VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 бер 2021
- Join OUR WEBSITE ► bit.ly/Crew_Membership
Consider Subscribing ► bit.ly/Subscribe_Corridor_Crew
Watch Season 5 From Beginning ► bit.ly/Crew_Season_5
THIS EPISODE ►
Niko, Wren, and Sam take a look some of the visual effects on display in the US Government's "Moon Landing" which supposedly took place in 1969.
FOLLOW ►
Instagram: bit.ly/_Corridor_Instagram
Sub-Reddit: bit.ly/_Corridor_Sub-Reddit
SUPPORT ►
Join Our Website: bit.ly/Crew_Membership
Buy Merch: bit.ly/Corridor_Store
OUR GEAR, SOFTWARE & PARTNERS ►
Puget Systems Computers: bit.ly/PC_Puget_Workstations
ActionVFX: bit.ly/TheBest_ActionVFX
Cinema4D: bit.ly/Try_Cinema4D
Motion Captured with Xsens Suit: bit.ly/Xsens_MoCap_Suit
Reallusion: corridor.video/Reallusion_3Ds...
MUSIC ►
Epidemic: bit.ly/Corridor_Music click this link for a free month! - Розваги
Thanks for watching er'body! If you want to watch this entire show from the beginning you can do that here ►
ua-cam.com/video/_4WrKeoeZhk/v-deo.html
Thanks! That was a beautiful breakdown and proof of the real landing.
Cool
Hi
You do know Wikileaks already debunked the “fake” moon landing by leaking the how it was faked. I bet you all believe the complete spherical image of the earth taken from Apollo was real too huh...😂 You all should go and watch “A funny thing happened on the way to the moon” by Bart Sibrel
That Spherical image of the earth was faked. The Astronauts show you how they did it in leaked footage by a whistleblower.
As a fellow artist, I find your analysis lacking the true Artist eye and expertise. Very disappointing for so called FX Artist. However, you are decent entertainers
👍🏿
Can u do a longer one as a update please .. I'm sure a lot of people enjoying this had their eyes opened for the first time...please please a nice lengthy one.
Now i really would want a faked Corridor moonlanding!
OMG thatd be fun
yes, they should do that
Yesss
figgehn :0
They're probably close enough to the supposed real locations where the footage was staged too.
Being the perfectionist that he was, when Stanley Kubrick was asked to fake the moon landing he insisted on filming on location.
Yeah and when he told them, they were cool with it because they had already built a massive moon rocket to convince the public
I was looking for this comment, not disappointed!
@@alisilcox6036 damn we really shopulve just gone there
Hahahahaaaaaaaaa
I demand Kubrick's behind the scenes to be released
Finally, some FX guys who know what they're talking about. I watched Apollo 11 back in 1969, when special effects were nothing compared to what we have now. That thought never occurred to anyone because we followed the space program from its early days. With all the assertions made these days, my favorite has always been the "dust". You guys are the first to thoroughly address it. Dust kicked up and falling like iron filings is impossible on Earth and impossible outside a vacuum. You address conditions of light, scale, and a lunar surface very well - thoroughly enjoyed this!
a corroborating point about perspective and distance. I once had a flight up to the top of Fox Glacier here in New Zealand and we landed (small plane equipped with skis) and had a walk around. Bear in mind everything is monotone and the atmosphere extremely clear. I decided to take a little walk up to the nearest rise which appeared to be maybe 50 feet away and about 8 feet high. After 10 minutes walking it didn't get any closer. The pilot/guide laughed and explained that my destination was about a mile away and a hundred feet high. In a location without familiar landmarks, distances can be very deceptive!
In my opinion it could be realistic if the mountains just like you said the very far away view and takes a lot mile to reach and never ending. In their footage it's like so close at hand, too studio like, too limited, one room. It could have look vast. And Why there's no stars ever? 🤔 why I just hope either it's fake or not. Hope they will not hide something from us about the condition of our Earth. Global Warming 😬.
@@queenieme37 The stars don't show because of camera exposures and brightness contrast. It's VERY bright on the lunar surface, that's why the astronauts have those anti-glare visors.
You can't see stars on Earth during daylight but they're still there!
"Global warming"? That's a Socialist political agenda not an actual environmental concern. UN 2030 Agenda to be specific.
Atmospheric CO2 is sitting around 400ppm which is nice and great for plant growth.
Under 300ppm and we all starve and freeze. I know how I prefer it...!!!
@@queenieme37 why is it worded like a fucking riddler riddle
@queenieme37
You clearly didn't understand the points that were made in the video.
@@queenieme37
>In their footage it's like so close at hand
They literally explain in this video why it looks like that.
>Why no stars?
It's daytime. The sun is shining right at them, go outside in bright sunlight on a hot sunny day and count how many other stars you can see
As was once said: the U.S. government asked Kubrick to stage the moon landing, but being a damn perfectionist he actually had them shoot on the Moon surface
Omfg, I've never heard that one before, that's hilarious 😂
what a chad
Practical effects can't be beaten..
@@VivekYadav-ds8oz Hmm, more like “political effects”, lol.
now that makes sense !
the moon landing was done in a studio. However, to maintain the level of realism expected, they built the studio on the moon.
They had is in the first half, not gonna lie xD
This dumb joke has been said 1000000 times please stop it
So they landed there!
@@donpettitwedestroyedtheapo6488 no
the moon landing was done in a studio. However, to maintain the level of realism expected, they built the studio on the moon.
@@zhankazest :P
it’s real people. it’s time to accept that actually going to the moon is way more exciting than a conspiracy.
People will always continue to make conspericy theories, why? Because it shapes an image of a non trustwhorhty goverment. Some people will always rebel against the goverment or want to stand out. But the good news is that consperacy theories will fade away with time, but there will always be new ones. Its just sad to see. (Note: my english is very bad)
@@Thijmenpost Well said!
