than the extent of conspiracy theories that is made out of suspicion, ignorance, jealousy, etc.
Maybe you should have paid attention in English class? The fact that your spelling is this poor, Makes me doubt you even attended class. What is a period? A comma? Jesus F Christ. Do you assume that everyone who does not agree with the common story is ignorant and jealous?
Best part of this is that; The reasons you are giving for certain circumstances IE - The lack of stars seen in space from the moons surface? NASA literally stated it was an exposure issue. Yet you say its because they are on the Day side of the moon, Oh boy. I am hoping you realize that the moon is in tidal lock with the earth. The fact that you even think for one second that is the cause for lack of stars in the space above confounds me beyond most words.
Space maybe the final frontier - But the moon landings were 100% made in a hollywood basement. You can refer to my comments above to understand why politically this event happened.
Typical moon freak resorting to personal insults to prove it is correct.
People who claim that the lighting is wrong, that is a studio set with multiple light sources actually fail their basic test everywhere there is always multiple lightsources as light reflects. Especially off highly reflective white space suites, the reflective lunar regalith and of course the LEM was covered in mirror like mylar.
There is nothing unusual in moon photographs other than they are very rare and were taken by only 12 individuals on another world ...........
"I'm gonna have to go with NASA on this one." Of course you do. You wouldn't want your channel banned by UA-cam.
Bob Helbig: Also because NASA did it as said......unless you can prove otherwise.
YOU HAVE TO SPOT THE UNDERLYING NUANCE IN HIS STATEMENTS, IT'S CALLED ERE PULLING THE WOOL, OR PLONKER.
they don't ban moon landing schizos
Because the morons saying America didnt go live in trailers and drink shine
@@MrDaiseymay Well, you've been pulling something.
No way, space ghost told me no one but snagglpuss has ever been there
HAHAHAHA… that’ s funny 😆
I get so mad when people tell me the moon landing is fake saying stuff like "the math doesn't add up Xd" when they have zero basic knowledge of what this math would even look like
you get so mad because ofcourse cant admit the sad reality after believing it all your life! Countries like India have live streamed their successful moon mission so transparently & effortlessly that it makes one wonder why does "superpowerful uncle sam" huffs and puffs even to prove their missions are success, yet so unconvincingly!
@@isuzuikamaki5477 , what do you find unconvincing?
@@isuzuikamaki5477
"Countries like India have live streamed their successful moon mission so transparently & effortlessly"
Do you know what else India did? They showed their orbital photos of some of the Apollo landing sites, including images of the Apollo landers' descent stages, flag shadows, etc. So, you believe India when they land on the moon (probes), but you don't believe them when they use those very same probes to confirm Apollo?
"huffs and puffs even to prove their missions are success, yet so unconvincingly!"
Dewdrop, NASA and the US government have put ZERO effort into "proving" anything. They publish the records, as they're required to do by law, and they have volunteers who upload terabytes of Apollo stuff. But, they spend zero time or money on trying to convince crackpots that they're crackpots.
Well it really didn't happen is all we do know
It amazes me that people will believe in stories about talking snakes and magic apples without ever asking for any sort of evidence, yet can't wrap their head around the idea that some of their fellow humans were smart enough to figure out how to send astronauts to the moon and back. These are usually the same people who don't what the periodic table is used for, and think that the quadratic formula is "a difficult math problem".
@felix mendez The only moron here is some ipendejo named Felix Mendez. I see you are still DEEP mining your intergluteal cleft for more bullshit excuses.
Were you Dropped on your Head? Numerous Times?
we had a AM radio in 1969 and yet we went to the moon come on folks
We've also had XB-70 Valkyrie - a nuclear-armed, deep-penetration strategic bomber with six engines, capable of cruising for thousands of miles at Mach 3+ while flying at 70,000 feet (21,000 m).
Come on, you.
@@Jan_Strzelecki so what...that's ur come back.. oh well now that i know we had that then we must have went to the moon...jeez
@@jameslavalley2647 _so what._
So, the level of technology in the 60's is higher than you think it is.
