Moon Landings Faked? Filmmaker Says Not!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 січ 2013
- Writer/director S G Collins of Postwar Media debunks every theory that the Apollo Moon landings could have been faked in a studio. The filmmaker takes a look at the video technology of the late 1960's, showing alleged fraud was simply not possible. -- Apollo 11 Moon Landing Site Seen in Unprecedented Detail: www.space.com/14874-apollo-11...
- Наука та технологія
If you want to perpetrate a gargantuan hoax, you do it once, heave a sigh of relief if you think you've succeeded and leave it at that. You don't go repeating it multiple times with ever-increasing chances of being found out. The hoaxers sometimes forget that there were nine moon missions, six of which landed on the lunar surface . . .
Okay WE sometimes forget, even if every kid in the block comes out with that original rational, but hey we are not taken seriously and dont love the apollo program. Found out by WHOM & HOW? Not like down here where there are lots of Folks and Clues be found.
Nothing changed in those 3 years, so what goes on in SPACE stays in SPACE back then.
Not like now 50 years latter everyboyd is driving around up there. Remind WE of the increased risk.
@P. Spit You don’t have the slightest clue what a hoax would actually involve.
@P. Spit As I said, you don’t have the slightest clue.
@P. Spit Your surrender is noted.
@P. Spit People don’t resort to kindergarten insults when they are winning an argument.
This might be the single best response I've ever heard from the photography perspective, retorting against the 'fake moon landing' story. Very methodical, informative, humbly presented and entertaining. It's refreshing to hear a mellow voice narrating a monologue on UA-cam rather than full-blast the whole time like a lot of presenters.
So the proven apollo reality episodes need responses? Humbly?? The Honno Sapien was respectful to Others?
Many with more 'knowledge' have debunked him, just like Jarrah White, She has more than just mellow voice....
/_x49lImzw5s /-3zhZqiSe5c /zE6OIPlQ3-8 2:50 😃
ua-cam.com/video/wqDUnUbrf84/v-deo.html&ab_channel=ApolloDetectives
Here is more of less talk and more Evidence of the HUGE retorting against the "total nonsense debunked thousands of times" that goes on despite ARTEMIS ! *Apollo 16 - Astronauts on Wires* ua-cam.com/video/WrwR2C9kgLY/v-deo.html used to a few of these displays of glittering lines :)
ps: nothing humble about this non-straight sapien, but yes the "man" or evolved Primate of sorts.... did huge research to makeup this entertainment.
Ever research Operation Fishbowl?
@@ViralOpinion what's that have to do with the fact it was impossible to fake the moon landing with the film technology available in the 60s?
A true UA-cam classic. I wanted to find it again after many years
YT Classic is good? Many say its not a place to get anything good, huge danger of being Brainwashed! But yeah it will last despite the hate. What matters is the gov lies all the time & perpertrating real Conspiracies regularly on Us.
RIP Collins. Thank you for everything you've given us as an artist, and an intellectual.
He just left? Knew he been in hospital, not sure about the rest, this had been a awful period in his life, none of his Admirers can name one real Conspiracy...
He was a propaganda idiot
Obviously yet an other who had not read The Demon-Haunted World.
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've (Sheeple norm) been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.(event con)😎 We're no longer interested in finding out the truth.(self thinking) The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been (Nasa) taken (School programming). Once you give a charlatan (Gov) power over you, you almost never get it back." ― Carl Sagan
Oh no. I sent him a thank you for this video years ago, and he was kind enough to send a thank you email back. I've sent this clip to hundreds of people when they question :/
RIP indeed
wonder what folks think when these superior intellectual full of proof videos have many hidden replies?
funny
in 69 they could go to the moon and not fake it
in 2018
they can fake it but cant go the moon anymore
Exactly. Makes no sense.
We can go there... Nobody wants to PAY for it...
In 1969, we could go to the fucking moon.
In 2018, we need to tell people not to eat tide pods.
hahaha. so true
In 1911 Norway beat Britain to the South Pole in their equivalent of the _space race_ . Britain was a bit peeved, but 'tally ho chaps' and all that.
As far as I know, this did not in any way prevent Britain and many other countries providing large funding to explorers for the continuing exploitation of Antarctica. To the extent that it's now a bustling hive of secrecy and clandestine military bases.
This gigantic _waste of money_ being spent on something with _zero public interest_ must surely all be down to the fact that there are no penguins on the moon.
Remember when the russian's totally called bullshit on this whole thing and went on telling the whole planet that their worst enemy is pranking everyone?
Neither did I.
You'll upset Felix with this.
It's a real thorn in his side. It's fun watching him trying to explain why Russia didn't cry foul.
@@paulbeardsley4095 It is, you spacecadets do work hard for all that fun.
They cheated and USA could prove it, plus get got a least big grain payoff to shutup. Same bankers with same agenda, ennemies as the top 2 political parties are...
@@wildboar7473 They didn't get the grain payoff, though. They bought it through intermediaries at a normal price, without the USA initially catching up, and _then_ the market reacted and the grain price rose accordingly. This claim is putting the cart before the horse.
@@Jan_Strzelecki No? My bad!
The Great Grain Robbery was the July 1972 purchase of 10 million tons of United States grain (mainly wheat and corn) by the Soviet Union at subsidized prices, which resulted in higher grain prices in the United States. ... In a 10-month span food prices around the world rose 30% in 1973.
en.wikipedia.org/en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Great_grain_robbery
Great grain robbery - Wikipedia
In November 1969, the U.S. Air Force sent Russia an early Christmas gift.???
It was a sleek flying machine that bore an uncanny resemblance to the SR-71 Blackbird spy plane.
The American generosity was purely unintentional.??? :)
@felix mendez _Nowhere near their minuscule minds has the idea crossed that the Russians may have kept silence on the matter for the simple reason that they didn’t give a shit._
Except that they _did_ give a shit, Felix. Even though they didn't officially acknowledge the challenge (which I'm not even sure is factually correct, but it's beside the point) we _know_ that they _did_ plan on going to the Moon themselves.
And, again, revealing the fakery would prove the superiority of the Soviet technology to the other Soviet block countries. Do you really imagine that Soviets wouldn't "give a shit" about _that?_ :)
_THEY DIDN’T PLAN TO SEND ANY MEN TO THE MOON BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T NEED TO AS THEY COULD DO EVERYTHING ON SITE WITH ONLY UNMANNED MISSIONS_
Except for taking the lunar rock samples, and core samples, etc. :)
_AND THEY COULDN’T PROTECT EITHER THEIR COSMONAUTS AGAINST DEADLY RADITION-Funny thing, the same problem NASA has now, FIFTY YEARS LATER_
No, it's an entirely different problem altogether, Felix. The "problem" NASA had and solved *six years* ago was protecting the astronauts from radiation during *long term missions* - like, um, I dunno… *landing on Mars?!* You _do_ know that Mars is much farther from Earth than the Moon is, Felix, right? _Right?_ :D
_That is what many (smart) people think also._
Oh, no, not at all, Felix. The whole scientific and professional world accepts the Moon landings as true.
_At the time the Soviet regime was having big problems tryng to feed their population and annual deficits in the output of grain, mainly wheat, used to run into several millions of tons._
Wrong year, Felix. The first Moon landing was in 1969, and the grain shortage started happening *two years later* :)
_Coincidentally, only a couple of years later_
Note the "later" part here? Your narrative doesn't fit the facts, Felix :)
Had the Moon landings been faked, Soviets and China would've denounced them in 1969. Not two years later, not "couple of years" later, but in 1969.
I normally ignore debunks because hoaxers' arguments just don't pass basic burden of proof tests; but here I actually learned something positive about history, and that's well worth it!
@@narajuna Is that English?
@@sntslilhlpr6601 It's a lousy variation of it.
Sure lot of inputting by the english, least top dog did more then a line.
Leaving aside these english carring youtubers
Since when does a ARGUEMENT require burden PROOF TESTS ???
Sounds lame variation of scientific approch.
SOMEONE THAT DIDNT IGNORE....
One 1 ONE UNUS wild guy without a job wrote 1 book with no Publisher.
A man always denigrated by hateful stalking Preditors as being NOBODY:
not a scientists, no qualifications, knows nothing about rockets, many cats.
BILL KAYSING
Kaysing thus wrote a book titled We Never Went to the Moon:
*America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle* *in 1976*
*ONE 1 UNOS Year latter.....*
*National Aeronautics and Space Administration* (Gov agency)
Prints a >>> FACT SHEET
[ From time to time we are asked the question above as a result of at least one book and recurring articles in various publications based either on its content or individuals' expressions of their opinions.]
FACT >> *- USA GOV* does not make such ISSUES on all non arguements
I can not even find such for JFK Assasination rumor plots !
Video in 1969. With video tape. Not disc. ua-cam.com/video/yddRRExWEvs/v-deo.html
@@narajuna I had a stroke reading this
ive watched this three times, love this man and his deadpan delivery. You think, this is boring...and suddenly you see the twinkle, and start really listening to what he's saying. Especially at the end.
Judy yes he is not boring, as he is a 11:23, (there is some debate of the rationality of that thing..), One can not know what someone else has as Rationality. The end Twinkle starting at 12:10 ? Too bad he did not make any videos on Real things that matter, just cared for non sapiens blindness like many many smart educated sane people, who dont seem to care for those real Things, as much as many of us blinded Conspiracy Theorists do :)
It is so buzy on the section but here in the TOP one very little movement...
Regarding us Hoax_ters sources, one I used that was "not credible" /Nasa has been vindicated on one video :)
Extraordinary Until Proven Otherwise ua-cam.com/video/SpeSpA3e56A/v-deo.html
- so now atheist cryers Aliens are not fake :) so some spacetrucking is going on :)
This entire claim he makes has been debunked. ua-cam.com/video/_x49lImzw5s/v-deo.html
@@shawncrossen7580 He is a very debunked man, despite not selling his soul he never took on the real conspiracies, always the badguys that go against their own rational mind that get all the attention and efforts.
@CRIMNALSNEAK Not to mention that slow-motion video of people acting in earth gravity would look nothing like the actual footage - moon-landing denialists always ignore the fact that if you speed the footage up to what would have been the real speed according to their own claims literally everyone will see how _simply wrong_ it will look like.
Sure, they have sped up selected pieces of the footage to make their claims seem legit - but they will never put together and upload a video where all of the footage is sped up, because even they see how ridiculous the end results end being, so they pick the convenient parts and use them.
I think it was SciManDan who first demonstrated this part, but you never see the denialists address it, because they can't. And yet they still double down :D
“Make sure everybody in the filming set died mysteriously in a car crash”
And yet they didn't.
@@paulbeardsley4095 That's true many lived, just a few in cars & planes got eliminated, Reagan got the President reward for it!
@@wildboar7473 Wernher von Braun worked for NASA, Walt Disney did films for them, and President Eisenhower established NASA in the first place. Where are they all now? Dead.
@@therealzilch Kaysing claimed Irwin was just about to "spill the beans" and reveal the hoax, and suggested that's why he was "killed".
Apollo did have military aspects: Project Chapel Bell remains classified to this day, the CIA connection got exposed, all illegal stuff.
@@wildboar7473 Kaysing was a nutcase.
I haven't watched this video in awhile. Every time I watch it, it's better than I remembered.
well nice someone appriciates taking on hoaxsters such zeal.
[ NASA has been confounded by these questions, though not because the agency is unable to answer them. Rather, the old science geeks believe it is beneath their SAT scores to respond at all. As James Oberg, a noted space writer, recalls: ''NASA put out this press release in 2001 that said something like: 'There's a debate about whether we went to the moon. We did.' End of press release. They are hampered by their own conceit.''
The nasa.gov Web site, for example, refuses to debunk hoaxers directly.
But not long after Oberg was hired, NASA was embarrassed by press reports of the assignment and panicked at the thought of being seen as surrendering intellectual equivalence to the hoaxers. ''We canceled the program,'' a spokesman, Bob Jacobs, told me. ''There is no book deal. We are not taking on the hoaxers.'']
www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/magazine/lunar-tics.html
It’s awesome! ❤️ It inspired me to make my own video, focusing on different evidence! ua-cam.com/video/03qPteWBVTc/v-deo.html
The G joy man is full of it, no wonder he takes a beating here on the TOP & Newest comment section.
MoonFaker: Disk Recorders & High Speed Video Cameras ua-cam.com/video/_x49lImzw5s/v-deo.html
Wild Boar lol! Okaaay 😂😘
@@mesonparticle Talking about AWESOME, In Death Valley you would see the stars. The best place to see stars is the desert *at night,* in Nevada it is amazing. Did you know that?
The most important part of his message is the last part when he talks about the unjust laws that we have today that we never questioned coz we are focused on many petty issues that has no bearing in our way of life at all.
Yes maybe that was the real reason the Philosopher made the video, much ignore conclusion, still we the carring thinking People are affected by forced lies, even many G Followers are affected by it: by Deniers with no faith, calling Gov tales fake :( :(
This Genius did a video about it... as MANY with LOTS of videos, and numerous websites= more impact then TV it seems.
“For evil to flourish it only requires good men to do nothing” - Simon Wiesenthal
"To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth, all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances."
- Lee deForest (1873-1961) (American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube.) Feb 25, 1957.
"Space travel is utter bilge."
- Dr. Richard van der Reit Wooley, Astronomer Royal, space advisor to the British government, 1956.
Wild Boar science does not operate to convince those who refuse to believe. Science operate to know what is true even if you don’t believe it. That’s the reason we have these technological advancements today while no conspiracy theorists had contributed to any of these advancements.
@@jrsanti Oops that last dump got you involved, SHE operates does SHE? Well HER followers sure operate against the heretics that refuse faith. See little value is this rant... CTs are supposed to contribute to tech advancements????
That presupposes knowledge of basic science.... What have You contributed? Your prayers?
Or pray what has boywonder Hawkings contributed to Technology?
ps: SCIENCE does not operated in knowings, it is the search for knowledge, her "truths" are always getting self corrected...
Wild Boar must have contributed to something because YT deleted his channel. Seems many Scientists operate on TV & YT to con_vince.
Sure introduced quickly the Piltdown Man, among other proofs, in Schools to convince operation: "we are just meaningless Privates out of chemical soup...". Nothing to do with Tech advancements, Believers Wright Brothers operated against MS establishment saying we could not fly!
There are over 15 thousand unedited photos from the moon missions online. Look them up and go through them. They are amazing, showing every element of each mission including all the dud photos that were taken. That anyone could fake so many pictures is impossible.
A real impossible, but USA government someone? May be less impossible.
Much actually, for a far mission with so much cinematograhy, what other mission has so much coverage?
It’s easy to poke holes in any part of the moon landing while seated in an armchair.
LOL Impossible
15000 from apollo 11?
@@IA100KPDT Think not, just 2.5 hours eva walks, but I dont think many or any remain unedited, since CTs picking at them so many have gone Photoshoped.
"In 2017, NASA released over 10,000 photos from Apollo -- While NASA has successfully removed from circulation most of the more egregious errors in identical backdrops, as well as errors in continuity and scale -- Nevertheless it is impossible to account for the time necessary to take the number of photographs on record . . 11,000 photographs taken during 4882 minutes total for all EVA's from hatch opening to close again . . This amounts to more than two perfect photographs each minute -- not nearly enough time to account for them -- in addition to all other activities they engaged in. This is not even taking into account all of the outtakes from bad exposure. We give NASA credit for being able to crop and frame the subject matter properly; however, our astronauts had no way to read and adjust the settings for exposure in a camera that had no auto exposure function, yet all 11,000 photographs having perfect exposure, regardless of which direction the sun was or how much lunar surface was in view. This puts the actual number of photos taken at an astronomical number -- while there were far too many for them to have ever taken, even in perfect conditions."
