Yeah and also ppl do car restorations and a brand of car can definitely rebuild an old car. But no nasas special and was so infront with their technology
The 1960’s was a time of great technological development as British Prime Minister Harold Wilson pointed out in his ‘white heat’ of this ‘scientific revolution’ speech in 1963. From an aeronautical perspective there was supersonic and hypersonic aircraft, spacecraft, satellites and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Amongst a myriad of aircraft, the U.S. produced the hypersonic X15, the supersonic SR71, the HL10 re-entry vehicle and the first operational variable geometry swing wing aircraft - the F111. In Europe we had the supersonic Concorde and Harrier VTOL ‘Jump Jet’.
@@dragyclips have you ever done a restoration on a car depending on how popular the model was it can be very difficult to find the necessary parts. Less than 20 Saturn V’s were ever built and half a dozen lunar landers. Most of the parts were not off the shelf but were specifically made just for those vehicles.
Don't forget we flew a 1970's space shuttle around for like 40yrs... it was the only tech that DIDN'T advance drastically in that time, lol We have no idea of truth
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but that is because fiction must stick to possibilities; The truth is not!' Mark Twain "It is easier to deceive people than to convince them that they have been deceived" Mark Twain "If you are not careful, the newspapers will make you hate the Men who are oppressed and love those who do the oppressing." Malcolm H * "One can look, but to see one must learn." Marguerite Duras "Strange times are the ones we live in when both old and young are taught lies in school. And the Man who dares to speak the Truth is immediately called a lunatic and a fool.” Platon
Mark Twain, Is that the only reply you can give? I was expecting more than that. Give me a reasoned argument to prove that the first moonlanding and thereafter were not fake. It is estimated that half the world thinks they were fake. They don't have the technology to get a man to the Moon today, how did they do it over 60 years ago. Back in the 60's things could be hidden. You could not do that now. Thank you very much for your reply.
@@autopsydoll There was no cameraman, the first astronaut out of the LEM pulled a lanyard, the camera unit dropped down and started transmitting images.
the healthcare workers that continue to because it continues to exist 🙃 this is something you can actually look at yourself if you know anything about pcr and gene replication
*_"You want me to believe they landed on the moon in the 70s"_* No one wants you to "believe" anything barring the dumb online grifters that tell you what to think. Known science and technology is not a question of "belief". Moreover, they landed crews on the moon in 1969, twice.
@@rubymargaritais5657 *_"With a landline that was advanced as a cell phone?"_* Yet another dimwitted gullible conspiracy believer that doesn't understand radio transmission.
“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish." John F Kennedy May 25 1961
The only people that EVER went to the moon were Tintin and his team, and there are 2 books based on these trips, Destination Moon and Explorers on the moon
It would because the old technology isn't there. There are no 1960’s IBM mainframe computers to navigate the craft from ground radar data. There are no companies that produce the hand-woven flight computers that were inside the lunar module. Grumman, the company that built the lunar module, is long gone, absorbed by a bigger company. North American Aviation, the company that built the command module, no longer exists in any form. TRW, one of the companies that made the rocket engines, went out of business 20 years ago. No aerospace company builds any equipment for 100% oxygen environments any longer (which is what Apollo used). There are no launchpads capable of launching a Saturn V rocket. All the buildings and tools to construct the equipment are long gone. Nobody in the world uses 1960’s style radar any longer. The communications systems have long since been replaced by more modern systems. Hamilton Standard, who made the PLSS backpacks, went out of business in the 1990’s. It's long been understood by anybody in aerospace engineering that it's far faster, easier, better, and cheaper to simply take the lessons learned by older programmes, and start from scratch, rather than trying to build carbon copies of old equipment. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
But they destroyed the knowledge of building all the tech and telemetry data that would be useful in making new technology that could be used to go back to the moon more cost-effectively. Creating 1960s tech is easier to make than building a smartphone like the iPhone.
@@peteconrad2077 Humans have passed on knowledge for thousands of years. In fact, you can see them in museums. Think about the industrial revolution just in the 20th century, you can find many modes of steam engines etc. But for the moon landing, NASA in the modern era, didn't care to document anything. Not even telemetry data which would add to their claim.
@@pdhud The spacecraft are in many museums around the world just like the steam engines you mention. NASA did not lose the technology to go to the Moon in the sense that it was forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappeared. A lot of the blueprints still exist on file; but the individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s. NASA did not lose the telemetry tapes from Apollo 11 but rather the taped recordings of raw analogue video transmitted back from the spacecraft. The tapes were made using specially designed, high-capacity recording gear in order to capture the raw transmissions at the point of receipt in case anything should go wrong with the elaborate system used to convert them to a standard broadcast signal. Nothing did go wrong, and once the conversion and transmission was complete, the recordings were no longer needed for their original purpose. Any magnetic recording media has a limited life. The magnetic fields of the stored data decay over time. For this reason, and because high-grade tapes were very expensive, they were never considered an archival medium. It may seem odd today, but in 1969, the second-hand copies filmed off specially built, flat screen CRT displays were considered the archival copies, and we still have a number of these, including some shot by NASA and some shot third or fourth hand by television networks and affiliates.
They are archived and easily found online. What do you want to know? There are more pages of Apollo program technical documents, mission reports, research studies, etc than you could read in your lifetime.
@@jmp4177we want to know how one of the greatest technological achievements in all of mankinds history is not recreatable. Some of the biggest arguments are the factory for these parts are outdated and no longer in service as well as the funding. Yet, with our technological advancements since then, man is unable to recreate a rocket capable of the same feats from over 50 years ago? Compound that with the fact all future moon missions somehow fail to have video footage? Cameras specs have evolved immensely over the years, yet its not possible to include, produce, and maintain a competent camera in ANY of these mission? Even the most recent moon landing in 2024 failed to have competent footage of the landing. There is evidence on BOTH sides of the moon landing being real and fake. The issue is both sides are unwilling to really *listen* to the other's argument. A known tactic for group control is to discredit the opposing argument by labeling it as "conspiracy", limiting any further conversation of the argument at hand. Whether the moon landing is real or not? Im not sure. But the bottom line is, with the amount of information and technology in this modern day and age, there is a huge discrepancy in the truth being told. Whether we've been on the moon and what was actually found is being kept secret, or maybe its a lie as a result of the space race with Russia in order to maintain national superiority during the height of tension with russia during the 60's, or it could be a plethora of other factors. But its a FACT the evidence supplemented with modern day technology and mankinds thirst for knowledge DOES NOT add up. Manifest destiny is one of mankinds greatest passions, look at any nation to ever hunger for more land. The moon is a gold mine of opportunity and your telling me not one of the worlds greatest superpowers has tried to claim a piece of that profit? Absolutley not. Underestimating Mankinds thirst for superiority in any field is pure ignorance, which is why the moon is such a huge point of contention in any conversation. Even you and i understand the moon is a mysterious frontier not fully explored to its potential which is why its so wierd the information regarding the topic is so sloppily archived and detailed. Mankinds greatest achievement, treated like an "its not that important" subject, by the greatest powers in the world that supposedly have the access to its resources? Either way im not buying it. When there are literal encyclopedias on the different types of dirt on planet earth, but the moon for some reason isnt held to that same standard? I would bet my actual life, the information surrounding the moon landing is not entirely true in some capacity (whether we never have been there, or whatever was found there is being kept secret, or even if the moon has been revisited and utilized without the knowledge of the average civilian.) Tl,dr: its not productive to ignore the potential information of truths and lies regarding the moon, as we're the ones who suffer from the lack of potential knowledge gained or even lost. It literally goes against the scientefic theory
@@hasindukumara5358 Who's arguing? And I never said disc. The oceans & lakes are flat. Land masses have topography. The more compelling my comment, the more YT deletes them. Look for 2 more comments below. I hope the post.
Thats like in any companies, if something was covered up only the senior members will know and the other staff members won't have a clue. Biggest lie of all time. 😂 at them saying they don't have the technology no more. Hilarious!!!!
@peteconrad2077 not true. Example 10 people can know something or less and then a whole floor can be kept under the dark. They just believe what they are told.
NASA did not lose the technology to go to the Moon in the sense that it was forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappeared. A lot of the blueprints still exist on file; but the individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s. Experts spanning the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, and photography all say we’ve been to the Moon, and it’s usually a good idea to defer to experts on matters in which you are, in fact, not one.
@@mc-mc7qr It was one of the most public events of the 20th century viewed around the world and would have to have been a conspiracy involving hundreds of different people from many different countries over decades, including Great Britain, the former Soviet Union, France, Australia, Italy, Germany, China, Japan and India who were not even employed by NASA, and from which not one credible witness has ever emerged. It would also have been impossible to cover up for such a length of time; the Watergate conspirators couldn’t keep their escapade silent for more than a few months. The dust thrown up by the rover lands in a way impossible in an atmosphere as on earth and there is so much third-party corroboration; for example, the spacecraft were tracked to the moon, the rock and soil samples have been authenticated by many different scientists around the world for decades. Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes have also photographed and or observed the equipment left behind at various Apollo landing sites. Experts spanning the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, and photography all say we’ve been to the Moon, and it’s usually a good idea to defer to experts on matters in which you are, in fact, not one.
*_"It’s run from the top of the pyramid system."_* Confirmation that you know absolutely nothing about the structure, the culture and the philosophy behind the Apollo Programme.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which was launched to the Moon in 2009 has taken thousands of high resolution photographs of the Moon. The descent stages of the Apollo Lunar Modules are clearly visible on the surface of the Moon. Spacecraft from China, India and Japan have also taken such photos. End of story...
@@clarkkent4665 : Why do you think? I get the idea that you think it is just like hoping on a bus, right? A simple thing that doesn't cost much. You need an education, son. And I'm not talking about conspiracy videos. Going to the moon is incredibly hard and expensive. Are you going to pay for it? Plus, they landed and explored 6 different times at different location. Things don't last forever. And on a historical note, the first time mankind traveled to the deepest part of the ocean was in 1960. The next time anyone did that? It took over 50 years to return there. Thus, are you claiming that the first trip in 1960 was faked? Beside basic educations in science, math, engineering and manufacturing you need some lessons in simple logic.
And yet half a century later...which in tech and science FACTS still says we cant get there ...hmm...im a sceptic and beleive it is possible but was it ?
The thing I never get with these conspiracy theorists is why do they think we are pretending the Earth is a globe. What do they think we are possibly gaining by pretending it’s round why would we go to so much effort to cover up something when there isn’t a reason to.
It is not about, whether earth is flat or round, it is about muddying the water. They know that the earth and all the other planets are round. The whole practice is to screen the true conspiracies against humanity by mixing these false claims into reality. Before, we even can imagine how Orwellian dictatorship could be real in our modern world, smart TV's with cameras, allowed households vulnerable to be spied on, via internet connection. All we can trust, are the politicians who keep on lying about lowering the taxes, reducing the inflation, promising but not delivering better social services, etc.
Technology regresses all the time because of a lack of driving impetus. We no longer fly supersonic, electric cars were absent from our roads for 70 years after their first appearance, and after the Romans fell, many technologies disappeared for a millennium.
@@jackreacher8858 yes, there were several "lone gunmen." James Files, Charles Nicoletti, "Saul" (ref. Appointment in Dallas by Sheriff Hugh McDonald). And then, of course LHO, who was the patsy. Accidentally photographed standing in the Texas School Depository doorway during the shooting.
@@jackreacher8858 You are proof that when you believe one conspiracy you're liable to believe others. Just view autopsy pictures of JFK's skull. Only one side was destroyed, the rest of his skull was just fractured when his brain exploded. Empirical evidence that the fatal shot came from above and behind.
It wasn't destroyed though - the personnel, expertise, tooling, production processes, plants and the heavy lift capability was either abandoned or re-purposed. The word "destroyed" comes from a poorly expressed turn of phase, quote mined from an interview with astronaut Don Pettit that has been obsessively fixated upon by dumb conspiracy theorists and their believers since. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence is able to contextualise his comment and understand what he was referring to.
Put more accurately, the US Congress "destroyed" the moon program through a cessation of funding for lunar missions. NASA reprioritized its missions to align with what it could afford, then stuffed tons of money into the shuttle program.
I think it's more a text-book example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. What he sees is merely misunderstanding, or his succumbed to the nonsense purported by conspiracy theorists
And to think, entire branches of science, specialist fields and disciplines worldwide, such as aerospace engineering, computing and rocketry, Nobel Prize winning physicists, Pulitzer nominated investigative journalists, 10,000 private sector investors and 76 space agencies have remained oblivious to this. Meanwhile a random, insignificant nobody on the comments section of You Tube, with zero knowledge whatsoever of the subject, typing in caps lock and deploying puerile emojis claims to know better because a dumb online conspiracy video told them what to think. Ok then.
Over more than 10 years, Project Apollo involved 400,000 people working at major contractors such as Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas Aircraft Company, IBM, Motorola and MIT University. Converted to today, the costs were 341 billion dollars and this is the main reason why 'we' didn't go back. After Apollo 11 there were 5 more other landings. Apollo 12 to 17 except 13 Kubrick? No film director is going to make the same film SIX times from the same set with bad camera equipment and only different actors. Also CGI didn't exist yet. Van Allen? Astronauts are protected by their spacesuits and by the metal shell of the rocket. Moreover, they fly shortly through the least strong belts. Why no stars? All films and photos were taken during daylight. Trying to get stars in a photo will result in an overexposed photo. Are all the data lost? No. The Apex tape recordings of the TV broadcast and telemetry were overwritten but all the 16mm films and photos are still in the NASA Archive. Can we still see the landingsites? Both the dual rover tracks and the footprints are clearly visible in the images, which were captured and beamed back by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO).