@@jameslavalley2647 Wow, you're as stupid as the bloke a few weeks ago who argued that we can't have gone to the Moon because his television in 1969 was black and white! Talk about a non sequitur!
@@paulbeardsley4095 how in the hell did we get that car up there
In short.. I'm guna go with NASA on this one
@alpha beta Right horse fool.Step on out of the rabbit hole.
Mike, you would be right.You get the $1,000,000 dollar prize.
@@glassofmilk6988 Yes, I've watched it.
My question is this. "How can an intelligent person with common sense sit and watch 3 plus hours of a foreign-made film insulting Americans space program and not once ask if the pseudoscience, half-truths, and outright lies shown in "American Moon" are based on historical and scientific evidence." I guess not". That's why American's educational system gets a D minus.
An elementary school teacher commented on a UA-cam Moon hoax video that she teaches her 4th and 5th graders the Moon landings were hoaxed.👍 She then when on to say,"So far, no one said anything to me" 😢. A licensed and educated teacher is unable to separate science fact from pseudoscience.
That's why I make sure I devote an hour a day to fighting ignorance. I imagine she was suspended, fired, and or required to take some additional training. I didn't bother to follow up, but she's not the first teacher caught wasting students' time. Thankfully the students waste no time posting videos, Tweets of their teachers and professors' ignorant comments to social media.👍
@@Arctic_Adjuster *with looking at the evidence
@@Arctic_Adjuster It doesn't take a Ph.D. in science to figure out 27 American astronauts visited the Moon. Imagine President Kennedy, leader of the free world, telling congress," Hey, let's be honest; no amount of money will put Americans on the Moon. "Let's borrow the $28 billion [ $250 billion in 2021 ] from taxpayers and pocket the money".🤣 ."If we do get caught, I'll explain. " The Soviets were breathing down our backs and Jackie likes expensive things". Will generate a virus around 2020, blame China, and repay taxpayers with a few simulcast checks. Problem solved.😉
what is the speed you need to get out of the moons gravitational pull again?
Ooh, I bet I know where this is going! Will see tomorrow.
michaelstillman is a shill.
Where's your follow-up post? I'll write it for you if you like.
michaelstillman is still a shill, and he knows it, because he doesn't challenge the accusation.
Surprised no activity but mine. Looks like we're done here. Adios!
“They could’ve photoshopped these, man!”
Ahhh. At last. A new theory: Photoshop has actually been around for decades before the computers that run it have. Must be a cover up. Alien technology maybe?
Adobe Photoshop came out in 1987
Still looking forward to the sequel, going back soon. Just use the same equipment that worked almost flawlessly on at least 8 Appollo missions from 1968 to 1972 Just film the whole event next time !
The opening of the hatch would have been good to witness, considering what an important historic moment it would have been.
It bet it does not happen for at least anorher 10 years.
Proof we didn't go is Artemis lol
@@jamescastro6640 Agreed it hasn't even got there yet! I will be looking forward to the footage in HD!
@@johnJohnson-vm7oy Why the rush?
You've actually heavily added to my skepticism of the moon landings authenticity. I'd never looked it into but you showed me several concerning claims and refuted none of them in an substantive way. You just brought up the claims and basically admitted you don't have a good counter point to almost al of them besides "take NASAs word for it".
So NASA faked it 6 times total. And the logic to pull off the greatest Hoax in Human history with the whole world watching not just once but 6 times.. What to give everyone extra oppurtunities at exposing the Hoax?