Thank you for bringing up The Patriot Act, the biggest piece of anti-American tyranny of this Century. And this Century is still young.
Get a skull enema or shut up.
The Patriot Act sucks but it really has not effected day to day life in the US like say prohibition did. I am not a fan of The Patriot Act but I still feel the need to keep it in historical context.
This statement has nothing to do with patriotism, just with pure logic.
Luna EB Have you looked into WHY we have never been back? Context is real important...
win ring have you looked into why or how they lost or destroyed all evidence of going? Every, single, bit of it. Don’t bother all you’ll find is some tard saying “I’d go back in a nano second”.
"If they haven't lied to you today, maybe they haven't had coffee yet."
brilliant
Daniel Griffin, he had his coffee just before he made this video.
@@watchcitydog Prove it.
@@watchcitydog Prove "he had his coffee just before he made this video"
I haven't had my coffee yet, so I guess that government has lied to me today (side note: it is 5:30pm for me).
@@Lamster66 Sounds like a *Conspiracist!* is he Crazy or just doesnt understand GOV working for our good?
Mr 66 (like #11 helicopher) deleted all, NASA GOV takes coffee early everyday, some juicy material >>>>
"THE APOLLO MOON HOAX: HOW DID THEY DO IT?" COMPLETE VIDEO!
ua-cam.com/video/68DRuJrv8Ls/v-deo.html
A very entertaining intelligent man. Hi take on photography solidified any remanence of doubts. Love the tongue-in-cheek humour delivered tastefully and intelligently. Thanks Collin
The smartest looking genius of your liking? Very nice. He take WHAT? Many have doubted the famous genius FILMMAKER, he cried about Jarrah White rebutal. And altered his song, good humour, but dont you love that it all doesnt matter, and poor Conspiracists are blinded to the *real conspiracies* ?
More the the intelligent looking "man", without her funny hat !
ua-cam.com/video/naYN8lYG7Ac/v-deo.html 😂
Meanwhile, a real forensic film expert actually recreated "Moon landings" footage using 1960-s technology and also did full show-and-tell of that.
You are so gullible.
The Camera Man Explains: How did NASA fake it's images from the Apollo Moon Missions? A master explains...
Leonid Konovalov is an associate professor @ the Moscow School of Cinema and the All-Russian State Institute of Cinematography, VGIK, in Moscow. He is an expert in camera operation, cinematography, film projection, film negative developing, among many other related things.
In this ongoing series of weekly articles, which he began in 2020, he explains how NASA really achieved it's impressive images from the Apollo Missions (and much more!).
He analyzes the “lunar” photos and videos from the cameraman's point of view - how were they filmed?
- this is what we no science Conspiracists want, more then lip talk :)
Thank you, S G- As a fellow professional 61 year old cinematographer/videographer who also worked for 12 years as a union assistant cameraman working with Arriflex and Panavision et alia film cameras back in the 1980s-90s, may I say that you are 100 percent correct! :)
Soapbox proof? 100%....aint what HE said after dealing with amateur Jarrah White.
Anyway happy for you he helped /saved your faith. But really SOMEONE got to deal with the REAL ones other than Hoaxsters.
@@narajuna consider this: conspiracies are real and happen all the time - and the powers that be are provably laughing all the way to the bank while people like you bark up this tree which ISN’T a hoax. Every minute of effort you spend chasing this dog makes you blind to the ones that actually happened.
@@lowbrow Government always has specials.... even then as Jarrah White showed there was tricks a Filmmaker could of done to do the impossible.
@@narajunajarrah essentially reframes the same tired talking points and appeals to advanced technologies being secretly available to nasa, decades before they actually existed.
He makes claims. He doesn't support them. And he doesn't refute anything.
As an IT professional and worked with mainframes before. The Moon Hoaxers said it were (during 1969 - 1972) were CGI, but for the CGI to be possible, you need humongous computer power with TODAY's miniaturized chips. The CPU in your iphone would have occupy several warehouses. The kind of computer did not exist then.
It was not CGI, but don't pee all over NASA's commuting power in the day. They did have buildings full of computers.
Nordburg yeah they probably did. Back then one building full of valves wires and huge relays was equivalent to about 1kb, the clock speed was likely around 1 MHz. Not fast enough to keep up with the refresh rate of a cathode ray tube if you are gonna do flicker free animations with relatively large pixels. Sounds like technical doo doo but’s it’s not!
@@DeputyNordburg Big computers to crunch numbers, not millions of pixels.
@@DeputyNordburg The CGI claimed by those Moon Hoaxers would not be possible because of the amount of storage, CPU power and memories needed - the buildings would fill up a whole state (if not causing power outage when they were running)
If they had amazing CGI in 1972, then how do you explain Pong? The video game is just 2 rectangles and tiny square...
I learned, that almost everybody who does not believe in the landing just does not want to believe it for any reason. You can tell them everything - even if it is rediculous what they say, and you have a pure evidence, they do not (want to) believe. I am a film-producer and many things what that guy said, is just what I also told to many people - technically ment. A production like that was also not possible to produce at that time. And by the way, Chinese and Russians also have plenty of pictures from the landing site. There is no doubt, the US astronauts have been on the moon.
Yes, the determination some of them have to ignore evidence is astonishing. Almost as astonishing as their determination to keep presenting the same old debunked evidence (no blast crater, waving flag, astronauts looked glum etc) as if it trumps the actual evidence.
My belief is that conspiracy theoriests are talentless and uneducated people who need to feel superior, so they tell themselves that they know the truth whereas everyone else is a sheep.
You did??? *How did you learn that?* Please tell all the people how you accomplished that "almost" learning sir??? Well I THINK Most used to believe before becomming Unbelievers!
Only during 70's were there 25% USA DO-NOT-WANT-TO people. After that it took YT time to finally convert Believers as myself.
So pray Mr Psy what is the percentage of 'Everybody's' who dont believe but that want to....? Or that believe that... *believe* but dont want to?
Dear everything-Teller what pure evidence do you have?
Why do you even concern yourself with Others beliefs, or Want's?
Yes I have seen many FILM guys active at GOV tales defense, strong Believers?
@@wildboar7473 "Why do you even concern yourself with Others beliefs, or Want's?"
Why do you?
Because of previous huge demand from myself : I care because Human Consciousness has meaning, now and much latter.... and some beliefs (despite being "insane") are repressed, mocked, censored (as non hypocrites well know). So they need concern for fair chance to study.
@@wildboar7473 And how do you explain tons of photos, made by Russians and just recently by Chinese, from the landing sites ? I am sure, you have lot of new excuses and claims.("which photos... " ) thats what comes as the answer, I am very sure.
And now they successfully launched and brought back splashdown the Artemis 1 Orion capsule. Looks like the we're going to the moon again.
Okay kind of looklike the show will go on, cannot wait to see them skip hop fall golf and ropejumping & hopscotch? 😊
@@narajuna wut
Nothing to attract Smarts (sane ones) like good old *gibberish* 💥👍
With their classic Science inputs🤓
*successfully launched and brought back*
On April 12, 1961, cosmonaut Yury A. Gagarin, onboard the Vostok 1 spacecraft, became the first human in space. The voyage, which began with launch at 9:07 am Moscow time, entailed one orbit around Earth, lasting 1 hour 29 minutes, and ended at 10:55 am in the Soviet Union with his safe return to Earth.
Everything hoaxers bring up has been widely debunked over and over yet their confirmation bias won't allow them to even consider what is presented in this video. Having your eyes pinned wide open is useless if you've got blinders on!
@@hankkingsley9183 Wow how original, sea of knowledge you are! So why do anti hoaxers continue to be so active? Why Articles continue to be birthed? Why so many debunk videos? Why so much hope to be saved by ARTEMIS ?
10 years later and this is still relevant. Incredible!
Yes unbelievable!!! "Some people" full of nonsense sure occupy intelligent science people pushing "sense", not so sane.... when it only matters because blinds (Conspiracists) to other real conspiracies.... Yet still many APOLLO Witness fanatics still claim it is impossible to fake today! Incredible!
@@narajuna Show us the actual technology that was used then
As a photographer, myself, you were dead on. Something that no one has ever mentioned is that the tracking of the Apollo missions took place in all the first world countries. No one ever seemed to question its validity. Excellent exposé.
Yank ee, Watch the Fox special where the camera maker Hasselblad is being interviewed and is at a loss.
MrLibertyHugger you guys don't stop, do you...? Like roaches...
@@MrLibertyHugger at a loss as to what?
@@martijnvandenakker803 reaches like you are believers of a fake NASA moon landing
DAH! Everyone tracked, yet the Soviets actually had to rely on our telescopes to track their own lunar probes right up until 1976. The telescopes that the communists were dependent on were the Lovell Telescope and the one at Jodrell Bank. Also, HAM Radio operators could not have tracked the Apollo missions.
Neither could the Russians - this is because of the frequency that Apollo transmitted on: 2GHZ.
*ASP is an acronym for "Apollo Simulation Project",* which was created in 1961 and operated by the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) to "help" NASA with their technical problems by establishing a totally simulated moon mission.
I love how NASA hires one of the greatest film makers of all time to fake the moon landings, but he and all of the engineers forgot to put stars in the sky, forgot there was no air on the moon to move a flag (how did wind get in a movie studio?), forgot everything they know about lighting and shadows, left marks on props and forgot about how footprints might work in dust.
You have to believe all of that was missed, so actually their own claims of problems in the filming prove that no movie person was used at all, because no one would have made those idiotic errors.
I guess the film maker you are talking about ("one of the greatest film makers of all time") is Stanley Kubrick.
Yet his movie 2001: A Space Oddyssey contains a huge number of errors.
Whilst the Apollo Program footage contains ZERO "errors" (whatever you and assorted other idiots may think).
If you're incapable, as your post suggests, of spotting any of the multitude of errors in 2001, who are YOU to judge the Apollo footage?
Tanstible- footprints in dust test, the easy way.
1. Get a bag of dry Portland cement.
2. Put 1/2 of it on on a large baking tray and then turn to oven to low and leave for 30 minutes.
3.this test is best done in winter after a period of very cold, dry weather > less moisture
4. Pour dry cement on a dry surface, make it about 1 1/2 “ deep (plywood or plastic sheet.
5. Walk in it , and guess what you get footprints. Cohesion is the key, that’s why sand don’t work.😎😉
The fakers also forgot that the stones and rocks they photographed were not possible on the earth and that the sand they used and claimed was 'sharp dust' was retroreflective.
1A Photos:
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5912.jpg
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11140.jpg
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-106-17377.jpg
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-106-17393.jpg
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-116-18629.jpg
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-140-21496.jpg
1B Physics:
1. How can an object land on a soft dusty surface yet make no mark?
2. How can an object become buried in dust yet remain free of dust?
3. How can an object have it's corners worn away?
1C Proof:
Either the NASA photos were taken on the earth or the laws of physics are all wrong.
2 Moon dust retro-reflection effect - reflecting the light straight back stronger.
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5882.jpg
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5854.jpg
Indicates the photos were taken on sand rather than the footprint friendly sharp dust that NASA claims.
www.roadvista.com/reflective-glass-beads/
@@nicsandee123 Portland cement doesn't exhibit the retro-reflection we see
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5882.jpg
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5854.jpg
so they had to have used damp sand.
@@eventcone "Whilst the Apollo Program footage contains ZERO "errors""
Haahaha!! It is loaded with major errors.
The sheer number of technical, natural & human factors plus unforeseen internal or external events which could spell disaster or failure of the mission must be astronomical. The odds against every single one of these being perfect enough on one occasion must be terrifying let alone for four or five more of those missions. What an achievement - we really are a special breed .
I agree, but which Breed? Dorper, Marino, Suffolk, Harry ?
Acknowledged that whilst it may have been theoretically possible, it was highly improbable.
NASA mission Director had said least 30 would die trying for that giant Leap.
"Threlfall’s was the first official wager in the Space Race, and the odds were not in his favor: Famous bookmakers William Hill allowed him odds of 1,000 to 1 “for any man, woman or child, from any nation on Earth, being on the Moon, or any other planet, star or heavenly body of comparable distance from Earth, before January, 1971.”
What lunar bettors didn’t know was that NASA also gave the moon landing long odds. Only months before Threlfall’s wager, a NASA-commissioned risk assessment had forecast the chance of successfully fulfilling Kennedy’s decreed moon landing at just 1 in 20."
Even positive Crew after "successful Journeys" >>> ”Armstrong told interviewers on the flight’s 30th anniversary, “but only a 50-50 chance of making a landing on that first attempt.”
It didn't go so well for Apollo 1 when all 3 crew members died in the fire. Also, the famous Apollo 13 was "successful disaster" that almost left the crew stuck in space. There countless stuff that weren't as planned, even the Apollo 11 landing was scary because commander Neil Armstrong didn't land on their target, I mean imagine if they landed on the side of a crater and destroyed their whole lunar module. Also there was lighting strikes and other stuff on the launches, I mean it was a crazy time, all just to beat USSR communism during the Cold War. Thinking about it now, after all they've been through, it's no wonder why they didn't want spend so much money and risk so much lives to land again. Well fast forward more than 50 years later, Artemis 3 is expected to make the first crewed moon landing since 1972.
?@@dougdig .......there was no Going or intent to GO with #1, a guinea pig Ground test with HIGH Pressure pure Oxygen (with history of Electric wires not going so well, sparks). After the 'boring' second #12 some Americans complained about TV show cancels.... Famous *13* ...put a little spice danger in the so safe easy SPACE trips (much better % than Planes), so yes a little "almost" excitement was grand!
Now image THAT a alien PLANET never walked on with or withOUT a Landing pad >> had a bad Target with ruff Boulders around 😬 Who would of planed on That?? Very very unexpected !! Apollo 10 must of reported a nice Flat even surface -- on that Meteorite blasted crater pocked Moon.?
Note: Why was the number 13 so important?
The number 13 is considered an unlucky number in some countries.[18] The end of the Mayan calendar's 13th Baktun was superstitiously feared as a harbinger of the apocalyptic 2012 phenomenon.[19] Fear of the number 13 has a specifically recognized phobia, triskaidekaphobia, a word first recorded in 1911.[20]
The superstitious sufferers of triskaidekaphobia try to avoid bad luck by keeping away from anything numbered or labelled thirteen. As a result,
companies and manufacturers use another way of numbering or labelling to avoid the number, with hotels and tall buildings being conspicuous examples *(thirteenth floor).* [21] It is also considered unlucky to have thirteen guests at a table. Friday the 13th has been considered an unlucky day.[18] wiki
It didnt go as JFK planed, 1 first Win, sufficed, not TEN win landings!
With some crazy time Solar flares strikes! Nixon was against more as was Congress, and the Majority. But 'THEY' had plans to settle on Moon after Apollo 20 (very small expense), as humans have always done.
*2023* with very forward computer simulations (Planes etc) and with much more knowledge, still not sure HUMANs would fair so well....🤢 yet First trip to Moon had Passengers without suffering. 🤫
The Moon is a Holographic Gossamer.