@Kit Canyon no... but common sense would tell you there would be improvements since then that work better. We don't drive model T cars anymore. They are obsolete. There are better cars now. The fact that you ask such an ignorant comment also explains why we haven't been back to the moon. The dumbing down of humanity.
@@JennHayden : Ah, I see now that you did give more details to your line of thought, which is good. I responded to the original post just as he did; literally he demanded to know why were aren't using tech created back in the 60s. What is so hard about that to understand? Of course we make improvements and new developments. That's not what he asked about and you know it. He is clearly a denier and trying to sound relevant. I simple called him out on that claim. An educated person would simply ask what at the limitations to using current technology. But that's not his cause.
Bill Kaysing said the strongest vid evidence was the lack of a crater as the rickety LEM 'vehicle' lifts off from the surface. Looks more like a theatrical prop lifted by a crane to me.
@offgrid444 Oh, Bill Kaysing, you mean that fake con man who had NO technical education of any description, yet tried to claim he was an "engineer', and didn't even believe Apollo was faked when he started the 'Moon Hoax", the Bill Kaysing who lives alone in the desert with a bunch of cats, claims to have been the target of several CIA assassination attempts, then advertises where he lives, alone in the desert, on a national TV documentary? THAT Bill Kaysing. Apollo is a well proven historical FACT.
A working super heavy lift rocket is the biggest difficulty to overcome - the whole process is reliant on that, otherwise you can't get anything past Earth orbit to the Moon. The Russians couldn't get their version to work which is why they couldn't get to the Moon.
this man's arguments were tired but I was gonna give him the benefit of the doubt until he started saying the moon was translucent and I'm like oh you crazy fr then
He's delusional. NASA did not lose the technology to go to the Moon in the sense that it was forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappeared. A lot of the blueprints still exist on file; but the individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost. And on top of that, much of the equipment is incredibly dated, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. If you study this subject and understand the science, historical perspective and the equipment and procedures used, you will come to the conclusion that limited spaceflight was perfectly possible in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, and that the United States did in fact put men on the Moon. It was one of the most public events of the 20th century viewed around the world and would have to have been a conspiracy involving hundreds of different people from many different countries over decades, including Great Britain, the former Soviet Union, France, Australia, Italy, Germany, China, Japan and India, from which not one credible witness has ever emerged. It would also have been impossible to cover up for such a length of time; the Watergate conspirators couldn’t keep their escapade silent for more than a few months. There is so much third-party corroboration; for example, the spacecraft were tracked to the moon, the rock and soil samples have been authenticated by many different scientists around the world for decades. Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes have also photographed and or observed the equipment left behind at various Apollo landing sites.
@@Ruda-n4h - anyone who believes the fraud theory is not going to be able to understand or appreciate what you're saying here. that's why they usually don't answer follow-up questions
@@Ruda-n4h Is one Jewish family who has their offspring controlling every country in the world. Come on... Why do u think all the kings, presidents etcr are all Jews. They keep it all in the family. Gentiles are kept out of it. One Jew can easily control and manipulate 1 million sheeps.
Stop discouraging people from questioning what they have been taught. We do not have to blindly believe everything we've been told, in fact, to do so can be disastrous. I don't know if we made it to the moon, - but I have had questions myself, since childhood. Everytime I ask a logical question regarding this landing, walk, footage.. People get mad or mock me. I find when you get those two reactions, in particular, there is usually more to a story and your questions aren't anticipated, which causes either an anger response or one of mockery. I say question everything. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am a critical thinker and some things do not make sense regarding "Man's Greatest Accomplishment" --And before you ask, I am NOT a flat earther.
You can ask questions. But if you see something that you can't explain, it doesn't mean it is fake or a lie or a conspiracy. You probably didn't understand. And guess what : it is not serious, and you can still learn.
@@justlooking777 your comment really isn't a reply. It literally just looks like you were trying to use "radio telemetry" in a sentence by putting words around it.
@@ashian23x65 Once Apollo 11 had returned from the Moon and President Kennedy's goal had been achieved, cutbacks began under Richard Nixon during a widescale retreat from technology projects due to competing demands e.g. Vietnam War, 70’s recession, public apathy and of course, Nixon never liked Kennedy and didn’t want to prolong his legacy. It was extremely expensive; each mission cost $1 billion to put two men on the Moon for a maximum of 3 days, a sum which was not financially sustainable, and it was extremely dangerous. Out of 12 manned Apollo missions, including a ground test, there was one catastrophic failure (Apollo 1) and a mission failure (Apollo 13), that’s a terrible ratio. The speed with which it was possible to land an American on the Moon was a function of the military missile race and President Kennedy’s decision, in the face of Russian space successes, (and to save his own political reputation after the Bay of Pigs disaster) to turn the moon project into the ultimate symbol of American prestige. There was/is no political imperative to go back to the Moon as there was to get there in the 1960’s Cold War, which was a completely different time. Even Apollo astronaut Frank Borman said. 'Any idea that the Apollo programme was a great voyage of exploration or scientific endeavour is nuts. People just aren't that excited about exploration. They were sure excited about beating the Russians.’
@@ashian23x65 "Wow! If they had funding in 72, I'm sure they have funding now" this isn't something you have to guess at. NASA's historic budget is a matter of public record.
238,000 Miles and you have to get back with no filling stations , anyone know the MPG on Apollo 11, or would it be GPM , Maybe the reason for not going back is NASA are still charging an electric or hybrid rocket up from the 1970's .Surely NASA would want to keep all Data as archives somewhere.
They travelled 384400km and came back safely some 55 yrs ago, today with all the technological advancement they are just hovering around some 450km vertically from us😂😂
They didn't need propellant for a three day journey, they just needed enough to accelerate the craft out of Earth gravity well and fall into The Moon's gravity well. The mathematicians at NASA did the calculations and calculated that they only had to burn the third stage for less than 7 minutes. Then they just coasted, slowing down all the time until they fell into the Moon's gravity well.
“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”
Notice after the first question was answered she said and now from the science perspective.Since when did we start worshipping science.We all have common sense.
@Usul Do I have a question? No, I made a statement. A statement was made viz; "since when did we start worshipping science?" My, reply was; What technology do you use that is not science related? If no one is worshipping science, then why use mobile phones, TV, microwave ovens, computers, ad inifinitum. I trust this clears the confusion for you.
Logically thinking just don't understand why all recent launches carry so much fuel in 1969 no extra fuel tanks and now the plan is to send re fueling station just don't get it
Because the mission profiles of Project Artemis are entirely different to those of Apollo, Moreover, Artemis plans to place far greater mass on the surface of the moon.
What does the Bible say? 🤔 1) In the beginning YAH created the heaven and the earth. 2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of YAH moved upon the face of the water- Genesis 1:1-2 Have you ever noticed that water is never described as having been created? The “ firmament “ (dome) separating the water above from the water below, forming essentially a bathysphere - an enclosure of air - within which the dry land appeared in the Genesis 1 account. Being that this water surrounded Earth system is literally under the Throne of YAHUAH in Heaven, this shows how the water is in it…. This comment is not for everyone, but only to the ones that’s seeking truth and understand that NASA is not telling y’all truth! Like Isaiah 40:22 “It is he who sits above the circle (not ball) of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in” The Hebrew word used in this verse is “Khoog” (pronounced chug). The word literally means, circle, circuit, and compass. In all of these words, none of them conjure up a picture of a ball. • The Hebrew word chug used here cannot be translated as sphere. (which is rendered by a different word), but must again be interpreted as a solid vault overarching the earth. • The Anchor Bible translation of Isaiah 40:22 “Yah sits upon the dome of the earth. “Job 22:14 says that Yah “ walks on the vault (chug) of heaven, “ again suggesting something solid. Go look at an image of a flat earth depiction and you will see exactly that, A circle ⭕️ and All the countries in one full image! 🤫🤧 NASA & HOLLYWOOD is telling y’all lies 🤥
Why didn't James Van Allen agree with you? Why don't any of the aerospace engineers on the planet know this? When NASA tells you that there are radiation belts, you believe them? When NASA tells you the level of radiation in them, you don't believe them?
@@JennHayden No, it’s the opposite. “-The prefix “cis-” comes from the Latin meaning “on this side,” as opposed to “trans-” which means “on the other side of” or “beyond.” Some more interesting info: “Cislunar space (alternatively, cis-lunar space) is the volume within the Moon's orbit, or a sphere formed by rotating that orbit. Volumes within that such as low earth orbit (LEO) are distinguished by other names. Practically, cislunar space is a useful label for "the volume between geostationary orbit and the moon's orbit". Beyond cislunar space lies translunar space. Cis-lunar is Latin for "on this side of the moon" but also "not beyond the moon".
We destroyed all documents because they were obsolete!!!!! She gives this reasoning and calls herself a scientist. That's the most pathetic argument ever.
"We destroyed all documents" ....... "She gives this reasoning".....I think that you need to watch the video again and this time listen to it. She never mentions about "destroying documents" whatsoever. She clearly says that the Apollo era technology is obsolete which is an obvious fact. Please get your facts correct. Take care.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth ,the 'obsolete' technology got them to the moon and they don't have anything in modern technology to repeat the feat again! Yet they discarded it. How about having some common sense first before they call themselves scientists.
NASA did not lose the technology to go to the Moon in the sense that it was forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappeared. A lot of the blueprints still exist on file; but the individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s. Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
@@Ruda-n4h Yeah it's like saying why Bugatti had any trouble making the fastest car if we already had cars. Whilst yes we did, the difference is they were incredibly slow and inefficient, as technology has progressed and gotten better, it's allowed cars to go much faster, which has in turn created more issues such as the physical limitations of internal combustion and aerodynamics playing a part. Does that mean we never built the first cars just because we have issues today, of course not, as technology progresses you encounter new issues which weren't an issue before.
According to Dr. Sarah Bosman, the U.S. didn't go back to the Moon because the old technolgy that got us there was destroyed. Now, if I wanted to drive a '64 Ford Mustang from California to New York, even though it's 60 years old, and uses outdated technology, I could still get there, along with all the new technologies and new vehicles on the road. In a word, Sarah's argument falls flat and doesn't answer the question as to why we never went back, even with the advent of newer and more cost effective technologies. Sarah's next mental gaffe is in thinking that everyone who manufactured parts, or worked at NASA knew what the Top Brass had on their minds. She also does not take into consideration that there were hundreds, if not thousands of agencies, manufacturers, and departments that participated on this project. It's called decompartmentalism, and it breaks down organizations into tiny departments, allowing them to focus on a particular job, while never allowing the right hand to know what the left is doing. Keep in mind, the government within the government controls the media, military, public schools, and the official narrative, so no more than a few dozen had to be in on it. If a manufacturer tells its workers to make a million screws, and bolts, they don't ask what they will be used for or what the customer wants to do with them. Who does that?
Your argument concerning the integration of Apollo demonstrates precisely why a programme of the complexity, transparency and sheer scale would have been utterly impossible to fake. Regarding technology being "destroyed", in addition to Dr. Bosman, one astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those dimwits that parrot their quote mined nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place their comment within it's full and intended context - the rest of the interview, then it's abundantly clear what they are referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of its commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit himself was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo.
"if I wanted to drive a '64 Ford Mustang from California to New York, even though it's 60 years old, and uses outdated technology, I could still get there" This just demonstrates how little you understand about the topic. This is an incorrect analogy for many reasons. The Saturn V rocket, the command module, and the Grumman lander, are NOT Ford Mustangs. To drive a Mustang, it takes one person. To get a Saturn V off the ground, it takes thousands of highly trained personnel. To fly it to the moon takes thousands more. There are no functional command modules. There are no functional landers. There are no functional Saturn V rockets. Everything remaining (there's not much left, almost all of it was used) that it takes to get to the moon was gutted and put into museums. There are no launch facilities capable of getting one off the ground. There are no IBM mainframe guidance computers. There's only one working onboard guidance computer remaining, and they'd need at least two. There are no training facilities. There are no lunar landing simulators (LLTVs/LLRVs). The company that built the command modules doesn't exist any longer. The company that built the landers was absorbed by a larger company. Most of the people who designed and built everything to go to the moon is long dead or retired. So, no, dewdrop, your analogy to a Ford Mustang doesn't work.
"no more than a few dozen had to be in on it" Ridiculous nonsense. There were 24 men who flew to the moon, so that's two dozen right there. And, sorry, but "compartmentalization" isn't accurate in the least amount. All of these systems were highly integrated. There was no concept of merely ordering a pile of bolts and a pile of nuts, and the makers of the bolts don't know what the makers of the nuts are doing. All of these systems were hand built, and every system had to work with other systems built by other companies. One of the most monumental tasks NASA mastered during Apollo was in getting all of the contractors to work together to produce a complete system. And, if you actually believe that hundreds of thousands of people built stuff that they figured would work to get to the moon, why not just go? What did these "dozens" of people know that the hundreds of thousands didn't? If Grumman thought the landers would land, why not just go? If North American Aviation thought the command modules would fly, why not just fly them? What did these "dozens" somehow know that would have prevented them from just taking the equipment that the contractors built, and use it to go to the moon?
The hoaxer in this video is completely ignorant. No they did not "destroy" the data. There are online archives where you can easily find thousands of pages of mission reports, technical designs, radiation studies, etc. Just the other day, I was looking for info on the Apollo 11 lander and in about 12 seconds of searching, I found 4,300 pages from various technical documents, just on the lunar module.