Well, you're correct. He's not the best speaker on these issues. I am very certain that I'm in the top 1% of people when it comes to knowledge about Apollo, and I'd never say some of the stuff that he says. But, about all I can tell you is that the real sources for understanding Apollo aren't UA-cam videos to begin with. Go study Apollo itself. Don't watch videos to make up your mind. This guy isn't the best source. But, of course, he's a million times better than the sources that think it's fake. But, it really doesn't matter. The facts stand on their own, regardless of who represents them (or misrepresents them, in the case of the deniers).
you dont believe the SIX, YES SIX moon landings occurred for several reason. reason 1: you are stupid. 2: you have the research skills of a water bear. 3: you have the i.q of a lab rat 4: you have a net worth of MINUS $15 5: you still drive a 1972 pinto that you STILL havent paid off 6: your highest academic achievement was 3rd grade in 1963
@@rockethead7 your senses are not fooling you, humans are! Why don't you trust what you experience? How can you ignore yourself while listening to or reading other peoples manipulation of senses?
@@highwayranger4878 You weren't under the impression that your gibberish meant something meaningful, were you?
Dennis Reynolds on moon landings: "sometimes things just.. sort of end."
I've been to the moon like 5 times already. Who hasn't?
Thanks brother does the moon has it door which can not affect the world when you are entering am not sure of going to the moon might be new planets not moon those people are decieving
Depending who you ask, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. But then again, depending who you ask, the earth is flat or oblate, and the CIA, Cubans, Mafia and LBJ clubbed together to buy an Italian rifle. Anyway, I'm going out now to share a beer or two with Elvis.
All the people involved at the very top all left soon after the Apollo 11 mission as did the 3 astronauts?????
When I was smoking that good weed or drugs
Sorry but going to a Maroon 5 concert five times is not the same as going to the moon.
Cool video! I love stuff about space.
Well thank you Gabe
it's all fake
The film"" American Moon "" there will be no doubt left in your mind
ua-cam.com/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/v-deo.html
@@Zero11s
Then, aliens are fake, too.
They don’t want Elon to go because he will say if there is no moon landing site 🤣🤣🤣
Musk promised moon tours by December 2018 !!!!! He is so fulla shit.
there's no moon either but they forgot that
It's entirely possible they did and entirely possible they did not.
That friend is a fair assessment of the situation. But as time goes on. Does not common sense tell you something? Let me ask you this friend. If we could do it then, why can't we do it now?
@@Xendava I have long thought that the moon landings may not have happened. If they did land, there's prob no need to return, as there's nothing of interest on the moon. Its just a lifeless rock.
it was not possible they did, but all heavy lift USSR rickets could deliver unstoppable 100 kiloton Tzar Bomba nuclear destruction on the USA, so EVERYTHING was done to shut down that country. and we won.
gee, what a very profound conclusion. thanks for sharing your wisdom.
it's a religion of believers, NASA is there Vatican, only what NASA sez goes. I mean is nominal.
the intact dust below the rocket engine is sufficient proof they never set foot on the moon , this is absolutely undebunkable, myth busters would NEVER dare to replicate this experiment(even at a much lower power)
Hilarious! Who told you such a thing? Was it a conspiracy video? How about AS11-40-5921? See that most of the dust has been blown away, down to the compacted regolith and rock layer? See those radial striations from the rocket blast? Did you watch a conspiracy video that showed you a couple of low-res shallow angle shots, and told you the dust wasn't disturbed, and you never lifted a finger to check for yourself?
@@rockethead7rocky, unfortunately you're outnumbered, and you're beginning to realise it given your desperate comments. More people now believe the moon landings to be fake than those who believe them to be real. Stop collaborating with the enemy, there's a good chap.
@@pelocitdarney5718So what about the photo that he IDed? If you're going to ignore what he says, why bother reading his posts?
Any comment on the photo IDed by @rockethead7?
@@gives_bad_adviceWho is IDed?
I have more power in my little mobile phone than they had in all their computers in the 60s and 70s, and we're usable to return to the moon? Because we never went to the moon
We're unable to return using Apollo because major portions of the infrastructure have been scrapped and would need to be rebuilt (although we will be goin back soon with Artemis). You know, you currently can't fly in a supersonic commercial airliner, I guess that means the Concorde was also a hoax?