I came here watching because Everyday Astronaut recommended it. Great video :)
You got 2 likes, but no one expanded on your very complimentary posting here...without a doubt video is most definitive evidence that man stepped on the moon, hands down! I’m gonna give you a like for this one because it is what is expected from the schoolteacher😎👍 >>>> American Moon (English Version)
ua-cam.com/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/v-deo.html
Collins claim on this video has been completely DEBUNKED. Just because a person (Collins) says it does not make it any more fact.... ua-cam.com/video/_x49lImzw5s/v-deo.html
@@shawncrossen7580 yeah well that is what the self declared "Qualified" do all the time, then they ask you for Definite Evidence. He is not sure they walked on Moon, but sure the had the Tech, was sure of film tech after asking others then less sure, so "impossible" turned to "unlikely".
@@wildboar7473 Even if this Collins is an expert and even if he was right in what he said, which he wasn't, his sense of arrogance and snippy attitude in this video really makes him unlikable, for lack of a better word.
@@shawncrossen7580 yeah the homosapien had the nerve to accuse Jarrah of being condescending... rant about selling the Soul... when he has no belief in that. One wonders what state his rational Mind is.
The moon landing was actually filmed in a film studio on Mars, using Stanley Kubrick's iPhone.
So THAT`S what they did! I KNEW IT! Damned NASA fakers!
He was the highest paid boy scout in vietnam
LMAO
@Lissajous Curved im a paddy but what are u doin here ?
They not only never went to the moon, they never even went above low earth orbit.
It’s gets better every time I watch love that ending
That was a real check.
TOP Comment section sure has the cream of the cream of inputs.
He know some people will shout "hOw MUcH nASa pAy Y0u", so he make it anyway
agreed..
Lets All agree on watching the mouse run on the MOON. YES there is Life in Space.
NASA Apollo 11 moon landing faked? Coke bottle on set? Not quite.
Running behind left to right on ua-cam.com/video/sCwFiqtfijw/v-deo.html&feature=emb_logo (1/2 speed!)
This is my favorite debunk video. Short, concise, perfect.
There would be no "debunk"(🤣) without bunk. Love his above average highly intelligent Believer /Debunker looks (+hat too).🤯
(More to be seen on his Account👍) (😂)
@@narajuna ◁==== keep in mind that this troll is a 'closet' adherent of the Flat Earth and Magical Dome Cult. It only 'outs' itself as such when the comments indicate that it's safe do do so. Go on Mr WO. Tell us all about how you believe the Earth is a flat disc. We all know you want to. 🙃
RIP Collins. Such a talented mind. You will be much-missed by many, my friend 😔 ❤
12.5K subscribers 559 videos and he didnt sell his SOUL like us Unbelievers 😥
I’ve never been taken in by the whole moon landing hoax idea but never before thought that, from a filmmaker’s perspective, it just wasn’t possible to fake it back then. Love the video and and the wonderfully sarcastic presentation. Great job.
...but you still made it here? ONE filmmaker, one, never heard of, no Kubrick, and sure never any any thing close to NASA Studios budget and ressources.
@@wildboar7473 The Military couldn't fake it back then and their budget was a lot bigger than NASA's. Look at the facts, don't be an idiot. Idiot
@@DevinJarosz Fact what Facts? You a 5 star General or what, an other top Filmmaker? Collins looks like and idiot, and is :(
Really no one having filming history could buy the crap of this video.
Yes slow motion was a thing back in 1950's and perfected in the 1960's.
The sales to the public was not till the late 1970-1980's.
However companies such as NASA or the developers had full access to the system and testing steps.
Suggesting that the companies like NASA could not use said things is just ridicules..
In the movie production there is a list of equipment that in fact does do slow motion in 1950's
The technology was not cheep. Okay
However by the mid 1965's the technology was able to be used may times at a much better value.
This technology by the 1969 was not only reliable but they could create hours of the effect.
By the 1970's this was so simple to do that cost and effect was simple.
Yet that is a editing tool. We also know that they had cameras that also could do the effects. The first one was in 1962.
The fun thing is the film used was a standard used in these type of cameras.
Suggesting this technology was not created when it is documented it was is a slap in the face of every movie creator and editor in the world.
During the movie 2001 space odyssey they did use this technology a few times they only found that they only used it a few times because most of the effects could be done practically.
This Collins is very silly to suggest many of what he states.
Just to be clear this Collin is a idiot. No wonder produces nothing.
A Filmmaker could spend hours pointing out the error in this guys babble, no wonder no one with back him up even if many are Believers.
Wild boar the filmmaker is not disputing the existence of filming in slow motion. He’s taking about the viability of transferring the motion caught on 35 mm film to video tape. And some of the things that may happen while doing so. If you state that is live footage on that little screen they filmed for TV. If it didn’t look convincing someone would notice. One day you will have to except the fact that not everyone is stupid, it’s easy to everyone is stupid but it’s just not the case!
Hahaha "my check came from NASA." Great video, well explained!
@@davidfann3433 You have no mind : you're an adept of the flat earth CULT... then nothing to change !
@@davidfann3433 Have you ever heard of burden of proof?
I'm curious - but not very curious - why people like you think anybody cares what you believe.
The simple fact is, there are people who don't know much about the Moon landings. They are the ones who think it was all fake. There are other people who have a reasonable knowledge of the Moon landings. They are the ones who know it really happened.
@@davidfann3433 try lithium, that should change your mind.
Why is it that you people always attack the person and never address the facts?
6Your responses combined amount to a personal attack suggesting the gentleman has no mind(impossible) a baseless assertion that "NO ONE" cares to hear the gentlemans thoughts or ideas(dismissive) along with a suggested psych medication being the answer for this gentleman and his underlying mental disorder(convenient)
The slow motion techniques would not do. In the moon videos you can clearly see that only the free fall vertical moving is slowed down, while the horizontal movements are at the expected speed (like the dust thrown from the rover wheels).
So, it was absolutely impossible without the nowadays technology.
strange this Expert backed up with "bloody unlikely".
Educated folks just know (usa)Government always has advance technology first.
@@narajuna yes but at the time they did not
The guy is an expert, a natural comedian who spit facts. He really knows how to narrate deadpan but not boring.
You think the USA GOV hires unprofession idiots with no talent? Da Comedian he is ....because film wise.... aint no Kubrick :) (Likes to pick all sorts of cherries)
Note: here is the typical follower of this genius :
ua-cam.com/users/shortsAblOHbFKCp0
Too bad he can not do same with historical forward Leap ARTEMIS , the incredible Technology to film fake exist now :( So we could witness just *anything* ....
You are not addressing the issue at hand. Did you even watch this video? This is about the live broadcast in 1969 and your claim that everything is fake. A massive preponderance of the evidence supports that the moonshot happened and every single hoaxer claim has been debunked again and again.
Your argument seems to be that because something could possibly be fake that therefore everything IS fake. I suggest studying the laws of logic with a side helping of learning about how to think rationally.
Ah that famous massive preponderance /mountain of proof..... yet many Engineers and books and videos and documents and media address the issue.... again and again
This video is phenomenal however I have to disagree with his statement that "nowadays it would be easy to fake the moon landings", I am sure what he means is that it would be easy to fake some of the footage but there is still no way to fake the tracking of the Apollo missions. Transmissions from the Apollo crafts moving from earth orbit, to the moon, into moon orbit, landing and returning to earth were tracked by people all over the world. The transmission source can not only be pinpointed as to how far it is from earth but also the speed of the craft due to doppler effect. There was no way to fake it then and there still isn't. Another detail is that the radio and television signals traveled at different speeds, as the Apollo crafts moved further and further from earth the delay between the signals increased which is another giveaway that they really were transmitting from the moon. Oh and one more detail, by Apollo 14 we began using the rovers of which there exists hours of footage. The footage of the dust being kicked out by the tires not only proves that they were in 1/6th of earths gravity but also in a vacuum as the dust clearly is not being met with air resistance. If you think NASA had a way of creating a movie set in 1969 that was not only 1/6th earths gravity but also a vacuum about 2 acres in size and in which you are unable to see the supporting walls and structure on film you are certified batshit crazy and not to mention crazy, crazy dumb!
Well said. However, when Collins is talking about faking it, I think he means solely in film/video terms.
It certainly wasn't possible to simulate 1/6 gravity and vacuum convincingly back then. It's probably not possible now either, but I'm not sure about that.
@@paulbeardsley4095 I think we're very close to photorealistic human simulations (at least Hollywood seems to be), so if you put such footage through a low res filter, and simulate all the physics... Maybe? :)
@@Jan_Strzelecki I wouldn't be surprised if they could do it now. But they didn't even try to fake Mars' gravity when they filmed The Martian 5 years ago.
@@paulbeardsley4095 They did, however, try to fake lunar gravity in "The first Man". And if they really wanted to make a convincing fake, they would have tried to fake the proper gravity as well.
Jan Strzelecki I’ve not seen First Man yet. Did you think it was convincing?
Great ending my check came from nasa . Priceless
Is he ashkenazi jewish decent? Amy Shira Teitel with her Vintage space videos rakes in cash, only CT's are not allowed to.
Sillyness sometimes cost the price of dying young and fast, like with NASA Director Brian Welch.
Contrary to nasa agents, APOLLO Moon denial started without Bill Kaysing, 1/4 Americains did not buy it then.
Doubts about the authenticity of the Apollo Moon landings *appeared first in December 1968 when Apollo 8 was launched.* The almost perfectly executed odyssey of Apollo 11 amazed many around the world, and some people doubted it was real.[17]
The first book on the subject ("Did man land on the Moon?") was issued in Texas *by the mathematician James J. Cranny in 1970.*
Brian D. Welch, a veteran public affairs officer for the space agency and NASA's Director of Media Services, suffered a heart attack days after a public response to accusations. He was 42.
NASA commented on some of the conspiracy theories in June 1977.[19]
But in August 1997, their Director of Media Services (1998-2000) Brian Welch (1958-2000) said in an interview with Sky TV News:
“This is thirty year old stuff... I don't understand why we should spend the time to... prove to people that we went to the Moon; in fact of matters we did go to the Moon.” - THAT'S IT FOLKS, MAN COULD NOT DO IT.
Repression is full on this video; now only pro comments are allowed in the TOP Comment section.
In thee other one threads get deleted if not Accounts. Never so much policing inside Hoax videos.
Yeah in December 1971 there were 410,000 people working on Apollo and every one of them never said a word that it was all Fake! Amazing.....
? Their shop work was fake !?? They had firsthand knowledge what went on in SPACE !? Amazing.....
no one literally no one:
conspiracy theorists: science doesnt exist
dear dear are you upset? They need your help to make up more rejections, not enough for you?
That's Theorists, Some Reality doesnt exist, all sorts of mad philosophing, some say Mankind is an 'error of Nature';
and we are just meaningless purposeless chemical driven blobs going back to eternal oblivion bliss.
Are you a sane believer in Primate origin? Happy & Proud, why you love Science Academia, so forget Those who speak of Intelligence and futur. In NASA trust.
O the existencial question... does *SCIENCE* exist or not?
Is She in Space with The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
O SCIENCE take *mercy* on us poor wretched creatures out of Nothingness, have piety on us Adolerators!
@@wildboar7473 Wow. THAT sort of rant is why people laugh at you insane, self-deluding, scared shitless of reality conspiracy theorists. You people are naïve sheep who believe whatever you're told.
Normal people: It's science.
Conspiracy theorists: CGI, fake news, hoax, liars!
That sort of rant gets rattled good boys, gets lots of attention, just got 5 letters from One courageous :)
ps: YES the Vatican has created Science, but as Her existing, being cognizant?
So they faked it on the moon to make it more realistic?
It was the only way to make the fake convincing.
@Huy Taing No, "Nasa" in Hebrew means "to lift or raise". "Nasha" means "to deceive". Look it up- the standard work is Strong's Concordances.
Not that it makes any difference. Why would NASA put their real intentions in plain sight, if they aim to deceive? It makes no sense whatsoever.
@Huy Taing No, I'm a globe Earth knower.
@Huy Taing There are many words in Hebrew that mean lie or deceive and nasa is not one of them.
The fact you believe this without checking is why you believe lots of other nonsense, it's called gullibility.
@@imagoportraits562 so to believe we are on a spinning ball that is moving through space and spinning/moving at astronomical speeds is not being gullible
Important Message:
No Astronauts got hurt in the making of this video
youre great!
I’m sure they didn’t but unfortunately over the years I’m sure some their feelings were ask Bart Sibrel he was there when Buzz smacked him! Nice👍
No, they were all killed after this video was made, so they'd keep stumm. ^___^
Additionally ... No lunar dust was disturbed during the landing either.
Yeah, those astro-nots were more than heros.
They were ... MAGICAL.
@@marshalllhiepler No dust was disturbed? There are photos of dust trails caused by the landing, as might be expected.
I first watched this 5 years ago and was reminded about it doing the dishes today . it is better every time you watch it
searched so hard just to find this video again! literally becomes better every time I watch it
"My check just came from NASA". BAHAHAHAH!!!🤣🤣🤣.
THAT WAS AWESOME!!
Thanks for the great video.
You're so right 😂
My parents are pissed because they wasted all that money on my education and I am still so stupid. Dumb idiots.
@@watkinsrory If you were stupid you would never say so. Actually all stupid ones that I ever meet think thenselves as the smartest. Conclusion : your parents did the right thing.
Too true, I'm afraid. "In plain sight" etc...
@@watkinsrory found an American.
Oh poor thing, look what politics did to you.
The thing about a fake moon mission is you still have to build and launch a gigantic expensive rocket to convince people you went, which just so happens to be the majority of the cost of an actual moon mission.
TheRedScourge but the majority of funding comes from private investors witch the amount dose not require a disclossure
@@RichardLoveless Even if that were true, it doesn't change the argument.
Scourge- Kareem will be here soon to tell you that the Saturn V rockets were balloons. I kid you not.
@@therealzilch Indeed. I've stopped reading Kareems posts
@@paulbeardsley4095 I just skim them for juicy insults. But he's been repeating himself a lot recently. He seems deflated somehow, if you know what I mean.
How did the camera even function in space what about the Allen radiation belt the surface of the moon would also be way to hot no stars snd what about the flag
Well surprise not cowed down inhouse shill manifestation yet, well after me i think they will be triggered :) It is a mystery, All-Good Nasa magic, worst then the VABs Moon surface has been classified very dangerous radiated. Was Morning but that low Sun still hits full blast in vacuum, so quick to heat rock & metal.
@@narajuna In other words, you don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
Got it.
@@Jan_Strzelecki ....rather *embarrassing* 🥴 again ignoring the master comments full of content and good english.... just addressing (2 Years!) Me!? You kind of been ranting that for a while, nothing new, but you had to specify here again..... o well thanks again for showing off your *J* mattering understanding, impressive I may say. 😯
Yawn. The usual ignorant drivel from a scientifically-illiterate conspiracy nut.
@@marksprague1280 you been yawning for some time (years) now, with so very original knowledge.... well this fine HOMOsapien cared enough bout Nuts to create /sell this 'pretty sure' long rant.
And even went more scientifically-literate with Nut Jarrah White,
A really sad loss.
This guy is awsome. I’ve never seen some one debunk so much.