@@wlfrnfdjf Recommended: Exploring the Planets - (Ian Nicolson BSc, astronomer, 1970), Rockets and Missiles - (John W. R. Taylor, writer & aircraft designer, 1970), Invasion of the Moon 1957 to 1970 - (Peter Ryan, Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society, 1971), A Man on the Moon - The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts (Andrew Chaikin, 1998), The Man Who Ran the Moon (Piers Bizony, 2007), NASA Moon Missions - (Haynes Manual, 2019)
@@wlfrnfdjf you think someone faked those thousands of pages of technical documents, containing data that you can verify and calculations that you can calculate yourself and find to be accurate, just so that they APPEAR to have been gone the moon, instead of using all those data and calculations to just, you know, go to the moon. Is that really what you think?
@@wlfrnfdjf The problem is the rockets don't build themselves, don't launch themselves, the astronauts need tons of training, everything has to be tested, tons of people saw the launches, and there are tons of other space programs. If Russia didn't have reason to call fake, I doubt some simpletons making youtube videos could.
The individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” and have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s. Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. There is also no cold war imperative and no time limit publically placed on it by a president. We also live in much more risk averse times. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
@@Ruda-n4h dude you wrote a book, you have to find a job or a hobby. You obviously have to much time on your hands 🤣 to sum it up you still didn’t give a intelligent answer that made sense 😂😂😂
23.8.2024 hi to This Morning! Depeche Mode - People Are People (my cover version 🌐🪓) *_People are sheeple_* 🐑 *_So why should it be_* 🙁 *_You and I should gut the globe so easily_* 🌐🔨 *_People are sheeple_* 🐑🐑 *_So why should it be_* ☹ *_You and I should gut the globe so easily_* 🌐⛏ *_So we're indifferent to dollars_* 😐 *_And we're indifferent to greeds_* 🥱 *_And indifferent sheeple have different needs_* 💉 *_It's obvious you rate me_* 💯 *_Though I rewrote this song_* ✍ *_You're clever to have met me though you stuck to the globe_* 🤣 *_I can't understand_* 🤨 *_What brakes your brain_* 😄 *_Earth is flat get brain_* 😁 *_Can't you understand_* ❓ 🤭 *_People are sheeple_* 🐑🐑🐑 *_So why should it be_* 😒 *_You and I should gut the globe so easily_* 🌐🪚 *_People are sheeple_* 🐑🐑🐑🐑 *_So why should it be_* 😞 *_You and I should gut the globe so easily_* 🌐🪓 *_Can't you understand_* ❓ 🤭 *_(Can't you understand)_* *_can't you understand_* ❓❓ 🤭 *_Now you're preaching_* 😗 *_And you're pricking_* 😙 *_And you're doubting me_* 😚 *_I am 'dying' on your "common decency"_* 🤗 *_So far feat hasn't surfaced_* 😬 *_But I'm sure it exists_* 🙏 *_It just takes a smile to travel_* 😺 *_From ballhead to flat lists_* 😸 *_I can't understand_* 😕 *_What brakes your brain_* 😆 *_Earth is flat get brain_* 😂 *_Can't you understand_* ❓ 🤭 *_People are sheeple_* 🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑 *_So why should it be_* 😔 *_You and I should gut the globe so easily_* 🌐🗡 *_People are sheeple_* 🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑 *_So why should it be_* 😟 *_You and I should gut the globe so easily_* 🔪🌐 *_I can't understand_* 🤷♂ *_What brakes your brain_* 😀 *_Earth is flat get brain_* 😃 *_Can't you understand_* ❓ 🤭 *_I can't understand_* 🤷♂ *_What brakes your brain_* 😀 *_Earth is flat get brain_* 😃 *_Can't you understand_* ❓❓ 🤭 *_I can't understand_* 🤷♂ *_What brakes your brain_* 😀 *_Earth is flat get brain_* 😃 *_Can't you understand_* ❓❓❓ 🤭 *_(People are sheeple)_* *_I can't understand_* 🤷♂ *_What brakes your brain_* 😀 *_(Why should it be)_* *_earth is flat get brain_* 😃 *_Can't you understand_* ❓❓❓❓ 🤭 *_(People are sheeple)_* *_I can't understand_* 🤷♂ *_What brakes your brain_* 😀 *_(Why should it be)_* *_earth is flat get brain_* 😃 *_Can't you understand_* ❓❓❓❓❓ 🤭 *_(People are sheeple)_* *_I can't understand_* 🤷♂ *_What brakes your brain_* 😀 *_(Why should it be)_* *_earth is flat get brain_* 😃 *_Can't you understand_* ❓❓❓❓❓❓ 🤭
Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about the topic. Dewdrop, congress controls NASA's money. They don't just hand NASA a budget and say "there you go, do whatever you feel like." Each and every program NASA runs is funded separately, and individually approved by congress. NASA cannot take a billion assigned for jet research and just decide to build a rocket with it instead. They cannot take a billion assigned for atmospheric or glacier studies and build a lunar craft instead. You seem quite proud to have zero understanding of the words you write.
@@EzekielHarau "same can be said for you"...Obviously not because I always back up any claims that I make with actual evidence and I do not use emojis. So now that you have attempted to deflect, do you have any actual evidence to back up your claims or not? Take care.
The presenters constantly interrupt martin mid sentence, and let sarah finish. This is before any of them have even said much, so they already have a bias / premeditated agenda. They don't even realise this is a detriment to them being respected in a debate Even if you don't agree with the opinion of someone else on any subject, have the respect/courtesy/politeness to let them finish their sentence before constantly unterrupting and trying to herd mentality everyone else into laughing at them. I mean it's not like someone is sat here claiming the earth doesnt exist, or the earth is made of cheese. If they are saying silly things that can be 100% instantly verified (the moon landing isn't one of those things) they don't need you to "kick them whilst their down". The way they just laugh and shake their heads like they 100% know what happened, and want everyone to laugh at another human is more cringe imo. At it's bottom line, they are basically bullying him. None of them have any clue what happened and just believing what they have read / been told. Martin also raises a perfectly valid point that back then nobody had the means / technology to even attempt to research / verifiy / think criticially about what they were being told. Everyone probably just virtue signalled and agreed with everyone which is a pretty cringe human behaviour if you have no way of knowing what actually happened. In before some clown says "you must be a flat earther" just because I expect more in a debate. Get a grip
They say if the moon is close to the earth, the earth would freeze, how did the rocket not freeze when its made up of the same resources frozen on earth if it is in that close proximity. But if we are not landing on the moon, where is Elon Musk and team going with dem rockets.
The earth wouldn’t freeze because the moon radiates cold it would freeze because its rotation would be slowed down so half of the earth wouldn’t be touched by the sun also yes the rocket would freeze if in a vacuum for long enough just because there’s no heat
Unconsciously that is, since Martin probably knew this as well but forgot to point it out unless he just doesn’t know that part of people unconsciously being involved in the mass indoctrination, propaganda, misinformation etc… so the “cosmologist” and “Astrophysicist” isn’t necessarily delusional but rather blind to the truth of these so called “conspiracy theories” as if their “Theories” isn’t really just hypotheses, so I wonder why they call those “conspiracy theories” that instead of “conspiracy hypotheses”? Yeah. That’s hypocrisy and stupidity at it’s purest form and that is at best, at worst it would be self-disrespect [To one’s intellect] and pointless stubbornness to crazy facts and concepts (“conspiracy theories” as they like to them) that ironically comes from the absurdity of their beliefs and even their opinions at times.
Auguste Piccard once said, after reaching a record high altitude decades ago that the world looked completely flat with upturned edges… His exact words.. Come on tossers… start discrediting what this great explorer sa with his own eyes. “In the country of the blind. The one-eyed man is king”
Yes it is called The ice wall, another reason The Antarctica treaty was signed by so many countries including Russia in the 1950’s.. They never talk about THAT now do they?!
@@timelapsetv3869Because we collected all the data we need. Thats why after appollo we changed our sights and focused on space stations in low earth orbit.
The Moon is focused plasma phenomenon of negative cosmic energy. It shows the X-ray of the base of the Earth. The geometry of the source of cosmic energy below creates its phases. It happens in a semiaetherial environment and is from phosphorised Kr (krypton) 👁️
Ahh he lost me when he called the moon "Illuminary." Maybe we've been to the moon, maybe not, but uhhhh it is a tangible thing. That wild take discredited his whole argument, to me. That's like people who sceram and shout about something you might believe in, and then they say something totally insane, and you're like...ooooo, okay, I WAS with you, but now I know you better, and I gotta dip out"
The Bible also backs up what he is saying as does the book of Enoch. Actually so do my eyes but most people prefer to believe ‘The Emperors New Clothes’ version of the moon..
I just love this nonsense. And Eamon not knowing the last Apollo mission was in 1972, shows poor research by the Good Morning producers. It’s hilarious if if wasn’t that seemingly sensible folk believe that over 400,000 people involved in the Apollo project have kept quiet for the last 50 odd years. Never mind all the other stuff such as a prism that we can bounce a laser off it to get the exact distance the moon is from the Earth. Or it that fake as well? As I say ‘Hilarious.’
@@1Corinthians15.1-4 Conspiracy theorists often claim that scientists are compartmentalized to suggest that knowledge within the scientific community is intentionally restricted or controlled. 'They' argue that scientists work in isolated compartments, unaware of the broader picture, to manipulate information. However, this notion is generally unfounded, as collaboration and open communication are fundamental aspects of scientific research, allowing for the exchange of ideas and findings across disciplines. Hence your claim is unfounded!
@@1Corinthians15.1-4 You want to talk about compartmentalization? Let me tell you about the Manhattan Project, the most stringently guarded secret in history. All the research directly related to the bomb was performed on a mesa top in what was then a remote section of New Mexico. The participants and their families were completely cut off from the outside world, surrounded by armed troops, barbed wire, high cliffs, and miles of inhospitable territory. People left only on urgent lab business, and traveled with false IDs. Even the members of the local Boy Scout troop were known to their district headquarters only as "boy 1", "boy 2", etc. Despite all this, Stalin knew about the bomb before being officially informed at Potsdam.
It’s a crying shame that there are people out there basically discrediting and disrespecting thousands and thousands scientists, technicians mathematicians. It is horrible and disgusting
When people cannot actually do anything significant with their lives, they often choose to pretend that they are. For these folks, it's pretending that they have "inside knowledge" and that somehow they know more than the thousands of scientists, technicians, and mathematicians. Those people have no hope of ever being any of those things. So, for them, pretending that they have somehow "outsmarted" everyone on Earth is what gives their lives meaning.
There were almost half a million people involved in the first mission to the moon, this involved people from other countries. They are all wrong, even the Russians admitted to this. Somehow nobody else knows the real truth 😂😂😂
:) Sarah compares the car - a derivative of technology, with technology - drawings, experimental data, etc. She is ill ? In which country and which scientists are destroying the results of their many years of scientific work? :)
Ask Apple to make an Apple II computer. They will inform you that it is impossible since none of the components used are in production anymore and the machines used to make those components no longer exist. You would get the same response if you asked Ford to build one of their car designs from the 60s.
@@luther0013 Equipment is not technology; not being able to produce something at the moment does not mean that you don’t know how to produce it. Such knowledge is priceless and it is not destroyed, but accumulated.
20.6.2024 hello there This Morning! Def Leppard - Photograph (my cover version 😊) *_I'm outa lie, outa lots_* 🙏 *_Got a photoshop, picture of_* 🌐 *_Fashion killer, I'm too much_* 💪 *_You're the only one I wanna punch_* 🤜🌐 *_I say you're fake everytime I stream_* 👨💻 *_On every page, every size of screen_* 📱💻🖥📺 *_So wild so free stay far from me_* ⚠ *_You're all I loathe, lie fantasy_* 🤮 *_Oh, look what you've done through this rotten ball clown_* 😠 *_Oh oh, look what you've done_* 😡 *_Photoshop - I don't want your..._* 🌎 *_Photoshop - I don't need your..._* 🌍 *_Photoshop - All you've got is a photoshop_* 🌏 *_But it's not enough_* 🙅♂ *_I'd be your leader, if you're there_* 👨🏫 *_Put your trust on me, if you care_* 🤝 *_Such a human, I got style_* 😎 *_I make every brain heal with a smile, oh_* 😊 *_You had some kinda hold on me_* ⛓ *_You're all washed up it's history_* 🌐🟰💩 *_So wild so free stay far from me_* ⚠ *_You're all I loathe, lie fantasy_* 🤮 *_Oh, look what you've done through this rotten ball clown_* 😠 *_Oh oh, look what you've done_* 😡 *_I gotta hate you_* 🤬 *_Photoshop - I don't want your..._* 🌎 *_Photoshop - I don't need your..._* 🌍 *_Photoshop - All you've got is a photoshop_* 🌏 *_You've gone straight off my head_* 😌
When someone like Martin Kenny says they think it's all a hoax I feel sorry and quite sad for them. They have constructed a world for themselves that is comforting and gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling. If you were going to have a hoax, you would bizarrely have to have a project plan that created the hoax project. Which is even more complex than just having a project to go there. When he says it's a luminary I had a hard time not laughing. Then when he mentioned the old Nikon P900, I couldn't not laugh. Martin is clearly a flat earther when he says luminary and P900.