The time to accept it was July 20th, 1969
It's a lie. Time to think critically!
Around 4:04, you can see a bright flash over the astronaut's backpack before tumbling over. This is evidence of wire tethering.
I always love when people say that Stanley Kubrick helped to fake the Moon Landing using the techniques he developed for "2001: A Space Odyssey" since the Moon Landing looks nothing like "2001: A Space Odyssey".
People have some SHITTY observation skills
Zero evidence that Kubrick was involved. That story is likely planted by the CIA to muddy the waters.
I think it was more about if anyone could fake the moon landing at the time, it would have only been stanley kubrick, hence the comparison
It actually looks exactly like that movie lmfao
Yeah no@@lukeshioshio
Someone once quipped “Kubrick was hired by NASA to fake the moon landing but he was such a perfectionist that he ended up shooting on location”
Probably too close to the truth.
you know too much my guy
for Artemis missions they'll hire Christopher Nolan
That is one of my favorite jokes. I always felt it would be harder to hide the fact it was faked and actually fake it than to actually go there in the first place. The Soviet Union would have had a field day proving it was faked if it had been; they had the brains to find and show all the faults in the special effects if it had been faked.
@@rodsprague369 That's true. I'm from Russia, i confirm that attitude
This is way too serious for April 1st.
Whenever anyone suggest astronauts are on wires I show the video of Skylab astronauts doing zero gee gymnastics, that usually shuts them up.
Hahaha thanks Scott. Is it just me or is it getting a bit manly in here or what?
Hiya Scott, you get your Dear Moon submittal in on time? Would be cool to have both you and Tim on lol
Love to see you here. Two of my favorite channels. Cheers.
Time for two awesome channels to collab.... It'd get real manly up in here real quick....
Why I hear Mun in background 😂😂
Oh, I didn't even realize this was supposed to be an april fools thing. I legitimately enjoyed this. You guys are really the perfect people to ask about this stuff, and you provided some insights that I hadn't even considered (like the turbulence in the dust... yeah, impossible to fake that, would have to be a separate cg element... which basically wasn't even a thing yet lol)
2:30 yes with a light source at infinity (the sun), shadows should be parallel on a flat surface - but also note that the surface is very irregular, so sometimes you will see simultaneous shadows at different angles due to the topography
Shadows of telephone poles in parking lots on Earth viewed from above are parallel, but as soon as the surface is not flat, the objects not uniform, or the photo angle from the side, and parallel is tossed out the window. The shadow argument was always strange to me, but conspiracy theory is not about the truth.
VFX Artists React To The Ice Wall
I Am Waiting For Animator React. Specially Dreamworks Masterpieces like (Shrek,HTTYD1,2,3)
Potential UA-cam crossover with the Corridor Crew. Could be epic.
Make it happen!
React to the Flat Earth. (By the way, we all know it's flat, right guys, I mean come on...)
Whoa are you going to the moon in cartrek????
The explanation of how sand particles on the moon behave was so cool, never even noticed how bizarre it was
Yup, particles on the moon follow an almost perfectly parabolic path, like something you'd calculate in high school physics. Nothing else around to impart force. It looks bizarre.
I mean that's probably why so many people think it's fake too, because it doesn't function the way we expect the world to function
theoretically, those sand particles could fly around there for eternities and wouldn´t lose any speed, cuy there´s no air to stop them
Edit: I know, I forgot to mention Gravity, no need to say that over and over again
@@sidestreetreaper4203 Gravity pulls them down pretty quickly as seen in the video
@@sidestreetreaper4203 the moons gravity still pulls them down eventually.
Nico nailed it, the dust is the real dead giveaway and it proves the authenticity of the footage.
So does the lighting. The amount of light shown across the landscape being uniform, with no bright or dark spots, is something that can only happen if the source of light is so far away that the inverse square law no longer applies.
@@mooneyes2k478 if you look at the apollo 11 images, it is exactly the opposite, almost at all bright and dark hotspots and falloffs
@@zdenekburian1366 Shadows aren't dark spots. And there is no falloff.
So, whatever you watched, it wasn't the footage from any of the Apollo missions.
@@mooneyes2k478 eeeehhhhhh???? were the heck did I wrote about "shadows"????? only in your fantasy, while there is a famous documentary where, for at least fifteen minutes, is debated the fact that in ALMOST ALL ALMOST ALL ALMOST ALL the apollo 11 photos, the moon surface is not, in any way, absolutely not, similar to the images from following missions, and there are so huge hotspots there, and so vast falloffs that five of the most important, world renown, acclaimed photographs ever discuss and explain that it is impossible that they were shot under the lunar sun, exactly, word by word, of your "So does the lighting. The amount of light shown across the landscape being uniform, with no bright or dark spots, is something that can only happen if the source of light is so far away that the inverse square law no longer applies" motivation. And this is the absolutely minor issue of the apollo 11 footage compared to other inconsistencies. One can say that the photos were post-produced to enhance the drama in the absolute first moon exploration for publishing on time life magazines, or that the mission was real but then a set on earth was replied for the same show business reasons, but the fact remains that there was a fake anyway.
@@zdenekburian1366 So, in other words, you wrote a whole wall of temper-tantrum when called on your nonsense, while carefully not actually showing any evidence of your claim.
Or, in other words, "I have nothing so I'm going to blather irrelevancies." Cool, you do you.
Again, you guys are amazing! Super serious in what you do but at the same time super fun! Why didn't I discover you earlier?