A conspiracy people hater like you must not see much of 'moms basement' Debunkers. But Some can not stay away....
@@wildboar7473 I scrolled through so many comments just to see your comments everywhere and you're like the only one that seems to think that way + it feels like you keep copy pasting info from various websites, i even saw you quoted wikipedia which is not reliable because it can be edited by any one. the point I'm making right now is that no one gives that much shit about the moon landing apart from you. Are you trying to prove something to yourself by spending your whole day answering to youtube comments?! its only showing you need to constantly remind yourself of what you believe to actually believe it and it looks ridiculous. Anyways, have a good day.
Ever research Operation Fishbowl?
According to NASA, the primary materials used in the lunar module were aluminum alloy, stainless steel, titanium, nickel steel alloy, and heat-resistant glass. The melting points of these materials range between 671°F and 2750°F. However, the heat in the thermosphere - which the Apollo space craft would have to travel through in order to get to the moon - reaches temperatures of more than 3600°F. It is quite clear we don’t have materials on earth able to withstand those temperatures. Therefore, there’s no way the lunar module ever went to the moon.
Mr Awesome ua-cam.com/video/-jRMUX2-6Zc/v-deo.html 👍
Meanwhile, a real forensic film expert actually recreated "Moon landings" footage using 1960-s technology and also did full show-and-tell of that.
love the "oh my check from NASA" LOL
.....because THAT was the ONLY true part!
Instead, describe what is wrong about what he says, please...
@@WilliamBTCWallace do you REALLY ACTUALLY BELIEVE that Nixon had a live phone call (with no time delays, by the way) with an astro-NOT from (supposedly) 200,000+ miles away, while thousands of people TODAY cannot even get a cell phone signal???? It was staged in a Hollywood basement by Stanley Kuberick! WHY are no stars there? WHY are there shadows from multiple angles if the sun was the only illuminating source? WHY were there NO "lunar dust" on the landing pads? WHY were the (supposed) "moon rocks" given to the Netherlands to be analyzed determined to be FAKE? WHY do you and millions of others have cognitive dissonance? ARE YOU GETTING THE PICTURE NOW? The government has been LYIING to everyone for decades!!!! WAKE UP, sheeple!!!
Wayne Reynolds poor Sheeple, I’m glad I’m not in the loop.
The moon landings were an epic human achievement.
@@ArboristUk How's the Kool Aid taste????
Most of the more popular conspiracy theorists now admit the moon landing was real. Even the director of American Moon was caught admitting his documentary was just entertainment.
Nope, its amazing how well they plan it. You can't leave the earth. God made the earth. We are important, the moon isn't a physical object we can get to
@Andre Hello it's me again, (LOL) According to your wording of this comment, It implies we haven't been yet. Just asking.
@Andre Do you know why the Ditched the moon landings and moved on to mars ?
@Andre Between you and I, I have never heard anyone else voice this point of view.
@Andre Congress' appropriation for fiscal year 2022 increased NASA's annual budget by 3% to about $24.24 billion, short of the 7% increase the Biden administration sought. The agency's Science Mission Directorate received a 4% increase to $7.6 billion, which was itself short of the 9% boost requested.Apr 8, 2022.
For roughly four minutes of weightlessness in suborbital space, the richest man alive spent around $5.5 billion. Bezos is worth approximately $205 billion, so paying for an exclusive space flight didn't really affect his day-to-day budgeting.Jul 20, 2021
How much has Musk spent on SpaceX?
But the cost ended up being too high, and instead, Musk started a spaceflight company called Space Exploration Technologies Corp., or SpaceX, now based in the Los Angeles suburb of Hawthorne, California. He spent a third of his reported fortune, $100 million, to get SpaceX going.Apr 27, 2022
This is pretty damn wonderful.
Also, it's always interesting when you find an old video whose comments have been so consistently active and populated by regulars that it's pretty much become like an entire subreddit.
More brainstorming! Intersting indeed, bet you dont remember Me here ("for yearS"), O some Regulars "partimers" have returned and a few have taken leave... perhaps due to One insufferable incomprehensible wordsalad ignorant guy....
But the *wonderful* Filmaker (who doesnt care at all for APOLLO) is receiving many praises anymore. The Sapien intelligence and hat looks dont compensate.
I used to work in broadcast engineering back in the 80's. Everything you said about how primitive analog video was is absolutely true. I used to run those old 2" reel to reel ampex tape machines. yea some tv stations in the outback still used them. 1 hour reels if I remember correctly, no way to get bigger, slowing down the speed would fry the tape, especially back in the 60's. Tape had a shelf life of 10 minutes. Thank you for the video. Great points made here for all to see.
Yep, early 2" magnetic video was so unreliable that US Navy SONAR tapes off the submarines were sent *with* their recording unit (the unit replaced with another in the sub) to ONI to better ensure accurate playback. I've heard this anecdote now from nearly a dozen former USN sonar techs.
Yes but all your guys practical experience is meaningless to the hoax believing crowd. Something doesn't look right to them so the only explanation is it was faked.
@@mako88sb Yep. Belief in the hoax is a kind of religion for them, and the way things actually are in the real world doesn't matter.
@@therealzilch basically for them, whatever they don't understand is fake! They have no problem believing in heaven and hell but did we land on the moon? Neh that's fake!
Danstaafl, How much did NASA pay YOU? 😁
People forget that there is more audio than video. Much more. The video and/or film cache is a relatively small part of the Apollo programme - basically the TV footage shot on the moon plus the stills and the odd TV broadcast en route. It's what the doubters like to concentrate on. The audio, however, covers nine moon missions, each of which lasted a week or more. The astronauts were in pretty much constant communication with Mission Control, so (allowing for sleep periods etc) we're probably looking (at a rough guess) at 30 to 40 days' worth of audio taped material, somewhere between 720 hours and 960 hours. Now, how would you like to be the script-writer tasked with creating a radio programme lasting 720 to 960 hours? That's what you would need to fake it. Or the actors, or the director for that matter. Fortunately some of the tapes are extant so each of us is free to make a judgement about the material's authenticity. A good place to start (it's on UA-cam) is 'Apollo 13 Accident: Flight Director's Loop', all 6 hours of it . . .
James, yes, and let's not forget the lunar transcripts, which anyone can read.NASA needs to better organize the historical and scientific databases on Apollo, making it easier for the layperson or conspiracy believer, to find this information. The internets algorithm is will quickly send a conspiracy believer deeper into the rabbit hole NASA should also direct people to Kipp Teagues www.apolloarchive.com/ an excellent resource of Apollo images "The Apollo project ", and other resources, if we're going to pull people out of the rabbit hole, let's make sure they have easy access to the correct information.
Don't be STUPID!! NASA says it's 250 degrees on the surface of the moon. How the hell did they keep cool in 250 degree heat for 3 days with just battery power? So they had batteries in 1969 that lasted 3 days AND could keep your azz cool in 250 degree temps., but in 2019 your car is hot as hell in 90 degree temps. Where are those 1969 3 day batteries? There should be one standard in all cars. Dozens of kids die every year in hot cars because NASA won't share their battery technology from 1969. GTFOH!!!
If you leave your cars headlights on for ONE HOUR, your car battery will be stone cold dead, but in 1969 NASA had batteries that lasted THREE DAYS!! Bull Sh--!! Now do you see how stupid you sound? Grrrrrrr
@@muffspanker you could be the dumbest guy I've ever communicated with.. So I'll type very slowly. While it's true that the temp in sunlight on the moon is approx 250 degrees F, like on the side of Lunar Lander facing the sun... In the shade, the temp is approx minus 250 degrees F. Like on the side of Lunar Lander facing away from the sun. Inside the lander there was air circulation, as there was inside their suits. It was all worked out by people much smarter than you and doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand. Similar technology works very well here on planet earth and is used in energy efficient houses.
@@muffspanker spaceflightblunders.wordpress.com/2017/03/03/the-fuel-cell-powered-lunar-module/
Silver Zinc batteries were placed around the lander and were more than enough to provide power for the 2 day stay. Even more batteries were added for the three day missions. So as long as the astronauts didn't forget to turn off the lander's headlights, they were fine.
That's right, NASA asked Stanley Kubrick to direct the fake moon landings.
Upon taking into accountvwhat needed to be done, Stanley Kubrick decided it was easier to film on location then in a studio.
Plus why haven't we been back, simple, I think this quote from the Right Stuff answers it, "no bucks, no Buck Rogers."
.....hardly get that, how could ANYONE know what was needed with no MOON Experience? Just nasa talk, EVERYTHING; size, distance, gravity, dustyness, is mere conjecture. Now contrary to many Excusers WE is going back, yet so many Fans keep defending the won (mountain) proven Tale despite uncoming landing.
It all fell apart because of what happened to Armstrong and Buzz what they saw and Buzz is picked up when they were having trouble with radio sir these things are huge there sitting on edge of crater whatching us there's other craft hear and why was that said picked up by experts on ham radio so they had alien ships there huge he says in excited voice and what ever else happened obviously traumatized these guys then people saying they didn't go why did Buzz say that they called it the silent 2minutes
The 10FPS was non-interlaced, so interlaced 29.97FPS actually needs not three but six times as many frames if you want it to look like it was shot on a TV camera.
You are trying to educatd this... Director wonder? Jarrah White tried but the hat did not get it.
I think the biggest more obvious thing to me was the Soviet Union would have screamed it was fake if it was a hoax. They had their own monitoring stations and they undoubtedly saw stages of the landing, rockets and other maneuvers.
this is a great well made interesting video .....but there are still some doubts that even fair minded people have about NASA , the politics of the time , the fact Richard Nixon was President , the reality that NASA still to this day says we are working on how to manage the radiation of the van allen belts , the reality that if you look at still photos ( for example the boots on the astronaut decending have a very distinctive reflection more common with a second source of lighting - he dodnt rebuff that in this ) and finally in the height of the cold war nothing the Russians would have said would have been believed - their actions are more curios - having beaten the US in all other apsects of space exploration - first sputnik etc etc - they didnt put humans on the moon ? Ever ? hmmm...wonder why ??
360noscope How do you know? What if they faked it because it is impossible to ever go and they all know it but still want their people to believe in space so they can keep extracting money from them just like our government.? Think.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Actually he did talk extensively about the 2nd source of lighting theory. You might want to watch the video to get that.
I think the biggest most obvious thing to me is that the Space Shuttle cost exponentially more than the Saturn V yet it could only manage 1/6th of the payload. Then there's the black smoke coming out of an apparently solid fuel pyro rocket ...... very suspiciously looking like a (liquid) fuel rich burn. Oh and then there's the complete and utter lack of any actual evidence of 1/6th earth gravity in any Apollo EVA footage.
My Grandfather was 90 years old when this happened. He said it was a fake. He had never seen a rocket launch. I took him to Cape Canaveral to watch a launch. Before he died at 99 he told me that he believed because he had seen it take off. He wanted to believe.
Steve, You did Good!
That is awesome Steve! My granddad was 93 when the Apollo 13 mission "changed". I asked him if it was fake. He said no way. I asked him if they would make it home, he said, there are 100's of thousands of people working on it. They will come home. :Engineers are very crafty." That statement stuck with me for my entire life. (he was an power system engineer that helped set up commerical power grid in Salt Lake and San Fran). I miss that guy.
All theater to enliven ever sagging TV ratings. Who wanted to watch a lot of terribly blurry film made in the Apollo Valley in Hawaii? All made intentionally blurry to better deceive the public of NASA's chicanery. Our Deep State in full throttle action after killing the president that first envisioned a moon landing after he publicly criticized them and then profiting making billions of dollars off faking his vision. Just terrible times all wrapped around that same Deep State's Vietnam War that dragged on a damn decade killing 55,000 when bombing Hanoi which was finally done in very late 1972, would have ended that war in a few months at any time. The Deep State elitist had to reap those war machine profits just like on those bullshit moon landings faked on TV over & over six times by Nixon for bucks. Nixon stopped them after he became entangled in the Watergate Hotel burglary that caused his resignation before certain impeachment. Just bad times as now.
@@WarHog38KCS The moon landings were an inspiration that really helped a troubled world -- I was there -- so many great technologies came out of it, including those that lead to the internet and the very computer you are using to read this. If we in the same bad times now, then doing another landing (fake or not) again in 2025(?) will be an inspiration to help jump us to the next level in soceity. People need something to believe in, something that we create ourselves across all beliefs and walks of life.
What I really don't get is how you convert facts into fiction. Yes there are lot's of facts that neighsayers bring up, and EVERYTIME they just reinforce we went to the moon. Thse are facts and proofs, not just words and are repeatable everytime. But just because you SAY it's a lie, then it's a lie? I say it's the truth, so it's the truth... NO! I make mistakes, they get corrected and we move on with the tested truth.
But I support your cause, so I challenge you to this...
Why don't you test it yourself, try to prove we DID go to the moon, play devils advocate, using the best hardest facts and deepesr research you can.
Let's say you (like me) are actually being fooled into thinking we didn't go when we really did, so you set out to prove we went. If you are right and we didn't go, then your test will fail and you will be right. And if you cannot prove it, and I mean dig like you MUST prove it. Then have a math or physics person check your answers. If you fail to provide absolute proof we went, then you have a fighting change of being belived. But you got to try really really hard to provde we went if you want to lift the vail of lies...
If not, you are just another bag of air making baseless assertions on partial facts and ignorance. What a sad use of a brillant mind if you don't try.
@@scottl5000 I was aware of the moon landings as a big about grown boy. I watched very little of that blurry moon film when in comparison a person could watch crystal clear real good regular TV programming. However I did watch Armstrong descend that ladder. I did believe the moon landing then and did so until the computer age. I really actually never thought much about them. I have had my decades believing for the good of this country. I also had the battle you suggest within my psyche when I started watching the vast amount of material on the internet that questioned the validity of those moon landings. I initially thought those people questioning the government & media narrative on those moon landings & 9/11, were total crackpots. Then I diligently studied it all as you suggested. Immense radiation problems concerning the Van Allen Radiation Belts and Deep Space Heavy Particle Radiation throughout space caused by solar flares and quasars and the like. I even studied recent NASA released information where scientists & physicists fully acknowledging those deadly radiation problems concerning humans in space travel outside earth's orbit. All this while knowing the Apollo astronauts had absolutely no radiation shielding. Then I saw film where several supposed Apollo moon astronauts didn't even know the Van Allen Radiation Belts existed. I saw the somber film of those Apollo 11 astronauts at their post moon mission news conference. Somber as at mom's funeral instead of happy about just completing that supposed spectacular moon mission and crazily talking of never seeing stars the whole mission. Orbiting the moon, they should have logically seen stars. Then I saw where an airliner that was nearly 50 feet high and 147 feet in width disappeared inside a 20 foot circular hole at the Pentagon with over 150 people on board. I saw where an actual airliner crash at Camp David was first reported that same 9/11 morning and then forever ignored by the media thereafter. I saw where five Israelis with several being Mossad members set up cameras prior to the twin towers being hit and were seen celebrating as the towers exploded. They were arrested by NYC police and then released a few days later. You can believe government versions if you so wish through hell & high water. I just will not anymore. I see it all as a evil Deep State of globalist zionist billionaire elites that have this nation by the throat with the intention to destroy this country while they reap billions. Read the Georgia Guidestones.
7:18 - Aldrin remembered to bring his emotional support animal, and was reminded to make sure it was rested and bathed.