Have you been to the fukin moon?.. I’m guessing no.. only in your warped Hollywood infested dreams. The moon is a luminous body of light. And get this dicksplash… the sun is of equal size, both Approx. 3000miles in diameter. Contrary to official astronomical facts, the sun is not 400 times larger or further away than the moon. Which is why when you look up to the sky they appear the same size… BECAUSE THEY BLOODY WELL ARE THE SAME SIZE… we are living in a bizarre Truman Show movie like existence where ignorance and denial is the norm. My best guess according to researchers going beyond flat earth theory is that we are inside a gigantic magnetic toroidal vortex field. That encompasses what we know to be the van Allen radiation belts.
And he sounds way more intelligent than she does. The way he articulate, I doubt if he's just a UA-cam researcher. People are figuring out that white people been lying to the world since they been in power..and this isn't the only thing they've lied about. That's what they do to seem important to civilization.
@@poisonpixie1146 science and religion are not interchangeable in this argument at all. Science is based on facts and derivable knowledge. Religion is almost solely based on belief. Your rebuttal is redundant.
If you ever wondered if man landed on the moon or not then watch the post landing interview by Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins and that should help make up your mind.
They left mirrors up there,and at the right time you can point a powerful lazer at them, and they bounce back! I think that proves they were there! Among other small solid facts,that proves it!
U seen the cameras used to film the moon landing and the moon landing, it takes 3 men to operate one camera, they would have had to take a film crew to the moon.
@@DirtyTalkTv It didn't take 3 men. A 16mm colour movie camera was used from inside the cockpit of the lunar module, on descent and lift off, and for some footage of the moonwalks. Additionally on Apollo 15-17 the tv camera on the lunar rover was left running and pointed at the lunar module to film the lift off from outside. On the lunar rover one astronaut operated a television camera (the box in front of the high-gain antenna).
@@DirtyTalkTv The TV pictures were filmed by a black and white slow scan television camera and beamed back to Earth, via a steerable 20-watt S-band high gain antenna installed on top of the lunar module ascent stage. S-Band is a microwave band that can penetrate radiation and antenna gain refers to the ability of the antenna to focus scattered radio frequency waves into a narrower beam, thereby increasing signal strength. High-gain antenna provides a more precise way of targeting radio signals and are therefore very essential to long-range wireless networks. The LM’s transmissions were then picked up by a radio telescope at a tracking station in Canberra, Australia. NASA then converted the image to standard broadcast signal which was transmitted to a communications satellite and back down to Houston where it was then broadcast around the world. The radio telescope on the ground for receiving was extremely large and powerful which reduced the amount of battery power needed by the lunar module.
16.9.2024 hello This Morning! Bon Jovi - You Give Love A Bad Name (my cover version 👨🚀👨🚀👨🚀🟰🐍🐍🐍) *_Shot through the art_* 😊 *_And you're to blame_* 👉👨🚀 *_'Darling', you give gov a bad name_* 😿 *_An 'angel''s smile is what you sell_* 👨🚀🟰😈 *_Who promise thee_* 🫵🤓 *_heaven_* *_Then put thee through jail_* ⛓🤓⛓ *_Chains of gov got a hold on thee_* ⛓🤓🧠⛓ *_When fashion's a prison_* ⛓🌎🌍🌏⛓ *_You can't break free_* ⛓🤓🌎🌍🌏⛓ *_Oh, oh, you're a loaded one_* 🤓🌐 *_Oh, oh, there's nowhere to run_* ⛓🤓🌐⛓ *_No one can save thee_* 🤷♂ *_The damage is done_* 🫵🐑 *_Shot through the art_* 👨🎨 *_And you're to blame_* 👨🚀👈 *_You give gov a bad name_* 🙁 *_I play my part_* 👨🏫 *_And you play your game_* 👨🚀🟰🤡 *_You give gov a bad name_* 😞 *_You give gov a bad name_* 😔 *_Yo, plaint_* 👨⚖👉 *_your smile on your lips_* 👨🚀🟰😈 *_Bud read mails, own your "finger trips"_* 😈🖕 🚀 🤛😎 *_A fool boys team, you act so sly_* 👨🚀👨🚀👨🚀🟰🤥🤥🤥 *_Your very first hiss_* 👨🚀👨🚀👨🚀🟰🐍🐍🐍 *_Was your first miss_* 👨🚀👨🚀👨🚀🟰🤡🤡🤡 *_goodbye_* 👋 *_Oh, oh, you're a loaded one_* 🤓🌐 *_Oh, oh, there's nowhere to run_* ⛓🤓🌐⛓ *_No one can save thee_* 🤷♂ *_The damage is done_* 🫵🐑 *_Shot through the art_* 👨🎤 *_And you're to blame_* 👉👨🚀👈 *_You give gov a bad name_* 😐 *_I play my part_* 👍 *_And you play your game_* 👎 *_You give gov a bad name_* 😑 *_You give gov..._*
What an idiot he thinks they he smarted the scientist! 😂. If they were going to fake it, they wouldn't make school boy errors. The stars aren't meant to be in the background
The bloke arguing that we didn’t go to the moon is talking nonsense with no real understanding of science or technology! He babbles on with his point, then the cosmologist instantly corrects him… I think we need to ask him, what qualifications does he have?
At first glance and consumed without much in the way of science literacy, some of the doubts offered by moon landing deniers can sound marginally compelling but collapsing their arguments requires little more than a healthy dose of common sense, infused with trace amounts of scientific acumen. Experts spanning the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, and photography all say we’ve been to the Moon, and it’s usually a good idea to defer to experts on matters in which you are, in fact, not one.
With the ability to find out why a lot of information today, how in the world do people get this painfully stupid? The other problem is why are you playing into their delusional Behavior. I mean I have found out a lot of things about a lot of details especially of relatively recent history. And some of them are against the mainstream. But I can show sound reasoning for why I have come to such conclusions. Because I took the time to study the mechanisms Within. This person doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. There's a mountain of evidence that it didn't happen, there is none at all but it didn't happen. There is speculation, and I have looked at every piece of speculation. It isn't of any value. As it turns out, a close friend of mine actually manufactured some of the parts that he took from Michigan down to Cape Canaveral and installed them on the landing module himself.
Strangely, they used that kind of old technology to go to the moon and sucessful but why can't they use the same machine to go back? The circumstances, environment of the moon hasn't changed. If they can do it 60years ago why now no...😮
For the exact same reasons that they don't fly Concordes any longer. They were massively inefficient machines, with little or no return on investment (other than political). The technology from the 1960s is outdated now, and it's far too difficult to retrofit worldwide communications and radar tracking systems to those old standards. And, the circumstances HAVE changed. They lost the political support to keeping them flying, and every single flight lost money. Also, for moon missions, sorry, but nobody wants another Apollo. It was far too limited. They want longer missions, more payload, more choices about where to land (Apollo had a very narrow band of possible landing sites), more ability to explore further distances, more experiments, more people, better environmental controls, etc. And, they want to do it on 1/10th of the money that Apollo costed.
The technology was 60s outdated technologhy but it got you to the moon, must have been pretty advanced 😂😂😂
If we lost the technology to build cars, and we had a car from the 60s, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't start from scratch, this guy talks pure lies.
Yeah and also ppl do car restorations and a brand of car can definitely rebuild an old car. But no nasas special and was so infront with their technology
The 1960’s was a time of great technological development as British Prime Minister Harold Wilson pointed out in his ‘white heat’ of this ‘scientific revolution’ speech in 1963. From an aeronautical perspective there was supersonic and hypersonic aircraft, spacecraft, satellites and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Amongst a myriad of aircraft, the U.S. produced the hypersonic X15, the supersonic SR71, the HL10 re-entry vehicle and the first operational variable geometry swing wing aircraft - the F111. In Europe we had the supersonic Concorde and Harrier VTOL ‘Jump Jet’.
@@dragyclips have you ever done a restoration on a car depending on how popular the model was it can be very difficult to find the necessary parts.
Less than 20 Saturn V’s were ever built and half a dozen lunar landers. Most of the parts were not off the shelf but were specifically made just for those vehicles.
Don't forget we flew a 1970's space shuttle around for like 40yrs... it was the only tech that DIDN'T advance drastically in that time, lol
We have no idea of truth
The comment section was closed all these years what happend?
I think I started it off.
Piers left.
There is obvious bias here, on UA-cam. Pitiful really.
@@charles_preston Kenny is a conspiracy loony tune who doesn't know anything.
@@Ruda-n4h The 'scientist' completely failed to impress me.
"Never argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but that is because fiction must stick to possibilities; The truth is not!'
Mark Twain
"It is easier to deceive people than to convince them that they have been deceived"
Mark Twain
"If you are not careful, the newspapers will make you hate the Men who are oppressed and love those who do the oppressing."
Malcolm H
*
"One can look, but to see one must learn."
Marguerite Duras
"Strange times are the ones we live in when both old and young are taught lies in school. And the Man who dares to speak the Truth is immediately called a lunatic and a fool.”
Platon
@@biser1901Are you two in a competition to see who can wrongly attribute quotes to Mark Twain? 😂😂😂
I agree with the quotes but can someone tell me why so many people reference Mark Twain quotes in relation to moon landing debates?
The indoctrinated never know they've been indoctrinated and they believe the truth is cause for alarm.
Mark Twain, Is that the only reply you can give? I was expecting more than that. Give me a reasoned argument to prove that the first moonlanding and thereafter were not fake. It is estimated that half the world thinks they were fake. They don't have the technology to get a man to the Moon today, how did they do it over 60 years ago. Back in the 60's things could be hidden. You could not do that now. Thank you very much for your reply.
As soon as you hear "P900 camera" you know you are dealing with someone with a non conventional outlook.
why, what is that?
Have you used one? 😂
I think the cameraman was the 1st man on the moon
Why do you think that?
how did the camera man get on the moon
@@autopsydoll
There was no cameraman, the first astronaut out of the LEM pulled a lanyard, the camera unit dropped down and started transmitting images.
Aha, HOW MANY PEOPLE believed they were saving lives during C19??
Enough to keep it going.
the healthcare workers that continue to because it continues to exist 🙃 this is something you can actually look at yourself if you know anything about pcr and gene replication
You want me to believe they landed on the moon in the 70s😂😂😂
With a landline that was advanced as a cell phone?
1968
@@harold6863 69 ya mug.
*_"You want me to believe they landed on the moon in the 70s"_*
No one wants you to "believe" anything barring the dumb online grifters that tell you what to think. Known science and technology is not a question of "belief".
Moreover, they landed crews on the moon in 1969, twice.
@@rubymargaritais5657
*_"With a landline that was advanced as a cell phone?"_*
Yet another dimwitted gullible conspiracy believer that doesn't understand radio transmission.
“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish."
John F Kennedy May 25 1961
Its not just a hoax its a joke and a very very very...expensive one😂
haha yeah
The moon landings were real. What's a joke is your education.
The only people that EVER went to the moon were Tintin and his team, and there are 2 books based on these trips, Destination Moon and Explorers on the moon
What is your evidence?
She said that it would cost too much money to rebuild 1960s technology with a straight face.
It would because the old technology isn't there.
There are no 1960’s IBM mainframe computers to navigate the craft from ground radar data. There are no companies that produce the hand-woven flight computers that were inside the lunar module. Grumman, the company that built the lunar module, is long gone, absorbed by a bigger company. North American Aviation, the company that built the command module, no longer exists in any form. TRW, one of the companies that made the rocket engines, went out of business 20 years ago.
No aerospace company builds any equipment for 100% oxygen environments any longer (which is what Apollo used). There are no launchpads capable of launching a Saturn V rocket. All the buildings and tools to construct the equipment are long gone. Nobody in the world uses 1960’s style radar any longer. The communications systems have long since been replaced by more modern systems. Hamilton Standard, who made the PLSS backpacks, went out of business in the 1990’s. It's long been understood by anybody in aerospace engineering that it's far faster, easier, better, and cheaper to simply take the lessons learned by older programmes, and start from scratch, rather than trying to build carbon copies of old equipment. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
But they destroyed the knowledge of building all the tech and telemetry data that would be useful in making new technology that could be used to go back to the moon more cost-effectively. Creating 1960s tech is easier to make than building a smartphone like the iPhone.
@@pdhud Maine if knowledge was in the skills of men who’ve since died.
@@peteconrad2077 Humans have passed on knowledge for thousands of years. In fact, you can see them in museums. Think about the industrial revolution just in the 20th century, you can find many modes of steam engines etc. But for the moon landing, NASA in the modern era, didn't care to document anything. Not even telemetry data which would add to their claim.
@@pdhud
The spacecraft are in many museums around the world just like the steam engines you mention.
NASA did not lose the technology to go to the Moon in the sense that it was forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappeared. A lot of the blueprints still exist on file; but the individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
NASA did not lose the telemetry tapes from Apollo 11 but rather the taped recordings of raw analogue video transmitted back from the spacecraft. The tapes were made using specially designed, high-capacity recording gear in order to capture the raw transmissions at the point of receipt in case anything should go wrong with the elaborate system used to convert them to a standard broadcast signal. Nothing did go wrong, and once the conversion and transmission was complete, the recordings were no longer needed for their original purpose. Any magnetic recording media has a limited life. The magnetic fields of the stored data decay over time. For this reason, and because high-grade tapes were very expensive, they were never considered an archival medium. It may seem odd today, but in 1969, the second-hand copies filmed off specially built, flat screen CRT displays were considered the archival copies, and we still have a number of these, including some shot by NASA and some shot third or fourth hand by television networks and affiliates.
You archive files not destroy!