I really appreciate how it's an actual breakdown instead of pretending to think it's fake, this was both awesome and insightful
They fooled us by not fooling us
yeah I think also if they had just gone silly with it and pretended it was fake, people would have just taken clips from it completely out of context to argue that it actually "was* fake
@@iansteelmatheson yep, thats the problem with the internet nowadays, so many dummies who doesn't understand sarcasm
@Thien Phan shut up
We need like a whole Tinfoil Hat Series. Corridor makes the moonlanding, Bigfoot, Lochness, mothman. If you thought the Boston Dynamics went crazy imagine a bunch of whackos losing their shit over crazy Bigfoot footage haha
Yes! I also think ghost videos would be interesting to add to the mix
I think the Loch Ness may be an elephant. Probably one from a circus.
Do you find it strange that people who deny the moon landing always claim aliens visit the eath to abduct people?!
My coworker sent me bosstown dynamics and said something conspiratorial
I send back the behind the scenes
His response was “yeah well those fucking nerds are still doing it”
Now we are talking!
Watching this again. It's still one of the best short debunkings of Moon landing denial. Nice work, guys.
cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott
So nice to read the comments of intelligent people on this subject for a change.😊
Having VFX artists break down the logistics of faking the moon landing and explaining how they would have to produce every shot is genius I don’t know why we don’t see this type of content more often
It's out there, but the UA-cam algorithm keeps that kind of content hidden from most people's recommendation feeds.
Some people might call it a UA-cam conspiracy. Some people might say if you actually search for it you'll find it
It is so difficult to fake it so we did it for real? What a joke!!!
@@Enemji Sorry, it's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
If the footage shows we did it AND it was not possible to fake it well enough at the time (considering the video recording technology level at the time) then why not conclude it really happened?
@@bobblum5973 All I am saying is there is room for doubt, and as the legal system calls it “Beyond a reasonable doubt”. On one hand corridor crew and others show proof that we did not have the technology to fake the video, and hence it must be true. But if we did not even have such basic technology such as slo-mo cameras, how did we acquire/built technology to not only fly to the moon, but not crash while landing, and even make it back. Even now we have missions that crash land. Why not then?
I saw the title and thought this would be a silly April Fools joke, but it turned out to be one of the most interesting videos from CC in ages.
Which is saying a lot since literally the video immediately prior to this was them putting a tiny camera on a bird.
@@Dargonhuman i was going to say lol almost all of their videos are pretty damn good! the mini box car racing episode was pretty awesome!
I couldn't agree more, I expected it to be a little funny video, but it is so insightful seeing VFX artists commenting on why it wasn't fake.
Old video, but no one mentioned this so here it goes. When people say that they could have filmed it in slow motion, just look at the arms waving. They are jumping slower because of the low gravity, but their hands are free to move at normal speed because their muscles have nothing to do with gravity. So, they would have to somehow film their whole body movement in slow motion while other elements are at normal speed (e.g. 2:52 the badge. You can see how fast its moving because it's being yanked by the astronauts movements)
I liked this one a lot. Got my sub over this one. Real professional analyzing of the films from the moon. Pretty awesome I must say.
This is great, at first I thought you guys would be acting like it's all fake for April fools, but no you guys straight up explained why it can't be faked.
Your hat is nearly as good as theirs. And yeah, this is the best April Fool's ever.
I just wish they'd explained why space shots look like bad cgi in the first place, so that they could also tackle modern day deniers.
I mean, they kind of go there with the harsh single source lighting, no atmosphere, and limited physics, but expecting conspiracy theorists to connect the dots always just leads to them drawing new dots first.
And as it is, I'm pretty sure they're still going to whine about the stars not being visible with all the high contrast ground giving the camera issues.
Still, that's just nitpicking. And no matter how in-depth they went, it still wouldn't be enough for the gullible cynics who Dunning-Kruger their way into confusing hard science for Q-anon style brainwashing. ("Science keeps correcting itself, so it must be fake!")
@@juststatedtheobvious9633 Hey, your name is accurate! Oh my gosh BOTH YOUR NAMES ARE ACCURATE! Seriously though I'm an amateur astronomer/photographer and it drives me insane talking to Moon hoaxers. Like for example your point (also accurate) why everything looks like CGI in space is because literally everything we get sent back from satellites IS CGI from space lol, I have to explain to people (not you, I know you're playing a bit). We have no cameras going to and coming back anymore (mostly), everything is sent back as a one/zero pixel luminousity factor and is then recompiled into an image, in a *gasp* computer. So when these idiots say "NASA admits all their footage is CGI" they're not wrong.
Just painfully stupid. Be safe out there you too, you're both amazing!
Or are they?
_Cue VSauce theme_
@@wren7195
"Yes, we enhanced these photographs so that you can actually see all the different materials in this nebula. The human eye is limited and -"
"FAKE NEWS!"
"Fine. You win. We actually call the Earth, "God's coinflip." That's why it's so flat. Space revolves around it, and you, because you're the chosen one."
"Now you're making sense."
You can't even pretend with conspiracy people, they'll take it as some sort of double fake "this is them secretly telling us how it went down in a way that UA-cam won't stop them!"
Its april fools so I expected them to be like "yeah it's definitely faked", but they trolled me by not trolling and actually debunking the "conspiracy"
Reverse trolling?
Flat Earthers will still use this as evidence it was faked
(yes i mean flat Earthers. they need space to be fake to prove the flat earth)
@@kruleworld
You need to be almost brain dead to believe the Earth is flat and say you recruit members across the globe
@@cesar6004 the world is full of gullible people who lack the ability to think critically and therefore lack any sort of problem solving ability. They literally cannot understand how dumb the concept of a flat earth is.
@@xxKrazyKxx
My parents are that dumb except don’t question the planet’s shape
Still one of the best debunking videos. Thanks and cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott
One of the things that conspiracy theorists forget is that they're watching edited footage. You're only seeing the pretty highlights. The unedited footage of the Apollo 11 landing is out there and it's really boring.