Remember: 50 years ago NASA send 12 people to moon on 7 occasion over 3 years period. Now, in 2017, they launched Artemis program and predict they need 7 years to moonlanding again. And who know if they'll succeed. I wish them best. If so, it'll be the biggest achievement in human history.
About half a century ago there was Apollo episodes on TV, 9 trips with 6 landings series, all the Preps and sites were done, 3 more near ready to go, small budget at that point, but Nasa Studios ended the series because People were not interested.
The New Scooby-Doo Movies / Moonbase 3 / The Starlost had better ratings.
ps: That's it? Easier-to-do then film faking would be Our greatest achievement? What about getting rid of pesky Viruses? Peace?
@@wildboar7473 Was World War 1, World War 2, the Cold War, and the Space Race all made in NASA studios? Because all these events are all connected. If you don't believe in history, science, math, and LOGIC, than this doesn't apply to you.
@@Cod4Wii All connected??? Dam that sound a lot like *conspiracy* talk!!! Did Nasa show footage of those?
Afraid no I dont have faith in those... creatures, Logic a little, but not that a billion people involved in Apollo Project so proof 12 disciples landed on the MOON. 6 times, Group 6, recuperated by helicopher 66, 21 days of cleansing.
NASA 666 Satan ua-cam.com/video/8dhLWg8w7dk/v-deo.html
What is the significance of 21 days in the Bible?
The Bible says that the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles is on the 21st of the *7th month,* according to the Hebrew calendar. This day was important because it also represents the end of the reign of Christ on earth that lasted 1000 years.
What Does the Number 21 Mean in the Bible and Prophetically
Who prayed for 21 days in the Bible?
Daniel Fast - 21 Days of Prayer - 'U POWER UP.
After the Apollo 8 crew had read out the Genesis creation account in orbit, Aldrin's hushed-up communion on the "Moon". Aldrin had received permission from the Presbyterian church's (the spiritual home of many astronauts).
The NASA logo has a Compass & a circular Snake on it; Free masons, Nazis, and magicians?? The compass is obviously the Masons[1], the Snake circle was adopted by the Nazi Ahnenerbe[2], member of the inner circle of the Thule (circle formed by a snake biting its tail) And the eye of horus?[3] Or the Eye of Ra: is a being in ancient Egyptian mythology that functions as a feminine counterpart to the sun god Ra and a violent force that subdues his enemies.
Now why would a "Christian" or 'none religious' (aka none supertitious /occult) government agency get so much into roman /greek mythology? (Apollo, Gemini , Mercury, Morpheus, Artemis etc.)
The first Administrator and fonder of "NASA" was Dr. T. Keith Glennan: His earlier career was as studio manager of Paramount Pictures, and Samuel Goldwyn Studios.... (member of the Chi Phi Fraternity, "Twelve Apostles", like the 12 astronauts like the 12 Olympian gods...)
Freemasons in Space:
The following is a short and incomplete list 1 of Brethren who have contributed to the exploration of outer space.
Administration
Kenneth S. Kleinknecht Manager, Apollo Program Command and Service Modules. Deputy Manager, Gemini Program. Manager, Project Mercury
Fairview Lodge No. 699 Fairview, Ohio
Clark C. McClelland ScO, Space Shuttle Fleet 958 - 1992 Lodge 301 Venus, Florida
James Edwin Webb b. October 7, 1906 Administrator, NASA
1961-1968
University Lodge No. 408 Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Astronauts
Edwin E. "Buzz" Aldrin, Jr b. January 20, 1930 Gemini XII, Apollo 11
Clear Lake Lodge No. 1417 Seabrook, Texas
Leroy Gordon Cooper, Jr. b. March 6, 1927 Mercury 9, "Faith 7", Gemini V
Carbondale Lodge No. 82 Carbondale, Colorado
Donn F. Eisele b. June 23, 1930 Apollo 7
Luthor B. Turner Lodge No. 732 Columbus Ohio
John H. Glenn, Jr. b. July 18, 1921 Mercury 6, "Friendship 7" Concord Lodge No. 688 New Concord, Ohio
Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom April 3, 1926 - January 27, 1967 Mercury 4 "Liberty Bell 7", Gemini 3, Apollo 1
Mitchell Lodge No. 228 Mitchell, Indiana
James Irwin 1930-1991 Apollo 15
Tejon Lodge No. 104 Colorado Springs, Co
Edgar D. Mitchell b. Sept. 17, 1930 Apollo 14
Artesia Lodge No. 28 Artesia, New Mexico
Walter M. Schirra, Jr. b. March 12, 1923 Mercury 8 "Sigma 7", Gemini VI, Apollo 7
Canaveral Lodge No. 339 Cocoa Beach, Florida
Thomas P. Stafford b. Sept. 17, 1930 Gemini VII, Gemini IX-A, Apollo 10, Apollo 18
Western Star Lodge No. 138 Weatherford, Oklahoma
Paul J. Weitz b. July 25, 1932 Skylab 2, Challenger (STS-6)
Lawrence Lodge No. 708 Erie, Pennsylvania
Scientists
Vannever Bush 1890-1974 computer pioneer and internet visionary
Richard C. Maclaurin Lodge, Cambridge, Massachusetts?
The story of the secret communion service only emerged after the mission. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/13/buzz-aldrin-communion-moon?
@@wildboar7473 How do you guys come up with such nonsense of the NASA logo showing an image of a snake? That's just stupid and childish really, as there is no basis whatsoever for it. I know it's easy for conspiracy theorists to just sit around and make stuff up all day long, but come on, that's ridiculous.
Excellent work! The dose of satire is well presented.
Actually all he did was prove it could be faked in a studio. He makes the assumption that it was a live broadcast when film was found of them rehearsing and screwing up the reflection of the Earth in low orbit.
@@fivefingerfullprice3403 Yes, now, but not then, as he clearly has stated. Can we get the evidence for your claim of said film? Reflection from what?
@@nihorothereal Sure, go nuts. ua-cam.com/video/mCHG6uJH5L8/v-deo.html Also if you could let me know how they had lagless radio communication in 1969 from the Earth to the Moon that would be great since we still struggle with that today.
It's comedy, not exactly satire. but great video yeah!
@@fivefingerfullprice3403 You didn't watch, did you? He indicated which steps would be required for a live broadcast of film. Even if it was VTR, same thing. But still, if you don't believe that the US put man on the moon, then you ignore evidence. Where's that film you allude to? Non-existent, of course.
The thing that strikes me again and again about Apollo deniers is how credulous they all are.
I've tried to imagine what I would be like if I were an Apollo denier. First off, I'd be like, "Wow, it was all faked, was it? Well I guess that would explain the absence of stars, the waving flag, surviving the Van Allen Belts and so on."
But I wouldn't stop there. I would want to know what really happened. I've read a lot about the official account, and the more I learn, the more it fits together. So the "true" account should fit together even better, right?
Yet nobody even tries to answer the question, "What REALLY happened?" Occasionally someone replies with, "Well, they faked it, of course!"
But when you press them, they go silent, or say something stupid.
Ask them how they faked 1/6 gravity and vacuum. Some of the answers I've received are: helium pouches, bouncy castles, falling lifts, as well as the old favourite, slo-mo and wires. Never mind that nobody has been able to replicate the effect.
One person even replied with, "No need for me to explain how they faked it..."
Ask them how come NASA brought back more than a thousand times as much rock as the USSR. They will do one of the following:
a) Ignore the question.
b) Mention the petrified wood in a Dutch museum, as if that were relevant.
c) Suggest NASA had an unmanned probe. Because speculation about a major engineering work that nobody has ever witnessed counts as evidence, right?
d) Tell you Von Braun went on a meteorite-gathering trip in Antactica, and then remind you that Von Braun was a Nazi, as if that were relevant.
Imagine, you are "in the know" about the biggest secret in history, yet you lack the curiosity to find out how it was done. You can't even agree with your fellow deniers if it was filmed in a Hollywood basement or in some unspecified part of a desert that nobody has been able to locate in the 50 years since.
If I were an Apollo denier, it would bother me that the US government were able to convince the people who MATTER.
But all you ever hear from the actual deniers (apart from childish abuse) consists of reasons to be suspicious of the official account. You NEVER hear positive evidence of an alternative account.
It's like listening to a politician telling everybody how bad his opponent is. But when someone asks, "But what do YOU have to offer?" he'll just come out with some more dirt (probably made up) about the other one.
And it's obvious why.
There is no coherent alternative account to the official one. Not even a draft one that mostly fits the facts more or less.
Excellent post Paul that goes right to the heart of the whole Apollo Hoax myth.
@@eventcone Thank you for your kind words.
I am just so bored of the endless array of piddling little "anomalies" that we get challenged to debunk for the billionth time, whereas the other side produce nothing - NOTHING - of substance.
The Moon landings happened, no doubt about it. We don't need to defend them. It's the deniers who should be defending their position.
@@paulbeardsley4095 It may be that we are too defensive - I mean unnecessarily defensive. Just a thought.
@@paulbeardsley4095 P.S. Have you ever checked out www.apollohoax.net? It's not what it sounds like. The people there are highly competent engineers, scientists etc who know Apollo happened, and they invite Hoax Believers to bring their claims to them. But they have to be prepared to defend those claims. It's a great resource.
@@eventcone "It may be that we are too defensive"
I'm not sure. I sometimes think that if we respond to every "debunk this!" post there's a danger that we give them the wrong impression that they might actually have a point. We can appear to be playing by their rules, and we shouldn't be.
I suppose NASA could have had a hundred of those hard disk recorders, but then there's the matter of making sure they're all perfectly synced up.
The best UA-cam video of this century? I am beginning to think so.
35% of Americans need to watch it before they vote in November 2020.
35%? Thought it was 20% of unbelievers, bunch of Neutrals thou. What has to do with Elections? Trump is all for a... return :)
People STILL vote? LOL ... why?
Whats the deal, trump is for a 2024 moon land, now for sure it is not happening.
Like they said in the Mitchell and Webb sketch, "Wouldn't it be easier if we just popped to the moon and faked the landing there?"
TammoKorsai There is a reason NASA doesnt train astronauts in a vacumn. It's "dangerous". But apparently no problem when out in the open vastness of space lol
Where does he talk about rocket engineering?
shillslayer deny science, you mean like anyone who uses the word shill? You woketards have turned the word shill into a badge of honor. Shill seems to mean someone who understand basic science and who doesn't believe every conspiracy video they see. Do you also believe the Earth is flat? People who call others shills and sheep usually also believe the Earth is flat.
Pete Piper no problems? Wether they really went to the moon and back they sure at least faked a bunch of problems. Take Apollo 13 for instance because they encountered major problems.
There are lots of pictures of places with lots of lights, which are sharp. As every photographer will tell you, the brightness makes it easy to get everything in focus as the depth of field is a lot broader than in a dark setting. Something you obviously neither knew nor bothered to look up when you wrote your comment. So, that is your level of expertise and research...
Him: “If you shoot 1000 ft loads...”
Me: Giggity!
Leave your fiddly bits out of this.
Celery, zinc capsules and water in large quantities will do the trick
The Russians know we would be dead. We work with them now. The argument that I hear most is the Apollo 11 put "lunar reflectors" on the moon so they had to have done it. The Soviets did the same thing in 1970 with a rover, which is what we used. If it was seriously done wed be doing it all the time and there wouldnt be so many anomalies around it. It's obviously a hoax.
@@blacksabbath1022 Why would we "be doing it all the time" now? The Apollo missions accomplished all that was really desired: to beat the Soviets and to research the Moon. Been there, done that, and it's extraordinarily more expensive than sending unmanned probes.
@@therealzilch oh so no reason to drill into the core of the moon? Perhaps their is diamonds, gold or even oil there. Why not find out?
Why not put the Space force Military base on the moon?
We have many reasons...
No need for an explanation point in the title. Not surprising, because anyone who understands photography immediately sees that moon landing deniers do not understand photography.
so you are saying this guys is an idiot? Still strange, so many explanations on Photography cause by Deniers 🤔
If you want more photographic proof we landed on the moon consider what you do not see.
- The "flapping flag" is often cited as evidence of a hoax because there's no air, hence no breeze, on the moon.
- If a breeze caused the flag to flap that would mean the landing was filmed outdoors; there's no wind in a studio.
- So, if there was a breeze strong enough to flap the flag why don't we see any blowing dust? Or anything else blowing at the same time the flag flapped?
- What if a bee or other insect flew across the scene? Or a spider climbed on the LEM? The people who edited the film might have seen it and edited it out but they could have missed it. After 50 years no hoaxer saw it?
- What if a small animal poked his head up for a frame or 2? Again, an editor could have missed it but 1000 hoaxers studying these films for 50 years wouldn't have.
To say the least, this is unbelievably unlikely.
You're forgetting that NASA's technology was at least 50 years ahead of what we know. Or maybe they had access to alien technology. Or demons. Or something. Anything, but that the Earth is a globe and NASA landed on the Moon, because that's what the Government says, and whatever the Government says is wrong. Or something.
Yeah we want dust blowing in wind (all we are...), moon stuff is super dry as the atmosphere.... heard Spacewinds rounded the rocks off. I see a mouse run around the moon videos.
The body of the mouse in the SpaceX video is clearly dwarfed by its enormous ears, leading to only one conclusion, it’s a long eared mouse. The problem here is that the long eared mouse is brown whereas as the so-called space mouse is most definitely dark gray. Perhaps more baffling is that if the video in question is said to be CGI, so why would the mouse be there in the first place?
A prank maybe, but then the ‘footage’ would have to be viewed over and over by its creator to find any errors. Then you have the rotoscoping, another person involved. And then the big boss man in charge of the ‘faking department’ would have to approve its release. I’m pretty sure the prankster would be rumbled at this point. The likely response from the boss would be,
“How are we expected to sell this if there’s a frikkin mouse in there?”
And then there’s the problem with the artists, after the prank they would need to be placed under surveillance surely? NASA must be running low on nondescript blue sedans at this point? Of course they could be ‘train crossinged’ but then you would need to hire new artists, more headaches, more blue sedans. Round and round we go......,
@@nicsandee123 . Ha ha. You're all funny, but guess what, if you take 10 seconds to think about it you'd know I'm not wrong.
And smart people only need 2 seconds not 10.
@@nicsandee123 I suspect the mouse is there for the same reason that NASA admitted that the Earth is flat in all those flight manuals: Satan made them do it, so that anyone who still believed in the Moon landings even so would have had a chance to see the truth, but rejected it, and thus rendered his soul forfeit. The Devil is very cunning.
Why did the apollo 11 post-flight media conference resemble a funeral?
Because they were tired and wanted to get home. Also it is not uncommon to be in a low mood the weeks after some life changing event.
Because the so called astronauts were actually Plutonians and Plutonians are naturally dour.
@@therealzilch Neil A.=== Alien! :D
BECAUSE::: any one of the NassHoles blowing the whistle would have resulted in their collective DEATHS !!!!
@@kareemsalessi And yet, you're still alive.
His sarcasm ("Excellent! My check came from NASA") is a wonderful touch, but I am afraid the people who most need to learn from this video are also those who don't get the sarcasm.
It also made quite a contrast to the very serious words of warning he had for us all starting at 11:08, why it is so important NOT to believe the Moon hoaxers. These are my favorite words in the whole video.
hhahahhaa I know he kills me!