They are archived and easily found online. What do you want to know? There are more pages of Apollo program technical documents, mission reports, research studies, etc than you could read in your lifetime.
@@jmp4177 well that's implying that people like him could even read
you destroy them when they are fake!
@@jmp4177we want to know how one of the greatest technological achievements in all of mankinds history is not recreatable. Some of the biggest arguments are the factory for these parts are outdated and no longer in service as well as the funding. Yet, with our technological advancements since then, man is unable to recreate a rocket capable of the same feats from over 50 years ago?
Compound that with the fact all future moon missions somehow fail to have video footage? Cameras specs have evolved immensely over the years, yet its not possible to include, produce, and maintain a competent camera in ANY of these mission? Even the most recent moon landing in 2024 failed to have competent footage of the landing.
There is evidence on BOTH sides of the moon landing being real and fake. The issue is both sides are unwilling to really *listen* to the other's argument. A known tactic for group control is to discredit the opposing argument by labeling it as "conspiracy", limiting any further conversation of the argument at hand.
Whether the moon landing is real or not? Im not sure. But the bottom line is, with the amount of information and technology in this modern day and age, there is a huge discrepancy in the truth being told. Whether we've been on the moon and what was actually found is being kept secret, or maybe its a lie as a result of the space race with Russia in order to maintain national superiority during the height of tension with russia during the 60's, or it could be a plethora of other factors. But its a FACT the evidence supplemented with modern day technology and mankinds thirst for knowledge DOES NOT add up.
Manifest destiny is one of mankinds greatest passions, look at any nation to ever hunger for more land. The moon is a gold mine of opportunity and your telling me not one of the worlds greatest superpowers has tried to claim a piece of that profit? Absolutley not. Underestimating Mankinds thirst for superiority in any field is pure ignorance, which is why the moon is such a huge point of contention in any conversation. Even you and i understand the moon is a mysterious frontier not fully explored to its potential which is why its so wierd the information regarding the topic is so sloppily archived and detailed. Mankinds greatest achievement, treated like an "its not that important" subject, by the greatest powers in the world that supposedly have the access to its resources?
Either way im not buying it. When there are literal encyclopedias on the different types of dirt on planet earth, but the moon for some reason isnt held to that same standard? I would bet my actual life, the information surrounding the moon landing is not entirely true in some capacity (whether we never have been there, or whatever was found there is being kept secret, or even if the moon has been revisited and utilized without the knowledge of the average civilian.)
Tl,dr: its not productive to ignore the potential information of truths and lies regarding the moon, as we're the ones who suffer from the lack of potential knowledge gained or even lost. It literally goes against the scientefic theory
@@just_another32
The records weren't destroyed. Many of the video tapes, expensive at the time, were reused, the knowledge was retained.
Actually not the biggest lie told there are many
globe earth is biggest lie
@@raymond3803really?
@@hasindukumara5358 Yes! Retired USDA land surveyor. 100% certainty.
Flat. I swear it.
@@raymond3803 I don't wanna argue with you but give me a single proof that earth is a flat disc.
@@hasindukumara5358 Who's arguing? And I never said disc. The oceans & lakes are flat. Land masses have topography. The more compelling my comment, the more YT deletes them. Look for 2 more comments below. I hope the post.
Thats like in any companies, if something was covered up only the senior members will know and the other staff members won't have a clue.
Biggest lie of all time.
😂 at them saying they don't have the technology no more. Hilarious!!!!
There are thousands who would have to know.
@peteconrad2077 not true. Example 10 people can know something or less and then a whole floor can be kept under the dark. They just believe what they are told.
NASA did not lose the technology to go to the Moon in the sense that it was forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappeared. A lot of the blueprints still exist on file; but the individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Experts spanning the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, and photography all say we’ve been to the Moon, and it’s usually a good idea to defer to experts on matters in which you are, in fact, not one.
@@mc-mc7qr It was one of the most public events of the 20th century viewed around the world and would have to have been a conspiracy involving hundreds of different people from many different countries over decades, including Great Britain, the former Soviet Union, France, Australia, Italy, Germany, China, Japan and India who were not even employed by NASA, and from which not one credible witness has ever emerged. It would also have been impossible to cover up for such a length of time; the Watergate conspirators couldn’t keep their escapade silent for more than a few months.
The dust thrown up by the rover lands in a way impossible in an atmosphere as on earth and there is so much third-party corroboration; for example, the spacecraft were tracked to the moon, the rock and soil samples have been authenticated by many different scientists around the world for decades. Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes have also photographed and or observed the equipment left behind at various Apollo landing sites.
Experts spanning the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, and photography all say we’ve been to the Moon, and it’s usually a good idea to defer to experts on matters in which you are, in fact, not one.
@gunternetzer9621 Who you trying to fool? Lol.
It’s run from the top of the pyramid system. My father worked on the manhattan project and never knew what he as doing. It on a need to know basis
It has been done many times... in many ways. Like the Free Masons!
*_"It’s run from the top of the pyramid system."_*
Confirmation that you know absolutely nothing about the structure, the culture and the philosophy behind the Apollo Programme.
Perhaps you can explain how Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman?
@@marksprague1280 What difference does it make?
@@charles_preston To members of the Flat Earth or Landing Denial Cults, probably no difference, as they lack the wit to comprehend the implications.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which was launched to the Moon in 2009 has taken thousands of high resolution photographs of the Moon. The descent stages of the Apollo Lunar Modules are clearly visible on the surface of the Moon. Spacecraft from China, India and Japan have also taken such photos. End of story...
Where can I find those photos
@@Documentts Just search "Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter"
Nasa/JPL, ESA websites
Fake photos, wind and rain would have removed all traces
"If the moon was made of spare ribs, would you eat it then?" Harry Carey
🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@carlsagan495 Carl, I thought you died in 1996? Good to have you back.
Von Braun said it would take a rocket the size of the Empire State Building to go to the moon!
The Saturn 5 was pretty damn big. He must have decided it was good enough, and it was!
That was to get to the Moon using the direct ascent method (one rocket there and back) which they dropped in favour of lunar orbit rendezvous.
Sucks not to actually research things, right?
@Kit Canyon why nobody went there in decades?
@@clarkkent4665 : Why do you think? I get the idea that you think it is just like hoping on a bus, right? A simple thing that doesn't cost much.
You need an education, son. And I'm not talking about conspiracy videos.
Going to the moon is incredibly hard and expensive. Are you going to pay for it? Plus, they landed and explored 6 different times at different location. Things don't last forever.
And on a historical note, the first time mankind traveled to the deepest part of the ocean was in 1960. The next time anyone did that? It took over 50 years to return there.
Thus, are you claiming that the first trip in 1960 was faked?
Beside basic educations in science, math, engineering and manufacturing you need some lessons in simple logic.
And yet half a century later...which in tech and science FACTS still says we cant get there ...hmm...im a sceptic and beleive it is possible but was it ?
Read my comments.
No logic! NASA actually claims that key data were erased by accident?!?!
@@Ruda-n4hhi i’m doing a project for school about this, any chance you want to help me out with my facts? you seem very educated
@@emilycopeland56Thanks very much. What would you like to know?
@@Ruda-n4h lol😂😂😂 he was being Sarcastic 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The thing I never get with these conspiracy theorists is why do they think we are pretending the Earth is a globe. What do they think we are possibly gaining by pretending it’s round why would we go to so much effort to cover up something when there isn’t a reason to.
It is not about, whether earth is flat or round, it is about muddying the water. They know that the earth and all the other planets are round. The whole practice is to screen the true conspiracies against humanity by mixing these false claims into reality. Before, we even can imagine how Orwellian dictatorship could be real in our modern world, smart TV's with cameras, allowed households vulnerable to be spied on, via internet connection. All we can trust, are the politicians who keep on lying about lowering the taxes, reducing the inflation, promising but not delivering better social services, etc.
If Sara could hear herself, OMG, how stupid. We figured out how to do it, but it was so long ago there's no point in keeping it. Wow.
Technology regresses all the time because of a lack of driving impetus. We no longer fly supersonic, electric cars were absent from our roads for 70 years after their first appearance, and after the Romans fell, many technologies disappeared for a millennium.
But of course there was also a lone gunman in Dealey Plaza Dallas huh !
@@jackreacher8858 yes, there were several "lone gunmen." James Files, Charles Nicoletti, "Saul" (ref. Appointment in Dallas by Sheriff Hugh McDonald). And then, of course LHO, who was the patsy. Accidentally photographed standing in the Texas School Depository doorway during the shooting.
@@jackreacher8858 Indeed there was.
@@jackreacher8858
You are proof that when you believe one conspiracy you're liable to believe others. Just view autopsy pictures of JFK's skull. Only one side was destroyed, the rest of his skull was just fractured when his brain exploded. Empirical evidence that the fatal shot came from above and behind.
If the technology got us to the moon, why wood you destroy it?
It wasn't destroyed though - the personnel, expertise, tooling, production processes, plants and the heavy lift capability was either abandoned or re-purposed. The word "destroyed" comes from a poorly expressed turn of phase, quote mined from an interview with astronaut Don Pettit that has been obsessively fixated upon by dumb conspiracy theorists and their believers since. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence is able to contextualise his comment and understand what he was referring to.
(( NASA; "We destroyed the technology to go back to the moon")) 🤣🤣🤣
Wrong.
They ended the program and got rid of all the infrastructure,
Put more accurately, the US Congress "destroyed" the moon program through a cessation of funding for lunar missions. NASA reprioritized its missions to align with what it could afford, then stuffed tons of money into the shuttle program.
Because he sees more than she or they do, it’s not a cover up it is just that people are closed minded
I think it's more a text-book example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. What he sees is merely misunderstanding, or his succumbed to the nonsense purported by conspiracy theorists
Yes - him.
It's a cover-up.
He sees more than she does? She has a M.Sci. in astrophysics and PhD in cosmology, he is a random dude who went on the internet once
@@ivandarmawan9372 I don't care about her diplomae... I care if she can make a clear & convincing argument...
And the answer is a resounding NO!
One Small Step For Man. One GIANT LIE For Mankind ❤😂😮
And to think, entire branches of science, specialist fields and disciplines worldwide, such as aerospace engineering, computing and rocketry, Nobel Prize winning physicists, Pulitzer nominated investigative journalists, 10,000 private sector investors and 76 space agencies have remained oblivious to this. Meanwhile a random, insignificant nobody on the comments section of You Tube, with zero knowledge whatsoever of the subject, typing in caps lock and deploying puerile emojis claims to know better because a dumb online conspiracy video told them what to think. Ok then.
Over more than 10 years, Project Apollo involved 400,000 people working at major contractors such as Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas Aircraft Company, IBM, Motorola and MIT University.
Converted to today, the costs were 341 billion dollars and this is the main reason why 'we' didn't go back.
After Apollo 11 there were 5 more other landings. Apollo 12 to 17 except 13
Kubrick? No film director is going to make the same film SIX times from the same set with bad camera equipment and only different actors. Also CGI didn't exist yet.
Van Allen? Astronauts are protected by their spacesuits and by the metal shell of the rocket. Moreover, they fly shortly through the least strong belts.
Why no stars? All films and photos were taken during daylight. Trying to get stars in a photo will result in an overexposed photo.
Are all the data lost? No. The Apex tape recordings of the TV broadcast and telemetry were overwritten but all the 16mm films and photos are still in the NASA Archive.
Can we still see the landingsites? Both the dual rover tracks and the footprints are clearly visible in the images, which were captured and beamed back by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO).
So.... The tech that took them to the moon is now obsolete? Why is that?
Because it is almost 60 years old. Do you use much tech still that old?
@Kit Canyon no... but common sense would tell you there would be improvements since then that work better. We don't drive model T cars anymore. They are obsolete. There are better cars now. The fact that you ask such an ignorant comment also explains why we haven't been back to the moon. The dumbing down of humanity.
@Kit Canyon strange world we live in with your kind of logic.
@@JennHayden : what? Why are vacuum tubes obsolete when making tvs?
You logic is flawed. Funny how you weren’t able to explain your claim.
@@JennHayden : Ah, I see now that you did give more details to your line of thought, which is good.
I responded to the original post just as he did; literally he demanded to know why were aren't using tech created back in the 60s. What is so hard about that to understand?
Of course we make improvements and new developments. That's not what he asked about and you know it. He is clearly a denier and trying to sound relevant. I simple called him out on that claim.
An educated person would simply ask what at the limitations to using current technology. But that's not his cause.
Bill Kaysing said the strongest vid evidence was the lack of a crater as the rickety LEM 'vehicle' lifts off from the surface. Looks more like a theatrical prop lifted by a crane to me.
@offgrid444 Oh, Bill Kaysing, you mean that fake con man who had NO technical education of any description, yet tried to claim he was an "engineer', and didn't even believe Apollo was faked when he started the 'Moon Hoax", the Bill Kaysing who lives alone in the desert with a bunch of cats, claims to have been the target of several CIA assassination attempts, then advertises where he lives, alone in the desert, on a national TV documentary?
THAT Bill Kaysing.
Apollo is a well proven historical FACT.
Looks can be deceiving, and Kaysing's was a con artist out to make a quick buck
Ok mr expert
The 'technology' on display is laughable, at best! Let's get real.
@@charles_preston Because you said so?
Look who needs to "get real".
A built and launched rocket doesn’t mean it made it to the moon…
A working super heavy lift rocket is the biggest difficulty to overcome - the whole process is reliant on that, otherwise you can't get anything past Earth orbit to the Moon. The Russians couldn't get their version to work which is why they couldn't get to the Moon.