@PS5 Owner Show me a Non SLS rocket built and launched today capable of putting 30,000 kg into Trans Lunar Injection.
Hint: there isn't. It takes 3 Delta IV Heavies to accomplish that TLI.
@@dongiovanni4331 You mean we haven't built rockets to go further than we wanted to go? And they don't carry more than we want to send up?
You're pointing to efficiency and cost savings as evidence that it couldn't be done, then dismissing the programs with comparable objectives.
@@travissmith5994 Thanks for agreeing with me.
It's a shame they canceled the F-1A engine, and the proposed Saturn Stage-And-A-Half variant. Think early Atlas 2E ICBMs.
They destroyed the footage though lol
@@PeepGamePopoff there's a whole documentary of restored footage though. They taped over some of the telemetry data.
There are entire websites devoted to playing back all available data in real time. You can get all the available audio, mission transcripts, and more for 9 days worth of material.
“Can we make it to the moon?”
“We think so mr president.”
“Can we fake it instead to beat the Russians?”
“Not even remotely possible sir. We don’t have the tech.”
“Alright. Fuck it. Fly to the moon then. Sounds easier.”
Harry Truman on futurama says it best.
lol
I think moon landing was real but the video of moon landing was fake
@@bihugaming3486 What leads you to think that?
@@bihugaming3486 I mean, you can look at the reflective surface of the helmet and see that the camera is being held by another astronaut, you can see that there are no lights anywhere other than the sun, if it used studio lights the shadows would diverge meaning they could only get parallel lights using a panel made up of thousands of extremely rare omnicolour lasers that would have cost more on its own that the entirety of NASA’s budget during the space race including the 6 moon landings just for that one lighting system
Thank you for making this video!
They put laser reflectors on the moon during that trip. Which have functioned since that day (and continue to function to this day).
TBF they could have put those there with unmanned flights. So that’s not great evidence.
Us Australians always get screwed by April Fools:
"I'm glad it is no longer April the first, those pranks were just too interesting and funny. Oh! What is this new video that is being released on the second of April about?"
BAM. Pranked. Every time.
We kind of get it for two days when you think about it. Rest of the world has to catch up because of timezones all over the Internet. 😂
That's what you get for living in the future!!!
Same too here in the Philippines
Omg totally!! It got me
Dude living in Korea here: Agreed 😂
It just makes me so happy that these two men are on the moon for the first time ever. And they are just hopping around singing and laughing
Tbf, that wasn't the first crew.
Edit: it was the Apollo 17 crew, not the Apollo 11 crew that was singing.
Space madness
They were in the middle of a relentless schedule of stuff they have to get done in a limited time. They had specific times blocked out to get to this ridge, then over to this experiment station, with Houston cracking the whip.
@BATKOV with the technology available at the time it was easier to literally go to the moon than it was to get a parallel lighting array
@BATKOV they can, it’s just that they need to add in a ton of shielding nowadays for the extremely small circuits, electronic components today are far more sensitive to radiation than they were in the 60s
The dust is even harder actually
Not only does it not get 'puffy' because theres no air
But the time it takes to fall back to the ground takes longer because the gravity is weaker - you can actually time it frame by frame and on earth it would be quicker than it is on the moon
So not only would it have to have been filmed in a vacuum to replicate the dust they would have also somehow had to have reduced the gravity
Yes but another thing to ponder. Why are the astronauts so careless in falling and tripping over and laughing ? Like its a game to them. Dont they realise a puncture in the suit could mean instant death? Its very perplexing and not talked about much. and you're wrong about the dust, On the contrary because of no air the dirt that gets picked up on the moon falls straight down fast, faster than on Earth . The only difference with regards to gravity is the dirt that gets stirred up on the moon rises higher and faster but @ the same time it will drop faster than on Earth because theres no wind to scatter it .
@@westnblu Time the dust yourself - in the Apollo footage it's slower
And a puncher wouldn't mean instant death - if you were to puncture a beach ball it doesn't instantly explode - it slowly deflates, it would be the same principle and they would have time to fix the issue - they had puncher repair kits for just such an incident
@@westnblu it wouldn’t be instant death, just a leak. That’s why it’s not talked about.
According to a theory, most of the lunar dust is razor sharp, micro meteorites, which turned to fine dust like when got in touch with the rocks at continous, high velocity bombardment. Some points that raise doubt (apart from the usual questions on flag flutter and angle of shadows etc)
1. The lunar dust is very dangerous, razor sharp that can damage a prehistoric space suit of '70s. Tripping over and laughing in a lighter vein is okay, but that could have killed the person (if on Moon). I am sure NASA and the people behind the video didnt think of the fallacy behind this concept. If this is wrong, then the razor sharp lunar dust theory doesnt hold water - both these dont gel together
2. (Lack of) Puffiness of kicked off dust cant be the proof of having gone to Moon in the early '70s. Its rather easier to doubt the (low) camera resolution, (low) light intensity, black and white film, distance/focus of camera at that point. Like the same arguement put forward to silence the question of why no stars on horizon - (the logic given is, since the camera is set for on ground higher light intensity, background's feeble light source couldn't be visible - point taken) - should be applicable for lack of visible puffiness of dust kicked off ie light/camera resolution/focus weren't right enough to capture the fine dust, it could only capture larger soil particles thrown when kicked.
3. There are other NASA videos in different contexts and people's interpretations that claim there shall be haze on the Lunar horizon because of continuous micro meteor shower. However this one propagates "no haze" is THE proof of Moon landing. Looks like NASA forgot that they showed lunar landing videos with no haze when postulated the "haze on horizon" theory to make their new space suit research appealing/logical (the modern space suits that will protect astronauts from razor sharp, micro lunar dust)
4. If the new space suit will protect them from such dust, how were those 50 year old primitive space suits helping when "several manned missions" were sent without much knowledge about the lunar environment.