Why isn't your mobile phone going to the moon? Gee, is it because getting to the moon has nothing to do with mobile phones, or computers? My mobile phone has more processing power than all of the computers during Apollo, therefore herpes is fake, because my phone hasn't cured herpes. If herpes was real, my phone would have cured it by now. I mean, do you see how silly you sound? Why would you think computers are relevant to landing on the moon? The reality is that they were prepared to go to the moon with no onboard computers at all (but, yes, they needed the big IBM mainframes on the ground). Sure, without onboard computers, they wouldn't have landed where Apollo 15 or 17 landed (in the middle of mountains and valleys, where precision landing was crucial). But, for the open area landings, they'd have gone with or without the onboard computers. So, why is your cell phone even relevant?
@@CSXRobert NOPE ! It just was not profitable !
Do Arizona v. United States for Supreme Court Briefs.
My Patreon supporters get their picks first, but that'd be a cool one to explore.
IMO, the more important question is whether the US had the capacity (in terms of materials) to land on the moon. If you know the mass of the earth and moon, and you have the aerodynamic models we have today, you can figure out if a vessel, of known shape, mass, engine output, fuel flow rate and fuel capacity (at each stage), is capable of making it to orbit, transferring to the moon, landing, lifting off again and coming back. I'm no expert on the technology used in 1969, but there have been hundreds of thousands of aerospace engineers since then performing similar calculations for other trips, engineers from every country including America's 'rivals'. If it were technologically impossible for the Apollo mission to have succeeded, we would have known by now. And if they were technologically capable, it would have been harder to orchestrate an effort to keep such a giant conspiracy under wraps while working on a 'fake mission' than it would be to just complete the mission as intended.
Bollocks
It's technologically impossible for humans to build some of the things built on Earth even if they would have had modern equipment but people still insist they did instead of giving credit to Giants or aliens.
@@nyxnightlinger7719 Dont be so ignorant. Just because your incapable doesn't mean other are
@@gowdsake7103 it's been proven we could not move them and set into place. some of those giant stones weigh over 100,000 pounds and are the size of a semi trailer, good luck.
@@nyxnightlinger7719 No cocky uneducated answer yet ?
Walked on the Moon
Apollo 11 Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin,
Apollo 12 Charles Conrad, Alan Bean,
Apollo 14 Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell,
Apollo 15 David Scott, James Irwin,
Apollo 16 John Young, Charles Duke,
Apollo 17 Gene Cernan, Harrison Schmitt.
Orbited the moon
Apollo 8 Frank Borman, Bill Anders, Jim Lovell
Apollo 10 Tom Stafford, (John Young, Eugene Cernan)
Apollo 11 Michael Collins
Apollo 12 Dick Gordon,
Apollo 13 Jack Swigert, Fred Haise, (Jim Lovell)
Apollo 14 Stuart Roosa
Apollo 15 Al Worden
Apollo 16 Thomas Mattingley
Apollo 17 Ron Evans
✔
@@apolloskyfacer5842 x
@@geoffbirchall7552 ◁==== Triggered.
Vacuum pressure outside their suits means they wouldn't have been able to move around because the expansion would make it impossible to move, period. Simple physics.
"Vacuum pressure."
So sad.
Nonsense! You're talking about 4psi vs. 0psi.
John B as opposed to claiming simple physics you should be looking at real physics.
A lot of people spent a lot of time overcoming that very issue when they were designing the Apollo space suits, and it’s what almost killed Alexei Leonov during the first ever EVA on Voskhod 2.
.... you do realize that you can build a suit to avoid that by.... you know... not being a conspiracy theorist that's so afraid of challenge it's a wonder they can tie their shoes, right?
It's basically built like a net around a balloon physically restricting it from being able to expand past a certain point. It's almost like you can put effort in and do hard things!
Can someone explain to me how the lunar rover was powered, and how much it weighed?
The Lunar Roving Vehicle had a mass of 460 pounds (210 kg) and was powered by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide batteries with a charge capacity of 121 Ah each, yielding a range of 57 miles (92 km).
@@Jan_Strzelecki how did they get it on the lander and then off onto the surface? did it come in pieces and did they have to put it together? where did it all fit?