The moon is a plasma reflection of the sun.
You clearly have never looked at either.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth You clearly have never looked into it.
@@SunShine-kd6td Nope, I don't normally deal in utter BS. Take care.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth Then explain your screen name.
@@SunShine-kd6td Explain why you write non-factual comments. Take care.
They need to find a better scientist next time. She isn't good.
Really? I thought she slam dunked on him without even trying.
And your expertise is what exactly?
this man's arguments were tired but I was gonna give him the benefit of the doubt until he started saying the moon was translucent and I'm like oh you crazy fr then
Dream on 😂😂
She’s absolutely delusional. 🤦🏻😂
He's delusional. NASA did not lose the technology to go to the Moon in the sense that it was forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappeared. A lot of the blueprints still exist on file; but the individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost. And on top of that, much of the equipment is incredibly dated, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better.
If you study this subject and understand the science, historical perspective and the equipment and procedures used, you will come to the conclusion that limited spaceflight was perfectly possible in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, and that the United States did in fact put men on the Moon.
It was one of the most public events of the 20th century viewed around the world and would have to have been a conspiracy involving hundreds of different people from many different countries over decades, including Great Britain, the former Soviet Union, France, Australia, Italy, Germany, China, Japan and India, from which not one credible witness has ever emerged. It would also have been impossible to cover up for such a length of time; the Watergate conspirators couldn’t keep their escapade silent for more than a few months.
There is so much third-party corroboration; for example, the spacecraft were tracked to the moon, the rock and soil samples have been authenticated by many different scientists around the world for decades. Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes have also photographed and or observed the equipment left behind at various Apollo landing sites.
@@Ruda-n4h - anyone who believes the fraud theory is not going to be able to understand or appreciate what you're saying here. that's why they usually don't answer follow-up questions
@@Ruda-n4h They destroyed the technology, recorded over the video, and lost the data.
@@Ruda-n4h Is one Jewish family who has their offspring controlling every country in the world.
Come on...
Why do u think all the kings, presidents etcr are all Jews.
They keep it all in the family.
Gentiles are kept out of it.
One Jew can easily control and manipulate 1 million sheeps.
@@Ruda-n4h denial much?
Stop discouraging people from questioning what they have been taught. We do not have to blindly believe everything we've been told, in fact, to do so can be disastrous. I don't know if we made it to the moon, - but I have had questions myself, since childhood. Everytime I ask a logical question regarding this landing, walk, footage.. People get mad or mock me. I find when you get those two reactions, in particular, there is usually more to a story and your questions aren't anticipated, which causes either an anger response or one of mockery. I say question everything. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am a critical thinker and some things do not make sense regarding "Man's Greatest Accomplishment" --And before you ask, I am NOT a flat earther.
You can ask questions. But if you see something that you can't explain, it doesn't mean it is fake or a lie or a conspiracy. You probably didn't understand. And guess what : it is not serious, and you can still learn.
@@justlooking777 your comment really isn't a reply. It literally just looks like you were trying to use "radio telemetry" in a sentence by putting words around it.
@@PierreBrandominiBrandominiWell they aren’t called the “empire of lies” for no reason buddy :)
@@romeolarenzo3929 Evidence of Moon Hoax ? No ? None ?
There is nothing that doesn't make sense to you that can't be explained scientifically. What are your questions?
I have never been to China therefore China must not be there.
Red glasses looks like she came from bobs burgers
funding, she said it, the real reason NASA
Wow! If they had funding in 72, I'm sure they have funding now
@@ashian23x65 Once Apollo 11 had returned from the Moon and President Kennedy's goal had been achieved, cutbacks began under Richard Nixon during a widescale retreat from technology projects due to competing demands e.g. Vietnam War, 70’s recession, public apathy and of course, Nixon never liked Kennedy and didn’t want to prolong his legacy.
It was extremely expensive; each mission cost $1 billion to put two men on the Moon for a maximum of 3 days, a sum which was not financially sustainable, and it was extremely dangerous. Out of 12 manned Apollo missions, including a ground test, there was one catastrophic failure (Apollo 1) and a mission failure (Apollo 13), that’s a terrible ratio.
The speed with which it was possible to land an American on the Moon was a function of the military missile race and President Kennedy’s decision, in the face of Russian space successes, (and to save his own political reputation after the Bay of Pigs disaster) to turn the moon project into the ultimate symbol of American prestige.
There was/is no political imperative to go back to the Moon as there was to get there in the 1960’s Cold War, which was a completely different time. Even Apollo astronaut Frank Borman said. 'Any idea that the Apollo programme was a great voyage of exploration or scientific endeavour is nuts. People just aren't that excited about exploration. They were sure excited about beating the Russians.’
@@ashian23x65 "Wow! If they had funding in 72, I'm sure they have funding now"
this isn't something you have to guess at. NASA's historic budget is a matter of public record.
238,000 Miles and you have to get back with no filling stations , anyone know the MPG on Apollo 11, or would it be GPM , Maybe the reason for not going back is NASA are still charging an electric or hybrid rocket up from the 1970's .Surely NASA would want to keep all Data as archives somewhere.
You don’t need any more fuel once your in your way. Read a book.
@SVegan-de6gc it’s not. It’s ignorant.
@SVegan-de6gc not wow. It’s simple science. If you took a moment to look into the way it works you wouldn’t be making such ignorant comments.
They travelled 384400km and came back safely some 55 yrs ago, today with all the technological advancement they are just hovering around some 450km vertically from us😂😂
They didn't need propellant for a three day journey, they just needed enough to accelerate the craft out of Earth gravity well and fall into The Moon's gravity well. The mathematicians at NASA did the calculations and calculated that they only had to burn the third stage for less than 7 minutes. Then they just coasted, slowing down all the time until they fell into the Moon's gravity well.
"Overwhelming proof".
He then goes on to fail to produce a single shred of 'proof'.
Has anyone with these hi-tec cameras been able to see the flag or anything else like the buggies left on the moon???
Or the golf cart buggy
@@gulfy09Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes have photographed and or observed the equipment left behind at various Apollo landing sites.
The flag is too small but yes there are photos of the landing descent stages of all 6 lunar modules still on the moon
the Chinese have a low lunar orbit satellite that i believe is capable to taking photos with enough resolution to see the shadows cast by the flags.
Yeh you can clearly see the track marks left, there’s pics online
“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”
I actually don't believe the US ever went to the US
Ha! I like the way yo think. The letter "" and "" are a hoax. They do not exit.
Why on earth is this video so clipped? Actually super intriguing, why would they edit it down, where is the full version?
I agree they might as well upload the whole thing
Notice after the first question was answered she said and now from the science perspective.Since when did we start worshipping science.We all have common sense.
Worshipping? What technology do you use that is not science related?
Do you have a question? Please ask. What about this does not make sense?
@Usul
Do I have a question?
No, I made a statement. A statement was made viz; "since when did we start worshipping science?"
My, reply was;
What technology do you use that is not science related?
If no one is worshipping science, then why use mobile phones, TV, microwave ovens, computers, ad inifinitum.
I trust this clears the confusion for you.
@@Testequip I was addressing @davidhepburn9328. Totally confused by the commentary, though. Not sure what you mean.
Common sense doesn't build rockets that go to the Moon. Science does.
Logically thinking just don't understand why all recent launches carry so much fuel in 1969 no extra fuel tanks and now the plan is to send re fueling station just don't get it
Because the mission profiles of Project Artemis are entirely different to those of Apollo, Moreover, Artemis plans to place far greater mass on the surface of the moon.
why does she sound so frightened?
She sounds fine.
@@gives_bad_advice you give bad advice
i noticed this too...she seems not sure of what she is even saying
Why mock him with the cheese stuff ? Unnecessary
The cow jumped over the moon, and its made of cheese
What does the Bible say? 🤔
1) In the beginning YAH created the heaven and the earth.
2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of YAH moved upon the face of the water- Genesis 1:1-2
Have you ever noticed that water is never described as having been created?
The “ firmament “ (dome) separating the water above from the water below, forming essentially a bathysphere - an enclosure of air - within which the dry land appeared in the Genesis 1 account. Being that this water surrounded Earth system is literally under the Throne of YAHUAH in Heaven, this shows how the water is in it….
This comment is not for everyone, but only to the ones that’s seeking truth and understand that NASA is not telling y’all truth!
Like Isaiah 40:22
“It is he who sits above the circle (not ball) of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in”
The Hebrew word used in this verse is “Khoog” (pronounced chug). The word literally means, circle, circuit, and compass. In all of these words, none of them conjure up a picture of a ball.
• The Hebrew word chug used here cannot be translated as sphere. (which is rendered by a different word), but must again be interpreted as a solid vault overarching the earth.
• The Anchor Bible translation of Isaiah 40:22 “Yah sits upon the dome of the earth. “Job 22:14 says that Yah “ walks on the vault (chug) of heaven, “ again suggesting something solid.
Go look at an image of a flat earth depiction and you will see exactly that, A circle ⭕️ and All the countries in one full image! 🤫🤧
NASA & HOLLYWOOD is telling y’all lies 🤥
🙄
I agree it's not possible, we can't get through the Van Allen radiation belt.
What do you know about the Van Allen beltS that James Van Allen (or any other expert for that matter) didn't know?
@@rockethead7 no human can pass through.
Why didn't James Van Allen agree with you? Why don't any of the aerospace engineers on the planet know this? When NASA tells you that there are radiation belts, you believe them? When NASA tells you the level of radiation in them, you don't believe them?
@@oSTYNCLSYo"no human can pass through"
Source?
By the way, the title of this video is a misnomer. There were six (6) landings. And one (1) cis-lunar abort.
Is cis like trans-moon?
And two more that orbited without landing. Missions 8 and 10.
@@dansv1 - oh, yeah! To my way of thinking, Apollo 8 was at least as much of a giant leap as 11.
@@JennHayden
No, it’s the opposite.
“-The prefix “cis-” comes from the Latin meaning “on this side,” as opposed to “trans-” which means “on the other side of” or “beyond.”
Some more interesting info: “Cislunar space (alternatively, cis-lunar space) is the volume within the Moon's orbit, or a sphere formed by rotating that orbit. Volumes within that such as low earth orbit (LEO) are distinguished by other names. Practically, cislunar space is a useful label for "the volume between geostationary orbit and the moon's orbit". Beyond cislunar space lies translunar space.
Cis-lunar is Latin for "on this side of the moon" but also "not beyond the moon".
@dansv1
I didn't know that. I just learnt something new. Thanks for the info
We destroyed all documents because they were obsolete!!!!! She gives this reasoning and calls herself a scientist. That's the most pathetic argument ever.
"We destroyed all documents" ....... "She gives this reasoning".....I think that you need to watch the video again and this time listen to it. She never mentions about "destroying documents" whatsoever. She clearly says that the Apollo era technology is obsolete which is an obvious fact. Please get your facts correct. Take care.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth ,the 'obsolete' technology got them to the moon and they don't have anything in modern technology to repeat the feat again! Yet they discarded it. How about having some common sense first before they call themselves scientists.
How dare you
NASA did not lose the technology to go to the Moon in the sense that it was forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappeared. A lot of the blueprints still exist on file; but the individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
@@Ruda-n4h Yeah it's like saying why Bugatti had any trouble making the fastest car if we already had cars. Whilst yes we did, the difference is they were incredibly slow and inefficient, as technology has progressed and gotten better, it's allowed cars to go much faster, which has in turn created more issues such as the physical limitations of internal combustion and aerodynamics playing a part.
Does that mean we never built the first cars just because we have issues today, of course not, as technology progresses you encounter new issues which weren't an issue before.
According to Dr. Sarah Bosman, the U.S. didn't go back to the Moon because the old technolgy that got us there was destroyed. Now, if I wanted to drive a '64 Ford Mustang from California to New York, even though it's 60 years old, and uses outdated technology, I could still get there, along with all the new technologies and new vehicles on the road. In a word, Sarah's argument falls flat and doesn't answer the question as to why we never went back, even with the advent of newer and more cost effective technologies.
Sarah's next mental gaffe is in thinking that everyone who manufactured parts, or worked at NASA knew what the Top Brass had on their minds. She also does not take into consideration that there were hundreds, if not thousands of agencies, manufacturers, and departments that participated on this project. It's called decompartmentalism, and it breaks down organizations into tiny departments, allowing them to focus on a particular job, while never allowing the right hand to know what the left is doing. Keep in mind, the government within the government controls the media, military, public schools, and the official narrative, so no more than a few dozen had to be in on it. If a manufacturer tells its workers to make a million screws, and bolts, they don't ask what they will be used for or what the customer wants to do with them. Who does that?
Your argument concerning the integration of Apollo demonstrates precisely why a programme of the complexity, transparency and sheer scale would have been utterly impossible to fake.
Regarding technology being "destroyed", in addition to Dr. Bosman, one astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those dimwits that parrot their quote mined nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place their comment within it's full and intended context - the rest of the interview, then it's abundantly clear what they are referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of its commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit himself was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo.