5. The rover with 4 rubber tyres just like a usual golf buggy was shown effortlessly moving - claimed to be as far as 4Kms and back - how can this rover move on surface with fine dust settled over centuries and millennia. On earth, the surface dust settles and forms a solid layer over sometime because of gravity, humidity, vegetation and most importantly the activities of micro organisms etc. That rover of '70s, I bet cant even move for half a kilometre on a desert (on earth) with dry sand of centuries even with a guide who knows the terrain to navigate, leave alone a unknown territory, terrain to tell about the depth of loose sand!!
@@DrNovid that’s a lot of words that say exactly nothing.
Excellent video with genuine collective comments from professionals who know and have an enormous amount of video experience and an understanding of photography and lighting works .
Hopefully this will put the nay sayers to bed after seeing your video thanks for sharing 👍
Takeaway: the technology required to fake the landing is more advanced than the tech required to actually go to the moon. Awesome way of putting it.
On top of that, that kind of technology is still to advanced for MODERN DAY let alone 1969.
@TLOU 2 won 300 Plus GOTY that videos has so many holes that it's like swiss cheese. Also it can't be "lost". They broad casted it live in 1969: ua-cam.com/video/FlpstXNjImY/v-deo.html&ab_channel=NASA . The idea that it was lost is crazy madness. Also the video is cut so weirdly, it's almost like it's hiding something like how it's a bunch of lies. What was probably lost was the mechanical data of the landing. Which was often lost and destroyed when reentering the earth's atmosphere.
The reason why people don't go to the moon anymore is because there is no reason to. The only countries that are even doing so are emerging powers trying to prove their strengths Like China, who landed on the moon last year with Chang 5: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program
@@tuotuolu2805 People often forget that the US gov and military in general has lost some important shit and trust that gov agencies aren't being crewed by incompetent half-asses who CAN'T be fired because JFK thought that allowing public sector unions would help him (they wouldn't even if he wasn't "lobotomized" via bullet), like a couple dozen nukes over the years (though they were all found), have marked living people dead and dead living (talking about soldier status here), and most hilarious of all, the T95, an 80 ton assault tank that is the size of a small mobile home, was lost in a training field for 50 years until the place was closed and found it after clearing some bushes.
@PS5 Owner in other words, "too fucking expensive and not enough good reasons to go back to get more rocks" they did it to beat USSR in the space race
And after 40 years they can't go there again. Lol
This was a great episode...if only it was longer like 12-16mins. An entire series like this "Was it Faked? VFX React" would be amazing. Debunking videos that people think are fake or fake videos that people think are real.
Hey so uh, if you like that kind of content you should totally check out Captain Disillusion - his whole schtick is to debunk fake viral videos! And he's really cool.
@@squidfeathers9704 I was about to say that. Captain Disillusion is seriously underrated.
Thanks for the recommendation guys! Never heard of this guy but I'm headed to check the channel out now!
They should do UFO VIDEO REACTIONS!
love this idea!
It amazing how our technological developments can feel so backwards. We created the technology to produce video long before we could record sound, despite how unintuitive that seems. Its kinda amazing to think that it is actually easier to go to the moon than it is to convincingly fake the footage.
We've been able to record sound since 1860, and the earliest piece of video is from about 1888. Though if by your definition of "video" you also count photographs then you are absolutely correct.
So essentially, it was literally easier to actually _land_ _on_ _the_ _moon_ _itself_ than it was to fake it.
back then, yeah. also if it was faked, russia would've exposed the US.
Let's put it simple:
Picture that you're using a low end pc try to play the latest games of 2023 with the graphics set to ultra. That's same as how hard (impossible) to fake the moon landing during that time.
@@MMDsM7And yet airheaded conspiracy theorists thinks its fake
@@krio1267 Well, you see it from the professional themselves (those guys in this video). Case closed
@@krio1267 Calling others airheads when you believe everything these UA-camrs tell you
I'm glad that this was an April fools episode, but you still took the subject seriously and went through the footage like a professional with your genuine appraisal. Thanks 10/10
Who recorded this how was the cameraman already there
@@jaeeff8328 There is no recording before they were there. If you mean Armstrong stepping onto the surface after coming down the ladder, that camera was on the lunar module and deployed when he pulled on a cable.
April has peaked already!
@Justin Y? I didnt
@Justin Y? lol
#ReleaseThePeterCut
then its just downhill from here, that wouldnt be good
3:03 If the astronauts are on wires that doesn't explain two things. Number one they have objects strapped to their space suits that are bouncing around They move exactly as they would as if they were in low gravity. They would have had to have perfectly coordinated invisible strings attached to everything strapped to their chest which you see bouncing.
And more importantly the dust that they kick up does not hang in the air because they are in vacuum. Even the fine particles fall straight back to the lunar surface. Go ahead kick some dust into the air and see what happens to it.
Great video guys thank you!
This was actually way more interesting than an April Fools video has any right to be.
Watching the astronauts goof around with their suits in literal vacuum makes me very nervous
@PS5 Owner why do you put this under every comment...
@@just_tom00 cause he owns a ps5
@@willcrump no body asled
@@comment3952 the person who did ask decided to delete their comment
@@comment3952 can’t you see “@PS5 Owner”? it’s obvious they were replying to somebody who deleted their comment. please use a little thinking before you come to the conclusion that you have to ask before they may speak.
I love these guys. Truly so nerdy they’re cool.
I loved it. The dust speaks and turbulence speak for itself. 😎
>Clicks video thinking it's all going to be a joke
>Realizes they are genuinely reacting and analyzing the footage to then explain how the Moon Landing was real
You guys are awesome.