***** You have failed to follow the argument. His argument is that it is the technology to FAKE the landings on film and video that did not exist. The technology to do the landings DID exist.
It is a surprising argument, but quite sound.
There is another point he could have made, though, even more convincing: look at the difference between the way scifi films, even Kubrick's sci fi, faked zero gravity, and the way the astronauts really did move in zero gravity. The two are VERY different. Only the latter looks realistic. Kubrick just make it look like they were wobbling at the knees. Star Trek just gave up on zero gravity completely, inventing the convenient fiction of artificial gravity even when the Enterprise was having power failures due to being attacked.
***** He is the film maker, not you. He says based on his expertise, that that technology did not exist. If you believe otherwise, then show it to us.
***** No, that is not what I do. You are just talking nonsense in your failed attempt at a straw-man fallacy. What he says is easily _confirmed_ with a Google search. You cannot READ if you think it is refuted with a Google search.
Besides: I have an even better proof that it could not be faked: the video of the Apollo 17 astronaut dropping a feather and hammer at the same time proves not only is he in a vacuum, it also proves he is in low gravity: the hammer took 2S to fall about 4 feet, which is impossible in Earth gravity.
Chris Hansen By now you must have seen the video, so where is your retraction?
"We seemed to have forgotten how do to it for real" lol this guy.
Yes but we have remembered how to fake it :)
I really hope that someday Buzz Aldrin watches this video so that when the narrator reaches the part where he says "I wasn't on the moon in 1969 and neither were you", Aldrin can be like OH YEAH??
Little obtuse, he is speacking to the common viewers, not nasa employees.
Most NASA employees have never been to the moon. Only 12 people have ever been.@@narajuna
😲@@MuchWhittering Tell that to all the Shills and Quora parrots.
@apolloskyfacer5842
RC 3 HOW COME NOT ONE PROFESSIONAL SPACE FLIGHT EXPERT AGREES WITH YOU ''MOON HOAXTARDS ? Were all 400,000 scientists, engineers and technicians who were involved in the Apollo Moon Program bribed or threatened into silence ? How did that world-wide cover-up work exactly ? And what happened to those who refuse to cooperate ? Were they murdered ? Were they zapped by that little flashy thingy the MIB used to stealthily reprogrammed their memories ?" xhundreds by Bot and Others
oho not passing the censorship test ? What excuse this time???
Now what happen to the Classic >>>Were all 400,000 scientists, engineers and technicians who were involved in the Apollo Moon Program bribed or threatened into silence ?" All those are apparently *knowing* on Moon...
I've never understood how anybody could come up with the (moon landings were fake) conspiracy, if they only did it once I could see people thinking that, but six times?
Exactly, even just faking it twice would be a miracle....but faking this worldwide event 6 times? Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17, and then keeping it a secret for over 50 years while fooling every scientist in the world including the Soviets? Not even a miracle can save the ridiculousness of this stupid conspiracy theory. This is not even including the 3 extra manned missions that only orbited the moon, Apollo 8, 10, and 13, and all the rocket test and test flights from Apollo 1-7, Mercury, and Gemini missions combined. If they were going to fake the moon landings, why go through all the trouble and effort building those expensive rockets, risking lives, spending lots of money, working diligently day in day out, for over a decade, only to fake it in the end, knowing one day they'll get caught eventually? AND then faking 5 more times increasing the risks of the getting caught...just complete nonsense, absolute rubbish.
Getting away with it six times just proves how big the conspiracy is. I suspect demonic involvement. Might even be a personal project of the Horned God Himself.
Scott Wallace LOL Good one, Scott! I suspect you need a lobotomy.
@@lachrymarum_
👏👏👏👍
@@therealzilch here is some beautiful "footage", a great picture for an astronauts signature
www.aulis.com/imagesfurther/15-86-11670print.jpg
Well that was a shockingly good video!
Danny Duchamp
Bigtime. I need to keep reminding myself to never judge a book by it's cover. Funny as well.
I wasn't going to bother watching this, glad i did though.
definitly, never thought about it that way actually!
except the part where he lies about how old high speed photography is. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_photography
poly math in what way did he?
This video didnt just give me an understanding of the moon hoax, but a broad understanding of how bullshit artists can easily fool people into believing things using technical jargon and fancy terms/words that they know most people dont understand (this goes way beyond conspiracy theory and applies to everything on the internet). It taught me that every bs conspiracy theory is built on what we dont know, rather than what we do.
interesting, so you never saw the Hundreds of Articles, websites, videos, books debunking the moon hoax? And those dont stoop down to using *THOSE* technical jargon and fancy terms/words ?? Only child talk you say. 🤔
So aside YOU most people dont understand, but are win over to the fringe crazy no basic science living in mom basement hoaxtards. interesting. So what is the GOV School doing? What is your reality tv box doing? Why dont they use *technical jargon and fancy terms/words* ???
"It taught me that every bs conspiracy theory is built on what we dont know, rather than what we do."
Truth.
Very nice to finally get *understanding* and finding out what you dont know..?
I be curious of what are all those *Things* so Many dont know ?? So now the "thousands times debunked" bullshit has an easy time with People?
More of 'Dumbing down' conspiracy propaganda?
WHAT! more? @@scladoffle2472 So wonderful "my dude you've left like 100 comments on this video and it's all just rambling nonsense. YOU DON'T KNOW HOW ROCKETS WORK, STOP TRYING TO TELL US HOW THEY WORK 😂😂😂" ...boy you really are attracted to that.... One wonders why such *smart* (full of science) dudes (HOMO"sapiens") care so nicely and much.... about US 😁👍 So more of the "thousands times debunked" incredible SCIENCE from the "Mountain of Proof" dear o dear I am just flabbergasted 🤯 with such irrefutable stuff! 😭
@@narajuna"Hundreds of articles"???
You mean the crap written by English Lit majors, taxi drivers, part time yoga instructors, and flat earth freaks rather than scientists and engineers?
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) launched in 2009 has sent back tons of pics and vids of the landing sites, right where NASA said they were.
How old? Thats old old news, how do YOU know Mr LRO took them there? ONE (1) pic you can identify something?
And I have doubt You can prove (or nasa) where they were taken. Nevada?
note: this Jackson is not a shill.
Sounds like the time Colin Powell claimed to have pictures of Iraq's WMDs, LOL.
@@scoobtube5746 yeah real crystal clear satellite imaging. Maybe Probes, or rocks.....
@@narajuna to see one needs only to look. Video orbiting a planet sorta rules out nevada. If we had not gone russia would have called us out. They didn't.
@@scoobtube5746 actually WMDs were moved to turkey before we went in. Saddam used them in his own people.
I have always said it would have been easier to go to the moon then to fake it, when a person adds the information in this video to the rest of what was needed for it to be a hoax and you have to conclude that it was easier to goto the moon then to hoax it.
that's an assertion without supporting evidence.
NOMAD FILMS
The supporting evidence is this video combined with all of the other evidence video pictures moon samples and the thousands of people whom witnessed and a few years they even photographed one of the landing sites to the point where you could see the trails the astronauts made what I said is not merely assertions. What I said is based on all of the current information, perhaps your reading comprehension needs improvement! I say again. When a logical person adds the information in this video, to the rest of what was needed to hoax the moon landings then a reasonable person has no choice but to conclude that it would have been easier to goto the moon, then to hoax it.!!!
This is not an assertion as you put because it is based on knowledge and facts...
NOMAD FILMS
Like what?
no mainstream scientist will admit to the hoax only because its a cultural taboo to do so. the science is in on the matter and several legit analysts have debunked every aspect of the moon landing hoax. furthermore, China recently sent a probe to the moon to the very same location that the USA ostensibly landed and there was absolutely no evidence of the landing. they also discovered that the surface of the moon is not at all the same color as depicted in the NASA photos. the moon is a copper brown color, not gray as depicted by NASA. the surface is also rough, not smooth as depicted in the NASA (faked) photos.
NOMAD FILMS
We want to understand why it comforts you to believe as you do.
Very convincing. People who aren't 70 like me don't recall how bulky and primitive tech was years ago. I used to program a huge disk based IBM 1130 with a stack of punch cards.
I ran my first programs on the same machine using punched cards in Los Alamitos, Ca
I never programmed with punched cards, but I did program with switches on an Altair 8800.
Nice try apologist, save the bull shit for someone else.
Speaking of saving Mr Marco. Why don’t you spare us from your singular and devastating repartee
@@nicsandee123 Don't rain on his parade. I think he's cute.
If the moon landing was so much easier to fake than to actually go there...then how come no movie studios with high budgets that recreate the moon landings for a scene, or is the focus of the film, can't seem to get it right....in the late 2010's... People can nitpick the Apollo footage all they want, but you can't deny the fact, faking ANYTHING and trying to pose it as real is NOT easy, sometimes even impossible.
The better point to make, if it was easy back then... why hasn't anyone attempted to recreate the Apollo 11 moon landings in a studio? Because if they did, it would ruin their point, and realize that their wrong.
Exactly.
If it was so easy to fake in a studio, they would have had 20 seasons and a season finale with a Walmart and Amazon delivery on the moon by now.
Get what right???????? how come nasa studios filming is the right real deal? YOU have done this easier to do trip?
What high budget? Do the own land in deserts? Bombed the hell out of it to create their moon landscapes?
Not easy if dealing with people familiar with facts, easy with those ignorant. Guess you dont have children.
If you let go of Mighty Pythons and reality shows you will witness fiction movies that are believable and surpass Reality.
Now you are just pouting, who where when did you see it was easy???? Talking about the *USA GOV* not Collins studios !
Tell us rational man what resources is "anyone" supposed to have??? You are nitpicking rationals.
@@wildboar7473 _Get what right?_
The look and behaviour of the lunar dust, the movement of the astronauts, the lighting, the 360º sets, and the long, uninterrupted takes.
Some people just can’t accept men walked on the moon but the proof is in the footage. Also the supposed wire rigging would have to be superbly designed in order to get those movements so measured.
Excellent video. We must use our knowledge for rational purposes and stay vigilant on the real conspiracies that are occurring now.
what real conspiracies?
@@narajuna How minimum wage hasn't changed since 2009, how healthcare and college tuition is a ripoff, endless wars, etc...
@@dougdig ....those are Conspiracies? And require Vigilance? Wars yes kind of on excuses, nothing new, nope not clear watchlist right now.
Not One of these MSers wish to specify what NASA Owners are doing against its Citizens, aside a too popular "Gov lies", not ONE Conspiracy is given any value, Watergate was a close call with lucky Paper backing.
@@narajuna You should watch the end of the video when the film maker says the government would rather have you questioning the moon landing then actual conspiracies.
Yeah yeah I hear the HOMO"sapien" @@shigshug8581 not sure about *that* as continual deceiving is base on their old Con, to which they wish not to lose at all. AGAIN "actual conspiracies" vagueness, I AM ASKING YOU SMART SANE SCIENCE GUYS FOR *>>>>ONE(1)
Has anyone ever really seen anyone on the moon?
@TwentyEighthParallel Also, Pete Conrad-Alan Bean, Alan Shepard-Edgar Mitchell, David Scott-James Irwin, John Young-Charles Duke, Gene Cernan-Harrison Schmitt.
TwentyEighthParallel ha ha - I don’t have them memorized (but do know a number of them - incl of course some of the command module pilots). :-)
I saw General Zod there.
Pretty sure the astronauts saw each other on the moon. Checkmate.
@@howardbaxter2514 pretty sure is not definitely , even your subconscious being has doubt. I also like chess, is this is when you flip over the board and walk away cursing
He's absolutely right. I was nine years old and just glued to the television, but it was BORING outside of 20 minutes or so. Not much chatter, just Armstrong and Aldrin doing some bounding around. Setting up experiments is not very interesting. As a kid, the excitement was there for the achievement, but the actual business of collecting samples, setting up reflectors and all that other stuff was not exactly riveting stuff.
Nice touch with the NASA check at the end... hilarious.
What you watched as a nine year old was footage taken from someone filming a screen in the NASA mission control. The feed was never direct from the moon. It was second hand film (the feed went to NASA with broadcasters filming the screen to broadcast to the public). This was to disguise the fact they were filming it in a studio. I never used to believe the conspiracy either till I grew-up, woke-up and realised it was all bullshit. They were all freemasons who were in on it. Why do you think we have never been back? We should have had moon-bases decades ago. It's incredible people still believe everything they're told.
@@khemikora Have you actually watched the video and seen how these theories of yours were debunked?
@felix mendez The fact is, there is no claim that has ever been made that hasn't already been debunked.
Just because you're too ignorant, uneducated, and ill-informed to know that, doesn't mean it is so.
Every claim ever made in the last 50+ years has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. Most of them long before you ever heard of them.
Science is not magic.
They landed.
Six times.
Q.E.D.
@felix mendez As soon as you can provide some valid, factual, independently-verifiable, documented, scientifically-accurate, legitimate, mathematically-sound evidence to back up your claim, you might be on to something. Until then, we're going to have to watch you flounder around coming up with these lame attempts at ad hominem insults.
There is no claim you can make that hasn't already been debunked before you ever heard of it.
I'll wait for you to come up with something, but it's a near-certainty that I've already debunked it somewhere.
They landed.
Six times.
Deal with it.
@felix mendez If the only claim you're making is that the "technology was destroyed" then you're even more ignorant, uneducated, and ill-informed than I originally thought.
You're saying that since the tooling to build B-17 bombers from 1942 was destroyed after the war, that it is impossible to build one today? Are you really that ignorant?
To confirm, it is your position that obsolete, outdated, surplus, and unnecessary equipment for a program that is no longer active, should have been maintained in operational condition, just to prove to you that the program existed? Seriously? How vain and arrogant of you.
Of course, I wouldn't expect you to accept any facts, since you clearly don't know that most of the documentation of the program, (over 20,000 box-feet of documents) is in the Ellenwood, Ga. National Archival Storage Facility. There are another 150,000+ box-feet of documents spread among the other National Archives Storage Facilities, and tens of millions of other ancillary pages of prints, film, memos, etc. that are in other storage archives around the country.
Those are hard documents. First-level sources that outweigh, override, and completely refute any claim you might make. And if you try to say that they're fake, then you have to prove they're fake. Your say-so isn't enough.
To inform you, so that you'll be less ignorant than you are, only about 3% of the documentation of the program has ever been scanned and released on the Internet. That includes the 170,000 + box-feet of documents that you didn't even know existed, because they've never been scanned for the Internet.
The fact that you didn't know they exist and are stored in archives across the country, doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means that you are ignorant of their existence.
For the record, a "box-foot" is the amount of documents it takes to fill up a box that is 1 foot (12 inches) deep.
According to International Paper, 500 sheets of standard 8½ x 14 in (216 x 356 mm) Legal size, 75 g/m sq, sheet of paper has a measured thickness of 51.5 mm, or about 2.027 inches.
Multiply 500 x 6 (because 500 sheets is roughly 2 inches, and 2 x 6 = 12) and you get 3000.
Three thousand sheets of paper is roughly one box-foot.
There are 60 million sheets of Apollo documentation stored at Ellenwood alone. And another 450 million sheets in storage around the country.
To verify this, all you have to do is, contact the National Archives, ask if they have any Apollo documentation, and ask how you can personally see it. You can contact any one of the other Archives Storage Facilities, the Library of Congress, or similar archival institutions, and see for yourself. That would require intellectual honesty on your part, and you have demonstrated that you have none.