"if I wanted to drive a '64 Ford Mustang from California to New York, even though it's 60 years old, and uses outdated technology, I could still get there"
This just demonstrates how little you understand about the topic. This is an incorrect analogy for many reasons. The Saturn V rocket, the command module, and the Grumman lander, are NOT Ford Mustangs. To drive a Mustang, it takes one person. To get a Saturn V off the ground, it takes thousands of highly trained personnel. To fly it to the moon takes thousands more. There are no functional command modules. There are no functional landers. There are no functional Saturn V rockets. Everything remaining (there's not much left, almost all of it was used) that it takes to get to the moon was gutted and put into museums. There are no launch facilities capable of getting one off the ground. There are no IBM mainframe guidance computers. There's only one working onboard guidance computer remaining, and they'd need at least two. There are no training facilities. There are no lunar landing simulators (LLTVs/LLRVs). The company that built the command modules doesn't exist any longer. The company that built the landers was absorbed by a larger company. Most of the people who designed and built everything to go to the moon is long dead or retired. So, no, dewdrop, your analogy to a Ford Mustang doesn't work.
"no more than a few dozen had to be in on it"
Ridiculous nonsense. There were 24 men who flew to the moon, so that's two dozen right there. And, sorry, but "compartmentalization" isn't accurate in the least amount. All of these systems were highly integrated. There was no concept of merely ordering a pile of bolts and a pile of nuts, and the makers of the bolts don't know what the makers of the nuts are doing. All of these systems were hand built, and every system had to work with other systems built by other companies. One of the most monumental tasks NASA mastered during Apollo was in getting all of the contractors to work together to produce a complete system. And, if you actually believe that hundreds of thousands of people built stuff that they figured would work to get to the moon, why not just go? What did these "dozens" of people know that the hundreds of thousands didn't? If Grumman thought the landers would land, why not just go? If North American Aviation thought the command modules would fly, why not just fly them? What did these "dozens" somehow know that would have prevented them from just taking the equipment that the contractors built, and use it to go to the moon?
@@rockethead7 : I believe you missed my point entirely and are failing to see the picture clearly.
Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you didn't read the answers to your own statements/questions.
The hoaxer in this video is completely ignorant. No they did not "destroy" the data. There are online archives where you can easily find thousands of pages of mission reports, technical designs, radiation studies, etc. Just the other day, I was looking for info on the Apollo 11 lander and in about 12 seconds of searching, I found 4,300 pages from various technical documents, just on the lunar module.
KINDLY GIVE ME THE LINKS . tHANK YOU
The hoaxers are the ones that LIED to us all. You are just a 🐑
Is there any in books published long before the internet…because those you’re talking about could very well be fake
@@wlfrnfdjf Recommended: Exploring the Planets - (Ian Nicolson BSc, astronomer, 1970), Rockets and Missiles - (John W. R. Taylor, writer & aircraft designer, 1970), Invasion of the Moon 1957 to 1970 - (Peter Ryan, Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society, 1971), A Man on the Moon - The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts (Andrew Chaikin, 1998), The Man Who Ran the Moon (Piers Bizony, 2007), NASA Moon Missions - (Haynes Manual, 2019)
@@wlfrnfdjf you think someone faked those thousands of pages of technical documents, containing data that you can verify and calculations that you can calculate yourself and find to be accurate, just so that they APPEAR to have been gone the moon, instead of using all those data and calculations to just, you know, go to the moon. Is that really what you think?
Easy to control 20 people
you are not a junior high school teacher
@@gives_bad_advice
24 adults could easily be paid to keep a secret
@@wlfrnfdjf The problem is the rockets don't build themselves, don't launch themselves, the astronauts need tons of training, everything has to be tested, tons of people saw the launches, and there are tons of other space programs. If Russia didn't have reason to call fake, I doubt some simpletons making youtube videos could.
You are not a middle school teacher.
😂😂 they still can’t come up with a intelligent answer to why they can’t go to moon. Because they never went.
I did not hear anyone say we cannot go to the moon. Who says we cannot go to the moon?
@@Usul obviously you wasn’t paying attention, just like when you was in school. That’s exactly what nasa said, they can’t go back.
@@dwightjackson2614, Where did NASA say this? Please provide a reference.
The individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” and have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. There is also no cold war imperative and no time limit publically placed on it by a president. We also live in much more risk averse times. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
@@Ruda-n4h dude you wrote a book, you have to find a job or a hobby. You obviously have to much time on your hands 🤣 to sum it up you still didn’t give a intelligent answer that made sense 😂😂😂
Amazing Martin go forward🙂
The only argument the woman has is "how they could cover it up"? Very scientific. 😂
Why are you embarrassing yourself?
Have you ever done anything scientific in your life? Go ahead and lie to me.
@@jasonhickmann4344 this video is not about me. Stop your attacks.
That wasn't her only argument and in fact it is scientific.
could you be more specific?@@Ruda-n4h
Its called you build better model with better tech, but thats excuse because the cost to fake it is more expensive
I say Martin won I call cap on the scientists argument.
Kenny didn't offer any science at all, just a load of cobblers.
You go ahead and call cap all you want
23.8.2024
hi to This Morning!
Depeche Mode - People Are People (my cover version 🌐🪓)
*_People are sheeple_* 🐑
*_So why should it be_* 🙁
*_You and I should gut the globe so easily_* 🌐🔨
*_People are sheeple_* 🐑🐑
*_So why should it be_* ☹
*_You and I should gut the globe so easily_* 🌐⛏
*_So we're indifferent to dollars_* 😐
*_And we're indifferent to greeds_* 🥱
*_And indifferent sheeple have different needs_* 💉
*_It's obvious you rate me_* 💯
*_Though I rewrote this song_* ✍
*_You're clever to have met me though you stuck to the globe_* 🤣
*_I can't understand_* 🤨
*_What brakes your brain_* 😄
*_Earth is flat get brain_* 😁
*_Can't you understand_* ❓ 🤭
*_People are sheeple_* 🐑🐑🐑
*_So why should it be_* 😒
*_You and I should gut the globe so easily_* 🌐🪚
*_People are sheeple_* 🐑🐑🐑🐑
*_So why should it be_* 😞
*_You and I should gut the globe so easily_* 🌐🪓
*_Can't you understand_* ❓ 🤭
*_(Can't you understand)_* *_can't you understand_* ❓❓ 🤭
*_Now you're preaching_* 😗
*_And you're pricking_* 😙
*_And you're doubting me_* 😚
*_I am 'dying' on your "common decency"_* 🤗
*_So far feat hasn't surfaced_* 😬
*_But I'm sure it exists_* 🙏
*_It just takes a smile to travel_* 😺
*_From ballhead to flat lists_* 😸
*_I can't understand_* 😕
*_What brakes your brain_* 😆
*_Earth is flat get brain_* 😂
*_Can't you understand_* ❓ 🤭
*_People are sheeple_* 🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑
*_So why should it be_* 😔
*_You and I should gut the globe so easily_* 🌐🗡
*_People are sheeple_* 🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑
*_So why should it be_* 😟
*_You and I should gut the globe so easily_* 🔪🌐
*_I can't understand_* 🤷♂
*_What brakes your brain_* 😀
*_Earth is flat get brain_* 😃
*_Can't you understand_* ❓ 🤭
*_I can't understand_* 🤷♂
*_What brakes your brain_* 😀
*_Earth is flat get brain_* 😃
*_Can't you understand_* ❓❓ 🤭
*_I can't understand_* 🤷♂
*_What brakes your brain_* 😀
*_Earth is flat get brain_* 😃
*_Can't you understand_* ❓❓❓ 🤭
*_(People are sheeple)_* *_I can't understand_* 🤷♂
*_What brakes your brain_* 😀
*_(Why should it be)_* *_earth is flat get brain_* 😃
*_Can't you understand_* ❓❓❓❓ 🤭
*_(People are sheeple)_* *_I can't understand_* 🤷♂
*_What brakes your brain_* 😀
*_(Why should it be)_* *_earth is flat get brain_* 😃
*_Can't you understand_* ❓❓❓❓❓ 🤭
*_(People are sheeple)_* *_I can't understand_* 🤷♂
*_What brakes your brain_* 😀
*_(Why should it be)_* *_earth is flat get brain_* 😃
*_Can't you understand_* ❓❓❓❓❓❓ 🤭
It's translucent 😅🤣
Exactly no way you can land on the moon its illuminated
Funding... Nasa gets 10milions per day and they still need a Funding... 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Well, that's one way to demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about the topic. Dewdrop, congress controls NASA's money. They don't just hand NASA a budget and say "there you go, do whatever you feel like." Each and every program NASA runs is funded separately, and individually approved by congress. NASA cannot take a billion assigned for jet research and just decide to build a rocket with it instead. They cannot take a billion assigned for atmospheric or glacier studies and build a lunar craft instead. You seem quite proud to have zero understanding of the words you write.
The greatest hoax ever. Only the Americans believed they went to the moon 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Quite a lot of emojis but as usual zero evidence to back up your claim.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth same can be said for you 😄 🤣
@@EzekielHarau "same can be said for you"...Obviously not because I always back up any claims that I make with actual evidence and I do not use emojis. So now that you have attempted to deflect, do you have any actual evidence to back up your claims or not? Take care.
@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth what makes you think the whole world will believe the Americans?
@@EzekielHarau Thank you for another reply without any evidence to back up your claim. Take care.
It looks like a fake is a fake !!!
The presenters constantly interrupt martin mid sentence, and let sarah finish. This is before any of them have even said much, so they already have a bias / premeditated agenda. They don't even realise this is a detriment to them being respected in a debate
Even if you don't agree with the opinion of someone else on any subject, have the respect/courtesy/politeness to let them finish their sentence before constantly unterrupting and trying to herd mentality everyone else into laughing at them. I mean it's not like someone is sat here claiming the earth doesnt exist, or the earth is made of cheese. If they are saying silly things that can be 100% instantly verified (the moon landing isn't one of those things) they don't need you to "kick them whilst their down".
The way they just laugh and shake their heads like they 100% know what happened, and want everyone to laugh at another human is more cringe imo. At it's bottom line, they are basically bullying him. None of them have any clue what happened and just believing what they have read / been told.
Martin also raises a perfectly valid point that back then nobody had the means / technology to even attempt to research / verifiy / think criticially about what they were being told. Everyone probably just virtue signalled and agreed with everyone which is a pretty cringe human behaviour if you have no way of knowing what actually happened. In before some clown says "you must be a flat earther" just because I expect more in a debate. Get a grip
They say if the moon is close to the earth, the earth would freeze, how did the rocket not freeze when its made up of the same resources frozen on earth if it is in that close proximity. But if we are not landing on the moon, where is Elon Musk and team going with dem rockets.
❓
Their aluminium rocket apparently protected them
The earth wouldn’t freeze because the moon radiates cold it would freeze because its rotation would be slowed down so half of the earth wouldn’t be touched by the sun also yes the rocket would freeze if in a vacuum for long enough just because there’s no heat
She is covering it up also. So delusional
Unconsciously that is, since Martin probably knew this as well but forgot to point it out unless he just doesn’t know that part of people unconsciously being involved in the mass indoctrination, propaganda, misinformation etc… so the “cosmologist” and “Astrophysicist” isn’t necessarily delusional but rather blind to the truth of these so called “conspiracy theories” as if their “Theories” isn’t really just hypotheses, so I wonder why they call those “conspiracy theories” that instead of “conspiracy hypotheses”?
Yeah. That’s hypocrisy and stupidity at it’s purest form and that is at best, at worst it would be self-disrespect [To one’s intellect] and pointless stubbornness to crazy facts and concepts (“conspiracy theories” as they like to them) that ironically comes from the absurdity of their beliefs and even their opinions at times.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
You are the one living in a fantasy my friend
@willzi9265 No you definitely are my friend
Actually it did
Funding what a joke. Billions for the Ukraine without a vote.
One scientist thought the moon was plasma. It may be a bioluminescent and is under water.
yes, these people are real. the good new is that they are not intelligent enough to read a ballot.
Auguste Piccard once said, after reaching a record high altitude decades ago that the world looked completely flat with upturned edges… His exact words.. Come on tossers… start discrediting what this great explorer sa with his own eyes.
“In the country of the blind. The one-eyed man is king”
Yes it is called The ice wall, another reason The Antarctica treaty was signed by so many countries including Russia in the 1950’s..
They never talk about THAT now do they?!
That is the exact words. We used to know but now we don't. Not it's outdated
After the show they drove him back to the hospital for brain search. Nothing found. What an idiot.
The biggest fake ever. No man has been to the moon.
So any actual evidence to back up your claim?
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth How about common sense? why haven't they gone back to the moon?
@@timelapsetv3869Because we collected all the data we need. Thats why after appollo we changed our sights and focused on space stations in low earth orbit.
The Moon is focused plasma phenomenon of negative cosmic energy. It shows the X-ray of the base of the Earth. The geometry of the source of cosmic energy below creates its phases. It happens in a semiaetherial environment and is from phosphorised Kr (krypton) 👁️
It also makes a delicious queso dip. Loved the hilarious comment.
Ahh he lost me when he called the moon "Illuminary." Maybe we've been to the moon, maybe not, but uhhhh it is a tangible thing. That wild take discredited his whole argument, to me. That's like people who sceram and shout about something you might believe in, and then they say something totally insane, and you're like...ooooo, okay, I WAS with you, but now I know you better, and I gotta dip out"
The Bible also backs up what he is saying as does the book of Enoch.
Actually so do my eyes but most people prefer to believe ‘The Emperors New Clothes’ version of the moon..
You can't see through tangible things. Sometimes you can see a star through the moon.
Ah yes, he knows this. I wonder how he knows.
So you actually cannot decide.... whether the story is real, or a hoax? 🤣
😅😂its called deconstruction. If you can't see, feel or touch it never happened.
Yep fake
That made of cheese questions was so insulting to Sarah.