@@Jcs000 They didn't. It was folded in three and carrier strapped to the exterior of the Lunar Module. Search UA-cam for "lunar rover unfolding", and the first three videos will demonstrate animations of how it happened and actual footage of unfolding.
@@Jan_Strzelecki Jan, this was all set out in photographs, an excellent documentary and I believe video footage. There is loads of stuff out there for people to actually read for themselves. Or perhaps that idea is no longer valid! I certainly would not put anything on a post without knowing or even attempting to find out this basic stuff for myself! I am losing the will to live with these people, we are doomed if this lot take charge! :-)
It was an electric car!
50 years later...with far greater tecnological advancement still no one has yet returned to the moon.. Pure Logic
60 years later...with far greater technological advancement still no one has flown a mach 7 airplane again.. Pure Logic
20 years later...with far greater technological advancement still no one has flown on a commercial supersonic airliner again.. Pure Logic
50 years later...with far more schools still no moon landing denier can read or write.. Pure Logic
The Artemis 1 was launched in November 2022 carrying the Orion spacecraft. The Orion spacecraft orbited the moon and returned. They are going to return to the moon.
Multiple robotic missions have made it, mapped the entire Moon, including snapping pics of the Apollo sites. Also landed on the Moon. You people wouldn't know logic if it sat in your face and farted up your nose.
Yeah robots what about humans you fool.
That is why I can't wait for Artemis 3 to land on the moon, then it would be quit obvious that the reason it took so long is because people didn't think it was worth the money to go back.
Apollo 11....
You've never heard of Apollo 11?.
It's the ship that made the Kessel run in 12 parsecs...
Neil "Armstrong " Solo
A module containing equipment , rocket engine, fuel and 2 astronauts must be heavy, much heavier than an astronaut's weight, yet 4:10 shows those module legs or pads simply did not leave an imprint on the soil , neither was there any blast crater below the engine , the soil below the module legs was hardly disturbed, as if the module was lifted up and placed there artificially. 7:58 from Chinese module leg shows the soil was displaced outward, an imprint was visible around the landing pad. The landing did disturb the layer of soil.
_A module containing equipment , rocket engine, fuel and 2 astronauts must be heavy, much heavier than an astronaut's weight, yet __4:10__ shows those module legs or pads simply did not leave an imprint on the soil_
... How can you tell? We can't see under the pads, so we don't know whether it's leaving an imprint or not.
_neither was there any blast crater below the engine_
As expected - the exhaust of the descent engine wasn't energetic enough to remove a noticeable amount of the regolith during the final stage of the landing.
_the soil below the module legs was hardly disturbed_
Actually, the soil under the LM _has_ been disturbed. On closeup photos of _Apollo_ 11 we can see a distinct radial pattern with soil being displaced outwards, and a gouge made by one of the sensor probes, due to LM drifting a little bit before touchdown.
The lunar surface is hard rock beneath dust; NASA used a low pressure (for greater reliability) rocket engine on the LEM that was firing at only 3,000 pounds thrust before landing so along with the very thin atmosphere and low gravity there was not enough pressure to produce a crater; and the blast deflected dust sideways. The astronauts were much lighter than the lander, but their boots were much smaller than the lander's approximately 3-foot (91 cm) diameter footpads. Pressure (or force per unit area) rather than mass determines the amount of surface compression. If you look carefully at some photos you can see disturbances beneath the surface on some Apollo landings.
@@Ruda-n4h and how easy was it to dock with the main capsule?----
why put gold foil on aluminum poles used for landing struts? did it look more NASA nominal, more space age, that was not temperature critical area. it's set dressing. looks funny to me like a x-mass tree.
@@DANTHETUBEMAN Radiative heat transfer is to the magnitude of the fourth power, way more affective than conductive or convective heat transfer. Essentially, photons travel unabated in vacuum, carrying all of its heat until it strikes something absorptive or emissive. So those legs, if unprotected, would heat up badly and would probably compromise the entire craft.
You could see them refilming it? I would think they would just do it again.