Who knows, you might actually learn something.
But since you're so sure, why don't you get the New York Times, Washington Post, or some other big newspaper to do an article on this fakery for you? I'm sure you can convince them of it.
Before you do that, however...
You still haven't made a legitimate claim. You've provided no evidence, no facts, no documentation, and no proof of your claim.
In other words, you fail.
They landed.
Six times.
Deal with it.
Q.E.D.
.
UA-cam has been recommending this video to me since about the time S.G. Collins made it. I've watched it probably a dozen times. I'll probably watch it a dozen more, because each time I do, I enjoy it as much as the time before.
Have you seen his responces to Jarrah White rebutal on his film technology claims?
Jarrah White says it was possible :)
RE: moon hoax not ua-cam.com/video/-3zhZqiSe5c/v-deo.html&feature=emb_logo 1:25 2:33
False Frame-rates. ua-cam.com/video/TCM76SV_dNg/v-deo.html&feature=emb_logo
Lots of stirring goes on this shit : ua-cam.com/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/v-deo.html
Have you seen Collins' response to Jarrah White?
ua-cam.com/video/-TelJ75pzP4/v-deo.html
yes that is the one, see how the sapien man takes time on less important issues with a just a Hom_man who has sold his soul.... Litteraly craved for Jarrah's atttention for more, contrary to the more sensible Apolloists who dont find time to waste on million of times debunk's, shit that would be *creepy!*
Note: My "posts do more damage to the "truthseekers'" cause than those of any Apollo Defender."
but still seem to agitate those who are qualified..... :)
@@wildboar7473 SAPIEN LIVES MATTER!!
Half a day and not inputs on the stupid enjoyment sharring, as always lame Comment get promoted to TOP section, I dump my "worthless Jarrah" bit for the rare who dont know much about Film possibilities...., hour latter a man who has lost time and found a life thous becoming part-time player serves more Collins :)
So what does the gentleman devoid of *contempt* (aside prejudice) have to add to all his Science & Proof?
Apparently its is an "aweful episode of his life" and he fears not to be able to move on... but still as many Sane he addresses minor points. 2:25... incomplete, has to talk to other older Experts, second hand.., wonder if his USA GOV "WE" having the Technology to go to the MOON is more complete???
Continuous broadcast.., he read somewhere (no wonder he is "brillant"), then the... dude drops a rubbber hammer for timing.., we Hoaxters reject the Greatest Mankind leap but dont doubt the real hammer? On that shity granny footage you can tell if its steel or foam? I can not but know Some who *know...* :)
So the man who doesnt care /against this non-important Conspiracy (blinding from *real* ones)(for Crazies or the Sane that oppose us?) had not given ALL THE DETAILS previously, also know Some who conclude from that: cheating Crooks :)
Another reason why Stanley Kubrick wouldn't have faked the moonlanding is because he wouldn't have allowed Neil Armstrong to mess up his line. :D He would've had him going back up the ladder and say it again a hundred times before it was juuuust right!
Well, yes but’s let’s not forget the good ol’ flag. I doubt Kubrick would have missed that, and the editor Ray Lovejoy (2001) would definitely would not have missed it. The scene would have definitely been reshot. Although there is one explanation that fits but strangely ignored by hoaxers. If the ‘fake landings’ were shot at Shepperton studios in the UK then the tea lady bringing refreshments would be a problem, ask James Cameron. During the shooting of ‘Aliens’ those big studio doors would open, the crew would just drop everything, turn into a mob and grab whatever food they could off that trolley the lady was pushing. The studio doors would be open during this melee. An errant breeze may have snuck in during that time.
I think Stanley would have insisted on a better screenplay. I mean, yes, I know some of Stanley's movies were slow-paced with boring dialogue (Barry Lyndon anyone?) but honestly - there's no way he would have settled for all that interminable technobabble. I mean there's hours of that stuff!
I also think the computer would have been a lot more menacing. 1201 alarm? Pffft!
Critics on Superhero Neil Armstrong...line? What is(n't) "just right"? Maybe it was just right for the situation and circonstances, was supposed to be at his best at that point, in front of Millions of Viewers, the camera shy man?
Maybe HE make him do just that, supposing that it was him in the suit....
Guess an Other Media food feed guy that prefers nice fakery to the truth.
On July 20, 1969, an estimated 650 million people watched in suspense as Neil Armstrong descended a ladder towards the surface of the Moon.
As he took his first steps, he uttered words that would be written into history books for generations to come: "That's one small step for man. One giant leap for mankind."
Or at least that's how the media reported his words.
But Armstrong insisted that he actually said, "That's one small step for a man." In fact, in the official transcript of the Moon landing mission, NASA transcribes the quote as "that's one small step for (a) man."
1:18 Nascissist's ruse of 'correcting grammer when you dont have too (YT comments) strategy.'
They always pretend to know, bluffing and when revealed they commonly claim "not literal or just to trigger" an answer.
10 Things Narcissists do to Appear Smarter than They Really Are (they know who they are)
ua-cam.com/video/OMkrosLHIEs/v-deo.html
>>> @eventcone ...That all kind of funny, giving such a shit to thee after over a year :) of "Boring and wrong bullshit" and yadida dida da! :) :) (well more close to 2 years with 40 critics to ME + his usual sweet pals qualifying over & over...)
eventcone
3 weeks ago
@Wild Boar Oh you poor dear! Why so sensitive?
...No, I have criticised you for your lousy grammar, indeed at times a total absence of grammatical construction in your comments, which makes them meaningless - a veritable salad of words thrown at the screen!
This is a an example: "That all kind of funny, giving such a shit to thee after over a year :) of Boring and wrong bullshit and yadida dida da! :) :)"
... *Your* full time UA-cam posting results in so much stuff being posted... (English speaker...)
The hilarious irony in all of this is that, whilst you yourself clearly have no idea how to spot moonlanding fakery, you deign to argue with the very people equipped to do so.
(HA HA HA!)
- his first on Someone's Comment directed at me... followed by 4 more....? Hilarious or irony state?
- apparently I am the only One with no expêrience qualifications.. to judge MOON conditons... not clear wich CT Nasa Unbelievers have that... but the very people who are full /part time at CT "bullshit" have such "equipment"? NASA videos?
@@wildboar7473 I noticed my username mentioned twice in your post above. Unfortunately I could not understand a single sentence in your entire posts (other than those I had written for you).
Why do you do this? Are you becoming obsessed with me?
Loved this video. This man knows his stuff and has a black belt in sarcasm. Love it
...but the taxes we continue to pay to NASA are real.
@@happystance9able nasa doesn't make money they spend it.....
@@happystance9able So are the taxes that pay for drones trikes in Waziristan. Sure some Al Qaeda guys get it in the neck but so do women and kids...yet u have no problem with that it seems
@@happystance9able How about the billions the Military spends? I don't hear anyone complaining about that. Policing the world? And their product is death.
@@happystance9able Socialists...really they(Stalin and Hitler) might have said that but tinpot dictators would be more accurate. Exterminating large numbers of people is not part of socialism.
Has there ever been a truly socialist country on this planet...no is the short answer.
Socialism- a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Ring any bells? I can't hear any. Socialism is a dream of the far left and will never be realized.
“I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond - the problem is that we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to, but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again.” - Don Pettit
do de
"Joel Harris lol do you think that the ppl will believe the bullshit that you're saying?"
Why not ? Same are stupid enough to believe in talking snakes and virgin birth...
shillslayer
"Joel Harris guys Joel is one of many fake accounts made by a paedophile"
You mean like your gurus Eric Dubay and Phuket World... why do you beleive they moved to Thailand ?....
do de
"Joel Harris yeah yeah crazy keep fooling yourself about the fake ball😁"
Keep fooling yourself by believing your father is not also your mother's one...
If I were to take your modern computer and I decide to pull it apart and put in a Pentium Pro processor in it, how well do you think my efforts will work out? Not at all, because your modern computer's architecture won't support it. Not without some serious modifications that are going to be mostly trial and error.
Could I build a computer with a Pentium Pro processor? To be real, I don't think I could. I could build you a superior quad core computer. That's easy! I could build you a duel core computer. Piece of cake. But I couldn't build a Pentium Pro. Why?
First, I have to actually find a Pentium Pro processor that actually works. Then comes the issue of finding a motherboard that will support it. Then you have the issue of the motherboard not supporting new technology, so I would have to find a hard drive, fans, power source and RAM cards that will fit in that motherboard's sockets. I hope you don't plan on doing much with it, because those graphics and sound cards? Those aren't there either. That's not even getting into the OS system yet. Hope some Hipster has a Windows 5 disk lying around somewhere otherwise I'll have to build my own OS system from scratch! Lenux people will probably laugh in my face if I ask them...
So when coming to a Pentium Pro computer, you could say we lost the technology to build one, because, well, we did. Just because we know how it was built, doesn't mean we know how to build one.
The Apollo technology is even harder than a Pentium Pro computer. Because as computers upgraded, at least most of their basic architecture stayed consistent. Despite not going to the moon, technology for space travel didn't just sit still. We don't have space craft that's going to support the old Apollo computers and they don't know how to make it compatible. So it's gone. It's destroyed.
Money would not be a problem the black buget has an unlimited suppyl---they say they have put a rover on mars but why not the moon with some nice film of the area and nice film of the moon rover and landing area???
I've seen your video at least a dozen times, and it's one of the few great works I value as much as the "Last Whole Earth Catalog" and Abbie Hoffman's "Steal This Book" ❤️❤️
You're in exalted company.
😉
You have not yet realised He isnt there? He gaveup /sold this masterpiece long time ago, doesnt care about any of it.
Not on his Account, but his reply to Jarrah White was still. I contacted him :) This is a *distraction* to the more important....
12:00. THANK YOU!! God it pisses me off people never realize this. They're willing to put so much effort into "disproving" something which ultimately doesn't really matter, meanwhile ignoring the actual horrors taking place
Why do you need a fringe minority to acknowledge actual horrors?
Who are doing those? Who is "they"?
Well my openletter to Jacob doesnt produce anything....? So strange to need crazies with no basic science to effort on gov horrors, Vietnam was not ignored, covid wasnt, even end of the world Global Warming wasnt.
This Dude didnt mention 1 horror, nor do all the other Sanes.
As usual the truth is Apollo Witness as Gov fans avoid rocking the boat with controversial realities.
Sri Lanka riots & worldwide protests: It'll get to a point where it cannot be ignored' | Neil Oliver
'It's being completely overlooked by the mainstream media but it will get to a point where this cannot be ignored.'
ua-cam.com/video/XKuqSVv3i0c/v-deo.html
The space race did not take place in a vacuum, (or did it) People were employed from ALL spheres of society, from pencil makers to materials used to construct the space vehicles. Factories and steel mills got lucrative contracts, whole towns and cities sprang up almost overnight and spin off businesses from grocers to hospitals and related services opened. People earned their money and they spent their money, creating a stronger economy.
Today we have a society that want government to circumvent that system and just 'give' us the money because they see the large budgets used as money wasted, instead of seeing the value it brought to the economy.
The other spin off of the space race is the fact that we are reliant on the satellites for everything from weather predictions to operating our 'smart' phone. None of which would have happened if it wasn't for 'wasting' money on space exploration.
It is short sighted to think that it was a gross waste of time and money. Perhaps if people were more occupied with what was important in life like God, family and income, they would be less likely to be sitting in some frozen trench fighting an enemy invading their homeland.
"Excellent, my check came from NASA" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That was great... XD
Great video.
@felix mendez : yes, I just got my cheque too!
it might be true though
@@3ossomok588 : yes, I got my cheque.
Absolutely!
A photograph was taken by the Apollo 15 astronauts in 1971. There can be no dispute it was taken at the time as it would have been available soon after the crew's return. Much more recently the Japanese sent up a lunar orbiter which mapped the surface of the moon in 3D. This was then used to recreate the view from the point at which the Apollo 15 shot was taken. The topography was identical. There is no way NASA or anyone else could have created the exactly correct moonscape in the background of the Apollo 15 shot in 1971.
www.ianridpath.com/moon/moon17a.htm
Don't you know the US government had super advanced technology that no one knew about. So instead of using that to just go to the moon they faked it and got hundreds of thousands of people to swear to perfect secrecy including members of enemy governments.
Don't you Apollogists ever get sick of using asshole comments to try and prove your point?
Read a fucking science book and maybe you'll see the light.
slayedshiller
The apollo photography is all genuine! Established physical facts ALL prove it:
1) Light CAN be diffused on the Moon and is. Lunar "soil" - called "regolith" - consists largely of microscopic volcanic glass spheres, which exhibit "retroreflection". This is the phenomenon in which sunlight is reflected back approximately in the direction from which it came. So then, an object in shadow on the lunar surface is softly and diffusely lit by the surface down sun of it.
But that is not the only effect of retroreflection. Any view cross-sun will exhibit a darker tone up-sun and a lighter tone looking down-sun because the retroreflected sunlight is away from a viewer looking up-sun, and toward the same viewer looking down-sun.
The Apollo photos ARE NOT "all the apollo photos are perfectly, evenly exposed "
Have you ever looked at Apollo photos in you life?
Try this one:
(remove 1 space)
tinyurl. com/y82o8may
2) Then you say;
" tack sharp infinity focus on a camera is not just a matter of pointing and clicking, you have to set the appropriate apertures then reference the lower third of the frame to achieve perfect focus. "
Have you ever used a camera in your life?
Shooting a landscape with a wide-angle lens set to a at high f/stop, if the nearest object of interest is more than a few feet away, all you need to do is set the focus ring's minimum hash mark to the object's distance, and everything further out WILL be in sharp focus.
For that reason, Apollo panoramas would be simplicity itself: set the focus ring so that the infinity mark is on the far depth of field hash mark, and further adjustment would be unnecessary, as everything from a few feet out to infinity would be in focus at the f/stops used..
3) Finally, you say:
' the hasselblad also had no sheilding from the harsh conditions without an atmosphere and van allen belts to deflect all the solar radiation. '
Yes it did:
The camera was coated with a special heat-reflecting paint;
(remove space)
sterileeye. com/2009/07/23/the-apollo-11-hasselblad-cameras/
But the cameras DID NOT NEED radiation shielding because the only radiation exposure on the Moon was the 0.5 millirem/ hr GCR.
And the cameras were in the heavily shielded Command Module for the brief skirting of the VAB's, so were not exposed to significant radiation there.
It makes no sense to talk about " the 100 year solar flare spike between 70 and 72 " because no Apollo missions flew during this event.
And it makes no sense to talk about gamma radiation, as gamma output from the Sun in normal conditions - as when Apollo missions flew - is essentially zero.
tinyurl. com/y9gzts9u
No, sorry friend, your posted no "facts", at least none that mean what you think they mean.
Your arguments are garbage, plain and simple.
slayedshiller
Gets it all wrong again.
No idiot, it you who play MY game without knowing it:
You begin by showing how illogical, egotistical and wackily unscientific Moon Hoaxers are.
i post links for people who are trying to decide about Moon Hoax claims, and want to know more.
So by dealing with you, I kill two birds with one stone, and only need to do half the work:
You kill-off the Moon Hoax by being yourself, acting like a vulgar idiot who cannot think logically.
I provide valid information that is also RELEVANT to the question at hand - something you do not know how to do.