Fun fact: There actually is some "atmosphere" on the moon. And about 20% of it is exhaust from Appolo missions engins. So, you can imagine how little atmosphere there is.
True that there is an extremely tenuous atmosphere there, but surely the Apollo exhaust gases have long since escaped...
Latest estimates conclude that Earth's atmosphere (in an extremely attenuated form) extends beyond the orbit of the moon. So, technically, I would guess that some of the moon's atmosphere is really Earth's.
@@aemrt5745 wtf
@@aemrt5745 how does the Moon cut it's hair?
Eclipse itself...............I'll show myself out
Another fun fact , the astronaut's *talked about objects being much further away then they initially thought.I'm guessing change of color or hue of a object through our thick atmosphere is one of the ways we calculate distance.*[transcript's ,video]
It's really cool to hear from vfx artists on how they couldn't recreate some of the moon landing shots and the reasons why.
Happy New Year! Thank you for being smart!
I’m an aerospace engineering student and currently work as an intern 3d artist for mission visualization at NASA. I’ve been inspired to get into what I do in part because of the creativity you guys share. This made my day, thanks!!!
that's super cool!
Whoa 3d artist visualizer at NASA?? THAT'S NEAT! Did you model / render the latest visualization of omuamua asteroid?
That's awesome! Do you get to be involved in the technical consultation/planning for the visualizations as well, or primarily the graphical stuff?
@@Insan1tyW0lf Yeah definitely! It’s pretty sweet getting to with the more professional artists as well as the systems engineering teams to figure out how to use the data we have an will get during the mission to best illustrate science concepts for the general public
ua-cam.com/video/0AcMp9JJ8q0/v-deo.html
"The ceiling would have to be so high,and the light would have to be so bright"
How high and bright we talking here? Like space and the sun or...
Something around that size for sure!
just a couple million miles, no big deal really. hahahaha
BS. You can use lenses to get paralell shadows. If its a miniature u can do it.
@@aSinisterKiid try about 90,000,000
@@notlNSIGHT No, he's right - you can do that with a lens or a parabolic mirror. But a lens would introduce noticeable chromatic aberration so you'd need to use a mirror instead. The thing is that the mirror would need to be the size of the set to cover it all with parallel lighting. The maximum size for a mirror in the 60's would be 5m - because that was the diameter of the largest telescope mirror that existed back then. In other words the set would need to be no bigger than a circle 5m in diameter.
You would also need a small and incredibly bright light source - though I think an arc lamp would suffice for that. And today you would use a high power LED.
Hilarious and genuinely informative.
4:46 nah the dust was on strings
I love how they are describing the light needing to make the shot fake, and literally are describing the sun.
The lights even needed to take it require a light replica of the sun
@@vaporean_boylove.0w083 which would make faking it harder than actually doing it
@@resonate9815 sounds like you didn't even watch the video
@@resonate9815 well you're obviously too dumb to understand any of the video then lmfao
@@resonate9815 you just got owned! L.M.A.O snowflake
People only see short clips of these films but they have hours and hours of uncut film tracking across hundreds of yards of terrain.
Most of which was hidden as it contained suspect content... ta ta taaaaa
@@gabegabes6419 make a decision is landing fake or is it ancient aliens cover-up? You can't go both ways.
@@denismilic1878 I like the one "theory" that claims we actually did go to the moon but the footage we all know is fake because the REAL footage was full of UFOs, lol.
@@gabegabes6419 Bruh
@@gabegabes6419 Yes, turns out they actually started eating all of that moon cheese!
Very neat and informative! Cool stuff 😎
Funny how my pc can't even open blender but people think they could fake some like that more than 50 years ago
It's even funnier that a 4-bit onboard computer was capable of calculating trajectories to the moon in real time.
@@bobweiram6321exactly lol
I just love the three different type of tinfoil hats they have on lmao
Different tinfoils same opinions. While they have the tinfoils and are talking how its real and making it a joke does that mean they actually think it was faked?
You can tell alot about a person by the shape of their tinfoil hat
@@hiebrantsify did you watch the video no they don't think it was faked stupid
*Tinfoil hat falls off*
"Careful you might get a critical thought in your brain" 😂
& a Happy day, to the whole Corridor Crew too.
5:33 the sly jab here is great
Neil Armstrong from the Apollo 11 transcript commentary: "When you kick the surface, it makes a little fan which, to me, is in the shape of a rose petal or something. There's just a little ring of particles - nothing behind 'em - no dust, no swirl, no nothing. They just go out in little, like, fans"
I like how it started out with them saying "let's talk about how we could do that." To "yup everything is impossible"
Now, now, they didn't say it was IMPOSSIBLE. Just that their miniatures would need a football stadium sized set kept in a total vacuum and in total darkness except for a single light source that was brighter than the sun... but they didn't say it was IMPOSSIBLE!
@@rsrt6910 Also, that light source would have to be as far away from the subjects as the sun in order to get parallel shadows, lol.
It’s probably possible now but take in account that they were seeing if it was possible to do in the 60s where there isn’t any vfx.
@@nikverghese There were vfx in the sixties. Not CGI, but definitely vfx. Did you watch the video?
Just goes to show you that in the 60's the easiest and cheapest way to realistically fake a moon landing was...to actually go to the moon.
I have a lot of love for the dust being mentioned. Hell, it would even be worse than traveling too far and quickly. In many of the images you can see how fine the stuf is. It´s basically cement powder. If you walk through that on earth you fill up a whole room with a haze of dust quiet quickly because the particles are so fine they can hover for long times in the air. So if filmed at slow motion on earth, the astronauts falling over and hopping around should create what looks like a silt out under water, because the air would apear much more viscous in slow motion. A silt out being when you kick up fine silt particles that create a big cloud of turpid water reducing visibility.