Good thing they did 5 months later
We can't even go to the moon in 2021 what makes you think we landed there in 1969. Also, who was filming when the Astronauts left the moon, there is video of that, it just makes me wonder who was filming them leaving. If it was some camera then how did they get the video from the camera to show the world? Hmmmm
_We can't even go to the moon in 2021 what makes you think we landed there in 1969._
Because we can't go to the Moon today because the hardware isn't ready yet.
_Also, who was filming when the Astronauts left the moon,_
A remotely operated video camera. Please do your research.
@@Jan_Strzelecki Someone else stole some of my words. Lol
and way more fakery too...all these nations plaaying games with these mars and moon landing nonsense...all faked in deserted places and studios..facts and descrepancies dont back up any of the big claims
Ignorance is bliss - - -
The tv camera on the rover was left running to film the lift off.
Bruh imagine training for years and risking your life by going to the moon just so that 55 years later millions of people can call you a coward and a fraud.
Yep, That's the way of it. Truly sad.
@@apolloskyfacer5842I guess there are a lot of doubters out there, especially since SV40 has come to light.
@@pelocitdarney5718 As vaccines of all kinds are the products of scientific medical research, and therefore, a human endeavor, mistakes do happen. Nothing is risk free. I was one of the tens of thousands of children who received the Polio Vaccine at school. There was no risk to our lives. World wide, millions of children avoided getting Polio. The original Polio Vaccine was a complete success. However, there were problems with the later Polio Vaccine as it was contaminated. Still, not all that serious, but a real concern. I see you've been desperately searching the narrative to find something, anything, that's going to support your anti-vaccine agenda.
*People like you who are pushing a deceitful narrative that the Corvid-19 Vaccinations have been killing many people are disgusting individuals who should be called out on their deceit every time they present their nonsense. You are actually a menace to society*
@@apolloskyfacer5842Safe and effective, were they? Did you have the boosters? Go on, answer the question. If you tell me, I'll tell you.
@@apolloskyfacer5842How about giving an answer to my question? Did you have the boosters? (I'm not seeking schadenfreude; on the contrary.)
Here after the Artemis mission successfully made its way around the moon 😁
Apparently, that's fake as well!
Welcome back. Didn't know it had passengers.
I was in a great shocked when Pres.Nixon who was in the White house spoke to the men on the moon using the dial phone ...uninterrupted way back in 1969
Why? The phone call was something called an autopatch. Very simple technique. Ham radio operators were using it back in the 60s to connect phones into HF rigs, allowing people to communicate with soldiers in Vietnam over the phone. Actually the phone call was one of the low tech things on the _Apollo_ mission.
In a great shocked?
@@philwright2480are you trying to tell me this guy doesn’t have a PhD in English language and common sense from Harvard???
Stars and their constellations would appear exactly the same if photographed from ANYWHERE in the Solar System. The reason they do not show in the Moon photos are simply the exposure time was too short for them to register on the film or in a video. The cameras were set for very short exposures to register bright objects correctly.
Why would short exposure result in a starless photo? I fail to understand your argument.
@@pvn2474
Dimmer objects require longer exposure. Bright objects like Astronauts in white suits ned only a short exposure such as 1/ 250 second. However, even a bright star needs up 30 seconds to register on film. Very bright planets such as Venus or Jupiter will still need several seconds to get an image.
@@pvn2474Also, apart from just the exposure, the moon also has day and night cycles, just like how you cant see the stars during the day on earth, except the sky on the moon is always black
Judging by the comments... I have lost a lot of faith in human intelligence. It's no wonder the flat earth society is growing day by day.
Is it?
@@ArKritz84 yes
The Radiation Belt, chanhes in severity every year, It is on record, that in1969, it was at a record high. But what the HELL, you might get lucky.----Off you go !
Dr. James Van Allen, the person whom the belts (plural) are named after, said that trips through them would not have been deadly was, in a word, nonsense. I think it's pretty much a given that he knew more about those belts than you do.