There are two kinds of idiots in the world:
Plain old idiots, and then YOUR kind: the USEFUL idiot.
So by all means DO post and post away to your hearts content.
idiot.
slayedshiller
Then you have nothing to look forward to except a continuation of the unbroken stream of disappointments your tiny brain has so far earned you.
Genuinely fun watch. This dude seems cool. Cheers, y'all.
😄Yes fun alright, he is cool, should see him with a dress.... happy you like his Films🤩
Sensationalism. Proving with not enough film tech?! The tech in this video is MUCH BETTER than the tech in most moon disbelievers. He keeps saying not enough tech but slow motion?
The funniest part is...
YOU BUY IT YOU PRAISE IT OMG!!!
Apparently his superSapien did it, HE made the hoax impossible (dam Jarrah White did not agree naturally), SlowMotion is much bigger challenge than just walking on the Moon. So insignificant no Others have tried.
? WE mom basement hoax Heretics do have the best Brainwashing Tech that surpass School & Hollywood.
@@narajuna lol!
I was a teenage Radio Amateur in 1969. Not one one hoaxer has been able to explain why, in the UK, i was only able to intercept the audio broadcast back channel at 2230 MHz with the directional dish aerial pointing at the moon......and dont even bother suggesting it was reflected ,at that frequency, with that technology, and with the inverse square law the signal would have needed a disc ten times bigger than Jodrell bank to hear it.
Nor did one hoaxer know you’re in fact telling the truth.. just sayin’.
A repeater was placed on the prior lunar surveyor missions that were already on the surface of the moon, you were listening to a hoax. Get over yourself, you actually think that you cannot be fooled
@Cliff Walden every single piece of evidence presented, these idiots will create some elaborate conspiracy to deny it. It shows that constantly cutting education is creating some really stupid people
@@brianmenendez so NASA was able to land a radio on the Moon? Maybe you should tell this to all the Moon landing deniers who claim that space doesn't exist. When you get your stories straight then come back.
Wait, let me ask you to clarify. You did get the back channel? We did too and more -- We got full S-Band (2 to 4 Ghz) just fine in Seattle, so did the Italians, but we used high-end systems at Boeing -- UHF crosses over to SHF at 3GHz. You were at 2.2Ghz (UHF). Did you have the modulator or whatever (I'm not a radio guy) for SHF? Most amateur's I know didn't. But again I'm asking (not doubting) because I'm not a radio guy. Analog is a lost art.
This clip is dripping with sarcasm!!! 🤣 😂 😅. Hey Maybe they shot on location? Ever thought of that?
That proves Kubrick was behind it. Perfectionist that he was, he would have insisted on shooting on location.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
@@therealzilch yea they went to the moon to shoot it.
It's also littered with pictures and sound.
@@therealzilch "That proves Kubrick was behind it. Perfectionist that he was, he would have insisted on shooting on location." The same Stanely Kubrick who was such a perfectionist, he shot Full Metal Jacket, a film set in Vietnam, in London?👍
Informative and great insight. Thoroughly enjoyable video! Great memories from the time . And it seems I may be lucky enough to see more landings and exploration in a few years time! (Hurricanes permitting!) . 😮😃
😁
🤐
🤬 + edit: ua-cam.com/video/zE6OIPlQ3-8/v-deo.html 3:05 the impossible turns quickly to "blood unlikely).
more intelligent Photographer with substance >>> ua-cam.com/video/sDggkBUSZl8/v-deo.html
Moon Photographs - *Expert Analysis* By A World Famous Photographer
@@narajuna We really are in trouble, as a species, when people refuse to believe in things which they couldn't actually do themselves. I'm sorry, Mr Open, but I'm tired . Please give it a rest. If you want to hang out publicly, on YT and be strange, then please feel free, but not with me. I'm sure your basement is lovely, and mom cooks a mighty pie, but some of us have to get up for work every morning and greet the real world. When you have a great idea of your own, and not the usual torrent of arse water I read from you, let me know. Go and make a difference somewhere. Enjoy your pie! ua-cam.com/video/FF2OxMptdPg/v-deo.html
@@narajuna Eat the pie! Bye bye!
You are assuming it was live.
She was (rip) assuming a lot, like rocketing to Moon, even on Earth hard to say if LIVE but in USA Gov & Corporates we trust!
No. He isn't.
Dude, this was awesome! As a photographer for over 40 years the crazy hoaxers have made ME crazy. The stuff you say about lighting is SO obvious but I LOVE the deeper dive into the tech. Fabulous!
The shadows !
How did they went through the Van Halen belt ?! Asshole !!!
@DrBarrymoreDude The answer of another asshole who can not argue!
What a Knob you are.@@JoeJohn777
You really think they would have gotten the lighting wrong for such a project? XD
Many hoaxers are just stupid religious people that also believe in flat Earth...others are intelligent individuals that don't have the blind trust of the US most others have...
Hey whatever opinions we might have on wether the landing pads should be filled with moon dust or not. Happy new year😎👍
Same to you, Nick, and many more!
Considering this, anyone's opinion on that matter is worthless: ua-cam.com/video/QvxBqYRfHdo/v-deo.html
Good man John, bookmarked for future use👍
@@johnroby6524 I'll second Nick, good stuff.
No question their show be much more dust on that dead blasted ball, even Earht gets tons daily.
Watch "American moon" documentary if you really want to take a closer look at this event.
PS: to the NASA fanboys, bots & trolls below, I'm sorry to disappoint but I do not waste my time arguing with people who constantly use logical fallacies (mostly ad-hominems and strawmans) to defend fairy tales.
Yeah an other better FILM maker than collins, this dude just rants about cherrypicked tools used by everyone.
Much better take than those Geologists supposebly experienced in Moon rocks :) But apparently Moon like Earth has shadows going in every way :)
@TwentyEighthParallel I wouldn't go so far as say that the fashion photographers consulted in _American Moon_ were "experts in terrestrial photography", since they weren't aware that parallel light is subject to perspective.
An other show of knowledge expertise by full of science Apollo faithers >>>
#1 "answer their questions that you've probably heard from everyone around you 100 times." Commenter.
#2 Roger Ederle
Good comment. 👍
After they passed quarantine from the Apollo 11 mission, Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins went on a three week world tour. They gave dozens of public talks about their mission. By the time they got to this conference they must have been completely bored with the topic.
How ridiculous to confuse boredom with deception. As you have stated, the trolls here see and hear what they want to, not just confirmation bias but willful ignorance.
BTW Open Wide lives under many bridges. This is one of his favorites.
Wide Open
Sweet, more litteral facts :) Nice to share those, more be nice 👍👍👍
"You go on a 38-day *(5 weeks)* around the world goodwill tour, visiting 29 cities in 24 countries" - nasa
*"Augsut 12th 1969* - The Apollo 11 crew conduct their first public press conference since returning to earth on July 24th." : discription of lunarmodule5 video of this conference
- Their confirmation bias is showing 👁 They dont even know its the FIRST one, under the bridge... who :)
- we at least agree that deceiving is necessary to make their excuses point repeated by hundreds of Honests.
@@narajuna you're welcome. Was it 5 weeks? I'll accept your number. More to my supposition that Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins were probably bored of the topic by the time of their famous "Liars" conference. Uncomfortable body posture, thinking before talking, sticking to--what must have been for them--a very dry subject matter by the time of this conference, does not indicate deception or out right lying. No "pro-lying" commenter on that channel wants to detail ANY so called lie and provide any proof it was a lie. They always dodge that challenge. I wonder why. All they offer is the astronaut's body language and facial expressions "clearly" show they are lying. Sorry, it's only "clear" to those that maintain this ridiculous fallacy.
BTW have you ever done the parallel shadows experiment? Here on Earth I mean. No need to spend billions of dollars to do it on the moon, because we can all agree that optical physics works the same on Earth as the moon. Right?
Let me outline it for you. On a bright sunny day, take two poles that are straight up and down, perpendicular to the ground, about 4 meters apart. Now place yourself so the poles line up visually, their shadows off to one side. Notice how these shadows are parallel. Extend the forefingers of each hands so they visually cover the shadows--one forefinger for each pole shadow. Notice how your forefingers are parallel. Now look at the shadows cast by your forefingers. They are also parallel.
Now change your position so that you form a triangle with the poles, and the sun is behind you. Look at the shadows cast by the poles. They are no longer parallel. They converge from the base of the poles toward the visual infinity point. Now as before, cover the pole's shadows with your extended forefingers. Notice they are no longer parallel. Look at the shadows cast by your forefingers. Notice they also are no longer parallel. They also appear to converge. Nothing unusual here. No nefarious manipulation of photo effects. It's jus a matter of perspective.
@@narajuna I just watched the Apollo 11 post mission conference again. I have to revise my estimation quite a bit. Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins were not as bored as I seem to recall form my first viewing. In fact, I would say they were fully engaged throughout the conference. Indeed, I am impressed with the level of technical explanations of various phases of the mission. Kudos to them!
So Kubrick films 2001 a Space Odyssey with a scene on the moon where astronauts walk in a straight line and do nothing else, but for NASA, he is able to produce hours and hours of film of astronauts jumping, hopping, falling, getting up, driving a buggy, doing experiments all with 1/6 gravity and all without the use of CGI? NASA was keeping some serious movie technology hidden in 1969 and kept it secret until 1986 when the first movie using CGI to remove wires was developed. LMFAO.
Kubrick learned from "2001" and demanded that the moon scenes be filmed on location after that.
What amused me most about 2001 was the conference room scene where Dr Heywood Floyd addresses various professional people at the Moonbase. Everyone moves EXACTLY as they would on Earth. The photographer in particular makes a very sudden change of direction which of course would be impossible in lunar gravity. I always wondered if Kubrick & Trumbull thought that no one would notice this stuff because the scene in question was set 'inside a room' on the Moon, rather than obviously 'outside' on the Moon's surface. Probably they were right - because I have only known one other person to mention it. :-)
Hoax believers certainly never mention this stuff - quite the reverse because they always hold up "2001" as evidence that the technology and techniques existed for faking the Apollo moonlandings - yet they expect others to believe that they have the wherewithall to have penetrated moonlanding fakery by NASA! Hilarious!
@@eventcone funny you should mention Doug Trumbull, because contrary to what space deniers may think, someone actually had to drive all the special effects in such a movie, and that person isn't the director. We know that Trumbull was busy with his own directorial debut with _Silent Running_ so who filled those shoes? If "the government" was in such dire straits, why couldn't they coerce an American do work on the project? This is where half-baked ideas go to die....
@@StringerNews1 Indeed. And why risk asking non-American who could not be persuaded by ideals of "national interest" or patriotism.
The Kubrick thing always cracks me up! As you say, it seems to be based entirely on the fact that he made 2001. But if we take off our rose tinted glasses and watch 2001 - and actually OBSERVE it- the effects are terrible! For the main part they amount to photographs cut out and pasted onto glass. And his depiction of the moon is primarily a 2d matte painting, that looks NOTHING like the moon in NASA's footage.
Can you imagine the speed that disk would be running if it was 95 times bigger! Wow, the technical obstacles alone make the idea laughable!
Glad you mentioned the bank bailouts. Those who criticise space exploration are usually unaware that the bailouts cost more than NASA has in its entire history!
And your argument consists entirely of a crass obscenity. that's the kind of incisive reasoning that it the mark of the true tinfoil-hatter; well done madam!
Evil Twin
And don't forget, the video only deals with ways to record and store the faked imagery; you'd still need ways to create convincing fake imagery, or you'd have nothing to to put on the storage media
slayed shiller
OK let us see.
The only running away so far has been done by YOU.
And the only lying, as you prove with the post you just made.
Evil Twin _"a 2d matte painting, that looks NOTHING like the moon in NASA's footage"_
So the picture of Earth that Neil Actor holds up to the window to *fake* being halfway to the moon, during their 3 day low earth orbit, was that also a 2d matte painting ? I thought it looked quite real.
*UNTIL I SAW HIS ARM IN THE SHOT*
ᚱᛰUᛠӖᚱ ᚦᗩӖϻᛰᚤ
Neil armstrong does no such thing. The con man Bart Sibrel deceptively edited Apollo 11 telecast footage and SUGGESTED that what appeared to be silhouetted arm was Neil's , and that Neil was faking the mission. But looking at the UNEDITED Apollo 11 footage proves this could not possibly be so.
Bravo!!!! Well done, Mr. Collins. Love that punch line at the end. My ex-next door neighbor is a Flat-Earther and NASA non-believer and there was simply nothing that I could present to him that would sway his unwavering belief system, no matter how factual, demonstrable, or logical the information. He would go on and on about how there is only one picture of Earth from space (huh?) and that every single photo of Earth was faked. No matter what I would say to him, I got an explanation of how and why it was a fake. Too much radiation, it would have destroyed the film, blah blah blah. The astronauts would not have survived the trip through the Van Allen Belt, etc. etc. He was convinced that I was just another indoctrinated fool led to believe the big lie. The sad part is that he is actually a very bright and intelligent individual, which confused me even more that he couldn't get his head wrapped around the evidence. For him, it is somehow easier to believe that the Earth is flat, the Moon, stars and planets are holograms and we live under a giant sapphire dome, surrounded by a 150 ft. wall of ice, off limits and protected by a global army. I'd love to hear his rebuttal to your video here. Thanks for sharing!
I've heard it said that while the moon landing was 100% legit, the filming is faked. This is because camera would not work due to solar radiation or some shit that. This makes 100% sense to me for some reason even though i dont know the theory behind it
These types are simply delusional.
@@josefdenis3799 It depends on the type and strength of the radiation and the shielding from it. Do some research and you will have your answer.
The image processing laboratory (IPL) at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory began in 1966 to retrieve and process video images from spacecraft. Software called VICAR (Video Image Communication And Retrieval) was developed to process the images on an IBM 360 computer. VICAR was written by Howard Frieden, Bob Nathan, Stan Bressler, John Campbell, Tom King and Ed Efron. This was a batch oriented system with data input from magnetic tape, command input from punched cards and output to magnetic tape. Images were displayed on a video film converter which was built by LINC.
Dam so many film experts here and not One commented? May be confused on point /side.
Yes the faking could be a little easier than that doing as claimed by Science Knowers.....
@@narajuna Because repeating a single image several times isn't really groundbreaking technology nor does it solve the problem mentioned in the clip. Which by now even you should have understood but apparently still did not.
Are you saying with NASA budgets we can go to the moon in 1969 but we cannot alter the speeds if film cameras? 😮 ok
come now little pity for the special effects Expert, it turned a "horrible period of his life" after Jarrah White disputed his 'impossibilities'. You are saying USA GOV could afford equipment, technics, a Filmmaker could not? 🤔ok
@@narajuna since NASA never went to the moon, where did all the money go? 😁 in to new film manipulation development. 🤠 I bet you a thousand dollars we will not to to the Moon before 2030 😆
@@narajuna NASA needed adjustable speed controls in real time, Hollywood did not. , ever camera angle change can be another camera, therefore film can be short
@@DANTHETUBEMAN MoonFaker: Disk Recorders & High Speed Video Cameras
ua-cam.com/video/_x49lImzw5s/v-deo.html
"Are you saying with NASA budgets we can go to the moon in 1969 but we cannot alter the speeds if film cameras?"
Exactly. Because money cannot break the laws of physics or make innovations appear out of nowhere.