And also, the movements are much too quick. You never really see conspiracy theorist actually show the footage speed up, because it would make the whole "argument" break down. It becomes weird, janky and very inconsitent. While stuff accelerates slower downwards, and can be pushed up further, muskle strength and mass stay pretty much the same. So an astronaut can push of with a very similar strength to normal as with suit they weight around 80-90 pounds, but somewhat slower/delayed/funky as the mass is still in the realm of 400 pounds. Kind of like under water but without any of the friction. Which is in part why they move so clunky. They are constantly compensating and often over or undercompensating because the weight appears not much, but there is still a lot of inertia behind everything. And no friction like in water to break the movement. Leading to them just falling over somethimes and the weird hopping motion they move around with, as that makes dealing with the inertia of 400 punds of mass much easier. You just cannot fake that kind of movement on earth. Even with todays tech, we struggle to make something like that really look right outside of full on computer simulations. And even then, those are not perfect.
I saw another filmmaker make the same comment: it would have been easier to go to the moon than fake it back in the 60’s
Wasn’t expecting this but yes. Yes all around.
I agree
Yes
No .
@@SabbaticusRex but actually yes
@@willyates2787 Let's meet in the middle with a solid _MAYBE_ .
As a long time spaceflight fan and a person who restores Apollo footage, I loved watching this and seeing your reactions. The footage we got from the moon is incredible and needs to be kept safe and restored.
@@CapitalCash No they didn't. They lost a small amount of Apollo 11 TV footage. Literally a singular one inch reel of tape. It was overwritten in the 1980s during the LANDSAT program which helped bring you Google Earth imagery. And even then it was only the original copy which was lost, we still have plenty of second and third generation copies around.
@@CapitalCash
The evidence you provided does NOT prove the Earth is flat. Missile designs you speak of do not rely on the planets shape to achieve its purpose.
best part is that apollo 11 wasnt only manned landing on the moon.
there were 5 others that no one talks about and pretend they dont exist.
so they only need to try to discredit footage from one
I coudn't even imagine the pictures and videos we're gonna have from Artemis
They will look worse since we no longer have stanley kubrick 😢
@@TheOneWhoKnowYourSearchHistoryI think you mean they’ll look better since we have better cameras.
@@AM-rd9pu it would be harder without stanley kubrick
@@TheOneWhoKnowYourSearchHistory Last I checked, Kubrick was a filmmaker, not an engineer. Space agencies will be just fine.
@@AM-rd9pu Moon landing was a film, it was faked .
This might be my favorite VFX artists react
Same here.
I never really noticed the uncanny sharpness of the moonwalk footage, but that is amazing to think about. The horizon looks so much closer than it is because of that lack of haze we're so used to.
The horizon is 1.5 miles away but it looks like it is only a 100 yards or so. That line that everybody thinks is evidence of front projection in many of the scenes is the horizon but its sharpness just makes the whole thing look unreal.
That horizon is fake and it is called Front Screen Projection. Stanley Kubrick created it for his movie - 2001 a Space Odyssey -that was released in April 1968.
nice oxygene pfp
@@nickrose8733 absolutely correct, and if you were to check out more documentaries, you will see tons more anomalies! But the people who say they did do it try to discredit the conspiracy theorists, there are far too many anomalies which proves different. A good documentary I fully recommend is was it only a paper moon, where Jim collier investigates the moon lander also the lunar rover. Well worth watching.
As the moon lacks an ocean and has lots of mountains and valleys, saying the horizon is X miles away is silly. But of course the moon is smaller in diameter, (about 27% that of Earth) so the average distance to the horizon is going to be much less than on earth.
And yes of course we do use atmospheric haze on Earth as an estimate of depth for long distances and that won't work on the moon.
Thank you...great fun as I spent some time looking at utube content that insisted the moon landing was fake previously.
The best part is when the guy cracks up immediately after the first shot from space odyssey ahahahahahha
Seems like the time and effort needed to fake it back then was more costly than going to the actual freaking moon…
That's exactly it
Neil Armstrong hated the "It was faked." crowd. If he hadn't ejected from the lunar lander simulator before it crashed during a malfunction and figured out why his Gemini spacecraft became uncontrollable, he would have died before setting foot on the moon. He knew his butt was on the line every time he left the ground as part of his contribution to the space program.
He wasn't the only one,did you know that another astronaut from a different landing once punched a conspirationist?
I'm not surprised.
@@luigicampo4008 That was Buzz Aldrin, in 2002. He was 72 at the time! What a boss!
@@luigicampo4008 Buzz Aldrin! He was part of the same landing (Apollo 11) though. 2nd man on the moon
Buzz Aldrin even punched one of em.
I like this new tradition that seems to have started this year, of people actually making nice things for April fools day instead of being douchy to other people.
you just douche shamed an entire group of people. not cool.
@@chadd990 But they ARE douches, so that's ok.
@@chadd990 I don't see anything wrong with "douche shaming" lmao
@@chadd990 Why do you say douche shaming like it's a bad thing?
The only time douche shaming isn't cool is if you're shaming a woman for douching her womanly bits.
@@Dargonhuman As a person with womanly bits, we should be shaming douches, they can cause more problems than they “solve”. A vag is a self-cleaning system and flushing it with liquids can fuck with your pH. *ends PSA*
My favourite takeaway from this video is that with the best late 60’s special effects it still would’ve been harder to fake the moon landing than to actually land on the moon.
Actually, it would have been impossible.
that too
this video makes me think that it would have been harder to fake the moon landing with the level of tech available at that time
But this video was made in order to ridicule critics. It was not made to address real arguments, only false flag arguments.
Typical defence from conspiracy nutjobs@@Thre1152
I like how you guys touched on the Uncanny nature of it. Just so foreign and strange
almost as if it's not on Earth....
I blame Canada
@@kruleworld it's so..... alien
It's so out of this world.