Tell me, Philip, why are you under the impression that the Van Allen belts matter at all for Apollo? What video told you that? I mean, the Soviets sent two dogs into the very worst part of the belts to test how long animals could live in them. They died after 3 weeks. Apollo went through the worst part in 15 minutes. James Van Allen certainly didn't think Apollo would have a problem. The problem comes with prolonged exposure (which is why they didn't/don't send craft like the shuttles, Mir, ISS, Skylab, etc., into those belts, because those missions last a long time). But, it's no big deal to be exposed for 15 minutes. This is no different in concept to getting a CT scan. Sure, you wouldn't want to get those every day or something, because that kind of constant radiation exposure would eventually be fatal. And, they always put the technicians doing them every single day behind some good shielding. But, if you need a CT scan, it's not harmful if you don't do it too often. How much do you actually understand the various types of radiation and what their effects are? Or, is your understanding of the Van Allen belts limited to a 30 second video clip you intentionally took out of context?
Forget technicalities. The real giveaway was Armstrong's refusal to swear on the Bible that he went to the moon.
Are you not aware that three other astronauts did swear on the Bible?
@@Jan_Strzelecki
Did you check and confirmed that it was the Bible they sweared on?
@@sidiksamion3 Yes. It's on film. It was instigated by the very same guy who wanted Armstrong to swear on the Bible.
@@Jan_Strzelecki
Yes it was on film. But did you check and confirm that it was the Bible page by page?
@@sidiksamion3 So, you're saying that the same guy who tried to get Armstrong to swear on the Bible that he landed on the Moon used a different, fake Bible to get other astronauts to swear that they landed on the Moon? Doesn't it invalidate your entire point?
JFK once said, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." The key word here is "hard".
Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth when he said,
"It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth."
Then we have the statement of Von Braun's where he said we were 3 years behind the Russians. Are we to believe the US suddenly caught with the Russians?
Then we have the daytime tempreture on the moon which is 250 degrees Fahrenheit (120° C, 400 K). The heat would have damaged the emulsion on the film.
There are countless other things, but to be honest I can't be bothered anymore with this foolishness. We did not go to the moon, learn to accept it and move on.
Yes, see death bed confession of Cyrus Eugene Akers: ua-cam.com/video/qfawL6_pqfc/v-deo.html
And the astronauts of the Apollo missions never reported seeing bright flashes of light with their eyes closed (Due to cosmic rays)
Note 2 things about the von Braun quote. He said "... will fly DIRECTLY from the earth to the moon ..." That is supposing a single stage rocket that will do all of the liftoff, landing, second liftoff, return, and re-entry. That's why he and the others developed a multi-stage rocket instead.
And the next paragraph from that same book (Conquest of the Moon, 1953) said:
"From the space station's orbit, however, a journey to the moon becomes feasible. In the orbit we can construct the type of vehicles we require for the lunar trip, in the same way that we can build the space station. These vehicles will already have a speed of 15,840 miles per hour - the speed of the space station as it moves around the earth. Since we have this running start, we will not need excessive amounts of propellants or very powerful rocket motors"
Take away the space station, put the rocket in orbit, and voila! You have what he and others worked out for Apollo.
You deniers never miss a chance to cherry-pick and quote-mine. As to the film melting, the measured surface temperature during Apollo 11 ranged from -10F to 44F. The extremes were never reached in any mission, as they always landed in lunar morning.
I'm not surprised you can't be bothered with the rest, as you have already shown that you allow yourself to be taken in by people who either don't know what they're talking about or are liars, and never look any further.
Just shut up
''It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility...'' hence the stages ahahahahahahahahahah what a bunch of morons you are... can not understand basic english and pretend to understand scientific topics ahhahahahaha
Great commentary.
“Skeptics say this. NASA says this. I believe NASA.”
You’re really adding a lot to the debate here. Just brilliant. .
why not if it gives you the comfort that you obviously seek.
Yep. He's adding fact.
Well it's been 8 years since you said Elon would go back and we haven't.
Setting ANY clock to Elon-time isn't the smartest thing to do...
never have never will . . .