I just love this nonsense. And Eamon not knowing the last Apollo mission was in 1972, shows poor research by the Good Morning producers. It’s hilarious if if wasn’t that seemingly sensible folk believe that over 400,000 people involved in the Apollo project have kept quiet for the last 50 odd years. Never mind all the other stuff such as a prism that we can bounce a laser off it to get the exact distance the moon is from the Earth. Or it that fake as well? As I say ‘Hilarious.’
Compartmentalization.
Thank you!@@1Corinthians15.1-4
for real.@@1Corinthians15.1-4
@@1Corinthians15.1-4
Conspiracy theorists often claim that scientists are compartmentalized to suggest that knowledge within the scientific community is intentionally restricted or controlled.
'They' argue that scientists work in isolated compartments, unaware of the broader picture, to manipulate information. However, this notion is generally unfounded, as collaboration and open communication are fundamental aspects of scientific research, allowing for the exchange of ideas and findings across disciplines. Hence your claim is unfounded!
@@1Corinthians15.1-4 You want to talk about compartmentalization? Let me tell you about the Manhattan Project, the most stringently guarded secret in history. All the research directly related to the bomb was performed on a mesa top in what was then a remote section of New Mexico. The participants and their families were completely cut off from the outside world, surrounded by armed troops, barbed wire, high cliffs, and miles of inhospitable territory. People left only on urgent lab business, and traveled with false IDs. Even the members of the local Boy Scout troop were known to their district headquarters only as "boy 1", "boy 2", etc.
Despite all this, Stalin knew about the bomb before being officially informed at Potsdam.
It’s a crying shame that there are people out there basically discrediting and disrespecting thousands and thousands scientists, technicians mathematicians. It is horrible and disgusting
When people cannot actually do anything significant with their lives, they often choose to pretend that they are. For these folks, it's pretending that they have "inside knowledge" and that somehow they know more than the thousands of scientists, technicians, and mathematicians. Those people have no hope of ever being any of those things. So, for them, pretending that they have somehow "outsmarted" everyone on Earth is what gives their lives meaning.
Notice how smug the guy is, but the lady is respectful.
Probably frustrated deep down that he couldn't pursue his career at NASA.
There were almost half a million people involved in the first mission to the moon, this involved people from other countries.
They are all wrong, even the Russians admitted to this. Somehow nobody else knows the real truth 😂😂😂
:) Sarah compares the car - a derivative of technology, with technology - drawings, experimental data, etc. She is ill ? In which country and which scientists are destroying the results of their many years of scientific work? :)
Cause you've been told, you didn't check and you've been lied to. The technology is not lost.
Ask Apple to make an Apple II computer. They will inform you that it is impossible since none of the components used are in production anymore and the machines used to make those components no longer exist.
You would get the same response if you asked Ford to build one of their car designs from the 60s.
@@luther0013 Exactly, well said.
@@luther0013 Equipment is not technology; not being able to produce something at the moment does not mean that you don’t know how to produce it. Such knowledge is priceless and it is not destroyed, but accumulated.
@@inbuckswetrust7357 the plans for the Saturn V are available on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Centre.
20.6.2024
hello there This Morning!
Def Leppard - Photograph (my cover version 😊)
*_I'm outa lie, outa lots_* 🙏
*_Got a photoshop, picture of_* 🌐
*_Fashion killer, I'm too much_* 💪
*_You're the only one I wanna punch_* 🤜🌐
*_I say you're fake everytime I stream_* 👨💻
*_On every page, every size of screen_* 📱💻🖥📺
*_So wild so free stay far from me_* ⚠
*_You're all I loathe, lie fantasy_* 🤮
*_Oh, look what you've done through this rotten ball clown_* 😠
*_Oh oh, look what you've done_* 😡
*_Photoshop - I don't want your..._* 🌎
*_Photoshop - I don't need your..._* 🌍
*_Photoshop - All you've got is a photoshop_* 🌏
*_But it's not enough_* 🙅♂
*_I'd be your leader, if you're there_* 👨🏫
*_Put your trust on me, if you care_* 🤝
*_Such a human, I got style_* 😎
*_I make every brain heal with a smile, oh_* 😊
*_You had some kinda hold on me_* ⛓
*_You're all washed up it's history_* 🌐🟰💩
*_So wild so free stay far from me_* ⚠
*_You're all I loathe, lie fantasy_* 🤮
*_Oh, look what you've done through this rotten ball clown_* 😠
*_Oh oh, look what you've done_* 😡
*_I gotta hate you_* 🤬
*_Photoshop - I don't want your..._* 🌎
*_Photoshop - I don't need your..._* 🌍
*_Photoshop - All you've got is a photoshop_* 🌏
*_You've gone straight off my head_* 😌
"There's people researching it"
Bruh - surfing 4chan and reddit is not research.
They are very good at what they do
When someone like Martin Kenny says they think it's all a hoax I feel sorry and quite sad for them. They have constructed a world for themselves that is comforting and gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling. If you were going to have a hoax, you would bizarrely have to have a project plan that created the hoax project. Which is even more complex than just having a project to go there.
When he says it's a luminary I had a hard time not laughing. Then when he mentioned the old Nikon P900, I couldn't not laugh. Martin is clearly a flat earther when he says luminary and P900.
Lol just people confused on bathroom
@SVegan-de6gc Really?
He’s right . No way we went in 69
I feel bad for you because the moon landing crap is bs.
Have you been to the fukin moon?.. I’m guessing no.. only in your warped Hollywood infested dreams. The moon is a luminous body of light. And get this dicksplash… the sun is of equal size, both Approx. 3000miles in diameter. Contrary to official astronomical facts, the sun is not 400 times larger or further away than the moon. Which is why when you look up to the sky they appear the same size… BECAUSE THEY BLOODY WELL ARE THE SAME SIZE… we are living in a bizarre Truman Show movie like existence where ignorance and denial is the norm. My best guess according to researchers going beyond flat earth theory is that we are inside a gigantic magnetic toroidal vortex field. That encompasses what we know to be the van Allen radiation belts.
This comment section is full of idiots. WE WENT! GET OVER IT
Why has Martin got a pen in his hand?
Why should we believe someone without any schooling or validity. She’s a literal scientist 😂 he researches on UA-cam
And he sounds way more intelligent than she does. The way he articulate, I doubt if he's just a UA-cam researcher. People are figuring out that white people been lying to the world since they been in power..and this isn't the only thing they've lied about. That's what they do to seem important to civilization.
So what? You get people who teach religious education. They actually tell people adam and eve were real.
@@poisonpixie1146lol, that was funny
@@poisonpixie1146 science and religion are not interchangeable in this argument at all. Science is based on facts and derivable knowledge. Religion is almost solely based on belief. Your rebuttal is redundant.
Only listen to people with qualifications? Anyone can study information, but a qualification doesn't automatically mean you are right.
4:15. Funding moved from lunar exploration to the space shuttle. Easy answer.
@@charles_preston what? I don’t understand what you’re saying. Why would I lie?
@@michaelsinkler3069 Bon voyage!
@@charles_preston ok
If you ever wondered if man landed on the moon or not then watch the post landing interview by Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins and that should help make up your mind.
If you watch the whole thing you would know they did.
@@Ruda-n4h
Can you post the link…I can’t find the whole interview
@@Ruda-n4h ...I did they didn't.
What's your point... that three dudes convinced you of their absurd story?
@@charles_preston .....they convinced me it was a lie.
Amazed he never brought up the flat earth and the dome. Pity buzz aldrin wasnt there to put him straight, as he did with that clown brad sibrel
You and Buzz can twerk on the moon 😂😂😂
Buzz aldrin was a fraud
@@Maynards_so_blue
Said the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory.
They left mirrors up there,and at the right time you can point a powerful lazer at them, and they bounce back! I think that proves they were there! Among other small solid facts,that proves it!
Hahahahha dnt be stupd
U seen the cameras used to film the moon landing and the moon landing, it takes 3 men to operate one camera, they would have had to take a film crew to the moon.
Not only did they go to the moon in the 60s they managed to live stream it all the way to earth in real time
@@DirtyTalkTv It didn't take 3 men. A 16mm colour movie camera was used from inside the cockpit of the lunar module, on descent and lift off, and for some footage of the moonwalks. Additionally on Apollo 15-17 the tv camera on the lunar rover was left running and pointed at the lunar module to film the lift off from outside. On the lunar rover one astronaut operated a television camera (the box in front of the high-gain antenna).
@@DirtyTalkTv The TV pictures were filmed by a black and white slow scan television camera and beamed back to Earth, via a steerable 20-watt S-band high gain antenna installed on top of the lunar module ascent stage.
S-Band is a microwave band that can penetrate radiation and antenna gain refers to the ability of the antenna to focus scattered radio frequency waves into a narrower beam, thereby increasing signal strength. High-gain antenna provides a more precise way of targeting radio signals and are therefore very essential to long-range wireless networks. The LM’s transmissions were then picked up by a radio telescope at a tracking station in Canberra, Australia. NASA then converted the image to standard broadcast signal which was transmitted to a communications satellite and back down to Houston where it was then broadcast around the world. The radio telescope on the ground for receiving was extremely large and powerful which reduced the amount of battery power needed by the lunar module.
16.9.2024
hello This Morning!
Bon Jovi - You Give Love A Bad Name (my cover version 👨🚀👨🚀👨🚀🟰🐍🐍🐍)
*_Shot through the art_* 😊
*_And you're to blame_* 👉👨🚀
*_'Darling', you give gov a bad name_* 😿
*_An 'angel''s smile is what you sell_* 👨🚀🟰😈
*_Who promise thee_* 🫵🤓 *_heaven_*
*_Then put thee through jail_* ⛓🤓⛓
*_Chains of gov got a hold on thee_* ⛓🤓🧠⛓
*_When fashion's a prison_* ⛓🌎🌍🌏⛓
*_You can't break free_* ⛓🤓🌎🌍🌏⛓
*_Oh, oh, you're a loaded one_* 🤓🌐
*_Oh, oh, there's nowhere to run_* ⛓🤓🌐⛓
*_No one can save thee_* 🤷♂
*_The damage is done_* 🫵🐑
*_Shot through the art_* 👨🎨
*_And you're to blame_* 👨🚀👈
*_You give gov a bad name_* 🙁
*_I play my part_* 👨🏫
*_And you play your game_* 👨🚀🟰🤡
*_You give gov a bad name_* 😞
*_You give gov a bad name_* 😔
*_Yo, plaint_* 👨⚖👉 *_your smile on your lips_* 👨🚀🟰😈
*_Bud read mails, own your "finger trips"_* 😈🖕 🚀 🤛😎
*_A fool boys team, you act so sly_* 👨🚀👨🚀👨🚀🟰🤥🤥🤥
*_Your very first hiss_* 👨🚀👨🚀👨🚀🟰🐍🐍🐍
*_Was your first miss_* 👨🚀👨🚀👨🚀🟰🤡🤡🤡 *_goodbye_* 👋
*_Oh, oh, you're a loaded one_* 🤓🌐
*_Oh, oh, there's nowhere to run_* ⛓🤓🌐⛓
*_No one can save thee_* 🤷♂
*_The damage is done_* 🫵🐑
*_Shot through the art_* 👨🎤
*_And you're to blame_* 👉👨🚀👈
*_You give gov a bad name_* 😐
*_I play my part_* 👍
*_And you play your game_* 👎
*_You give gov a bad name_* 😑
*_You give gov..._*
What an idiot he thinks they he smarted the scientist! 😂. If they were going to fake it, they wouldn't make school boy errors. The stars aren't meant to be in the background
The bloke arguing that we didn’t go to the moon is talking nonsense with no real understanding of science or technology! He babbles on with his point, then the cosmologist instantly corrects him… I think we need to ask him, what qualifications does he have?
😂😂😂 yall never went to the moon 😂😂
I agree with Michael.
At first glance and consumed without much in the way of science literacy, some of the doubts offered by moon landing deniers can sound marginally compelling but collapsing their arguments requires little more than a healthy dose of common sense, infused with trace amounts of scientific acumen.
Experts spanning the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, and photography all say we’ve been to the Moon, and it’s usually a good idea to defer to experts on matters in which you are, in fact, not one.
With the ability to find out why a lot of information today, how in the world do people get this painfully stupid? The other problem is why are you playing into their delusional Behavior. I mean I have found out a lot of things about a lot of details especially of relatively recent history. And some of them are against the mainstream. But I can show sound reasoning for why I have come to such conclusions. Because I took the time to study the mechanisms Within. This person doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. There's a mountain of evidence that it didn't happen, there is none at all but it didn't happen. There is speculation, and I have looked at every piece of speculation. It isn't of any value. As it turns out, a close friend of mine actually manufactured some of the parts that he took from Michigan down to Cape Canaveral and installed them on the landing module himself.
Strangely, they used that kind of old technology to go to the moon and sucessful but why can't they use the same machine to go back? The circumstances, environment of the moon hasn't changed. If they can do it 60years ago why now no...😮
For the exact same reasons that they don't fly Concordes any longer. They were massively inefficient machines, with little or no return on investment (other than political). The technology from the 1960s is outdated now, and it's far too difficult to retrofit worldwide communications and radar tracking systems to those old standards. And, the circumstances HAVE changed. They lost the political support to keeping them flying, and every single flight lost money.
Also, for moon missions, sorry, but nobody wants another Apollo. It was far too limited. They want longer missions, more payload, more choices about where to land (Apollo had a very narrow band of possible landing sites), more ability to explore further distances, more experiments, more people, better environmental controls, etc. And, they want to do it on 1/10th of the money that Apollo costed.