I’m so glad that this wasn’t just some cheap April fools joke. I feel like this is one of the most interesting videos on this channel.
More vfx artists react plz, im hooked
There have been people on the moon, it's mind-blowing to this day. A human has walked on that glowing sphere in the sky.
12 humans! and 4 are still alive!
On a sunny day when the moon is out, hold up a baseball in front of it. Stretch your arm as far as possible. The baseball will be 1000X larger, and it's surface will be 4x brighter.
@@DeputyNordburg I love facts like these
@@JustForFunMusician I wonder what they're thinking right now.
Love that Niko just wrapped foil around his cap
Just remember that time when Buzz Aldrin punched a conspiracy theorist in the face for asking him if it was real or not.
Imagine building up your career over a lifetime & eventually doing the most incredible thing anyone has ever done in the history of the species, & filming it no less so that everyone could see & share in the momentous achievement for the rest of time...
Only for an army of sweaty basement dwellers to 'um actually' you & say that none of it ever happened because facts & logic.
That punch must have been so satisfying.
@@dr.zoidberg8666 imagine living your whole life being contributed with a thing you have never done and needing to lie about it for the rest of your life while not being a sociopath?
And he was absolutely right!
@@hiebrantsify what the fuck dude?
@@hiebrantsify What the fuck are talking about?!
Interesting note is this happened during the space race with Russia who had the ability and did track the astronauts to the moon. If the u.s. tried to fake it the Russians would have had a field day destroying that!!! The Russians were not about to agree to faking a moon landing unless it was them lol
Why?
@@Xernive The Space Race involving the United States and the Soviet Union in 1957-1972, which was the timeframe of the moon landing. It was a competition between them on the exploration of space, sending people into space, and to the moon. If NASA was faking the whole thing to win the Space Race, the Soviets would've been quick to call out the lie, seeing as how they were competing against each other.
correction ussr russia wasn’t a country
Tbh whenever i see or hear those "moon landing fake" believers i will always think their claims are BS because in reality they mostly focus on Apollo 11 and end up ignoring all of the other moon missions that happened after.... well, Apollo 11
If you watch footage of the Lunar Rover missions (15-17), the size of that movie studio sure becomes impressive 😉
@@proto-geek248 So impressive they got a vehicle to drive on the set
Another thing to keep in mind is the raw feed from the Moon was a 500 kHz television signal, shot on Westinghouse cameras at 10 fps and a resolution of 320p. The received signal was shot by an RCA TK-22 television camera on a 10 inch "high-def" screen which used an Ampex style disc recorder to multiply and interlace the frames. The signal was then sent by satellite to Houston and then by microwave relay to New York where the TV networks picked up their broadcast feed. About as much technology development went into getting the television signal to your home as went into getting astronauts on the Moon!
So you're gonna make it r-rated now... right?
Why must you do this...
so basically just the astronauts' bedrooms the week before the launch
Like the super pistol version of John Wick.
you want to see For All Mankind on Apple TV
I'm 2 years late on this but it's nice to see people that actually know what they're talking about explaining that it would've been harder to fake it than actually go to the moon
Lol its harder to fake than actually go to the moon?
@@mahadevmnair3797 yes, technology wasn’t advanced enough in special effects
@@Guyro.1 but it was advanced enough for space travel to the moon? Also why havent the Americans revisited the moon even after so many advancements
@@mahadevmnair3797 no need, we have already been and collected what we need
@@mahadevmnair3797 also yes we had the technology to get to the moon, the cameras we had and computers, there wouldn’t of been a way to fake the dust and the other stuff people say
Great video guys ....
I love how sam is barely speaking and always looking like "or is it fake?"
He may have low key outed himself as a moon landing conspiracy theorist lol.
Wow guys! Thanks! I know it was intended just as a fun April fools video but it actually turned out to be very useful and educational. useful content for ppl like me who can easily get swallowed by conspiracies in this lockdown period :)
Neil literally said the same thing. It would be harder to fake the moon landing, than just... going to the fking moon.
I work for Nasa and have a PhD the landing was real only some scenes were faked because of paranoia reasons
@@bauch16Don't believe you.
@@johnpaulvalentin5819 Walt Disney is the Flunder of NASA, NASA means nose in many sanscripts and which Disney Charakters nose grows when he lies? :)))
@@bauch16 don't forget your meds
Fascinating take on it!
I’ve never seen the video of them tripping and falling. I’d shit myself from thinking I ripped or punctured my suit
Ikr! Especially with the razor sharp Moon dust.
The suits were multi-layered and fairly tough. That said, they did find that the Lunar soil (regolith) was far sharper than first thought and was more abrasive on the suits than they'd planned for.
@@PervertedThang that suit could be a million layers of the strongest most durable material on the world and I still would shit myself.
@@Likeomgitznich fair point lol
@@Likeomgitznich imagine trying to hop to yoru feet from your knees like they did... like are you trying to see if you can rip your suit... lol
That 'silly' shot at 2:55 was actually a near-death experience for that astronaut. His suit nearly ruptured when that happened
If you see the footage they fall like that for pretty much the entire time they were on the moon.
The actual danger that they faced was that they had no clue if the suits could take a fall without breaking.
They had no clue if pretty much anything was gonna work. The math and theory supported it, but they didn't actually know. It's not like they were able to test any of it.
@@THEPELADOMASTER The speech that was prepared for President Nixon in case the astronauts never made it back was so chilling to read.
@@HM-xq2ei right. I agree, completely. Wiser words have never been spoken
dont worry dear , studio air is not that dangerous
@@M_Jono and I heard school air is also not dangerous, so you can go back now thankyou
The training simulator did actually have a roughly 50' sphere covered in photographs from the surveyor spacecraft with a small TV camera on a boom arm.