It really was a great show, the drivel that they have on these days can't come close to the logical and practical scientific approach that this show applied to its subject matter. As the saying goes "You don't miss the water til the well runs dry!"... and the well is bone dry 😅.
@@Michael-mo1lx Lol. As if that would make a difference. Do you honestly believe the moon landing deniers would accept video footage from people they don't already trust. Absolutely not! I wish they would, but they won't. People are too stubborn to admit they were wrong, so I guarantee you if Artemis were to land near any of the Apollo landing sites, the deniers would just call it fake footage anyway. Wouldn't change a single thing 🤷
Regarding the footprint: As someone who has been into Tracking for many years I can say: given a substrate of the right grain size / structure you can get very very clear footprints without any moisture present. Just try leaving a footprint in dry campfire ash or cement. Those will be very sharp and visible.
I didn't see signs of a campfire or construction materials though. That's being silly though! I always felt perhaps the earlier missions garnered up supplies on the moon while the other guys trained for the film shoot
History is chock full of conspiracies, as are most historical documentaries. The theory part is debatable, but so many are coming true not many are still in the 'theory' stage. But until the clean rocks are explained, without earth weather, it remains a theory with evidence, that it was photographed on earth.
Well good luck with that. As most conspiracy theories are true. From the hoax 9/11 were luke Skywalker took out the entire twin towers complex, And recently the convid 19 scamdememic. The renamed common cold from the 1960s
I think NASA should send a rover with high resolution cameras to the Apollo landing sites and take some footages and shut the moon landing conspiracy debate once and for all.
I think NASA shouldn’t blow hundreds of millions (at least) on gathering footage that still won’t convince the tinfoil hatters. It’s not about evidence. There’s plenty of it. It’s about feeling special.
No, no-one should concede anything to conspiracy nuts, they ignore and dismiss anything that proves them wrong. They don't really care about truth, it's just an ego-trip for them.
This Episode blew me away 10 years ago, I didn't know people thought we faked the moon landing at the time. Either I was really naive, or it wasn't as well known, or probably a bit of both. Lol
Still fake & NASA clearly sponsored this didnt do the back pack , didnt do the small "Gun sized " box that is missing from blueprints ( yanks cant go to the offy without a sawn off & revolver down their socks ),NO ONE except 1 SS mission can atest to the van allen rad belt cos they are the only humans whove been anywhere close to it ( 300 miles earth orbit )
@fredwicks8256 Did you know that a large number of astronauts who were reported deceased were actually discovered to be employed in various fields? Not even a name change occurred. And given the years that have elapsed up to this point, they appear to be the age they should be.
it was well known, but during the last 10 years those of "marginalized thought" (i just made that term up) have been able to confirm their stupid takes and illinformed hypothesis with each other through social media - and the trust in authorities have fallen and living conditions in the us has dropped so much that more people will tend to believe the crazies because they are anti-authority or "anti mainstream" or what ever word. It gives them agency in a world that is quite unbendable and companionship so it's understandable enough.
I have never met a single scientist or physics professor who has had the slightest doubts about the moon landings - if I ask them a totally neutral question about something related to the moon landings, they always continue the discussion just as if I had brought up a neutral conversation about water, and don't question the validity of the moon landings in any way whatsoever.
I've never trusted mythbusters since they made a whole episode testing if a daddy long leg had dangerous venom, and throughout the whole episode, they mistook celler spiders for daddy long legs!!! That is absolutely astounding!
@@Dazza19746 you know, I won't criticize you on that, even tho I'm highly the opinion that there where no lies sold, even going so far, to call it a giving fact. But, you shall have you pov.
I mean, I'm not criticizing you, but I would like you to explain if the Earth is flat, then how come the moon isn't crashing down to Earth? If all planets are flat? @@Dazza19746
It's crazy how back then you could just talk about stuff like this on TV without being canceled and having "Context" crap forced all over your uploads.
I can't even read my own comments here, youtube are terrified of what I say, like little cockroaches, scuttling away to protect NASA's lies. No First Amendment here!
Crazy, right? It's like people are infantile and incapable of forming their own opinion and thoughts without being told what to think first by some higher authority than their own selves, just insane! Isn't it so???
I've never trusted mythbusters since they made a whole episode testing if a daddy long leg had dangerous venom, and throughout the whole episode, they mistook celler spiders for daddy long legs!!! That is absolutely astounding!
because they're lying about the moon landings, why would the government cancel someone that supports their narrative? for example low gravity was simulated using bungee harnesses, not slow motion photography. This whole video is propaganda. Sad that some people still think we landed on the moon.
My favourite apollo story is the "argument" between Harold Schmidt and Gene Cernan who both claim to be the last person on the moon. Harold Schmidt, the only civilian to walk on the moon was the last person to climb down from the LEM of Apollo 17 - making him the twelfth and therefore last person to step foot on the moon. When it came to leaving the moon however Schmidt was the first person to climb back into the LEM - leaving Cernan momentarily behind as the last person to stand on the lunar surface 😊
@@mako88sb Dick Gordon his original commander was the same. As test pilots then had enormous egos, it might have been that Cernan didn't want a scientist to show that he could do the same. The astronauts were worried that people would say, 'oh well anyone could do it if they were trained' and it would take some of their lustre away. Schmitt was never fully accepted by them which is a shame as he must have had to bust a gut to keep up with them sufficiently to be chosen for a mission.
@@Ruda-n4h He was the 'geologist' who didn't notice that the rocks he was leaning on, were clean on top, which is impossible in a dust fall zone without weather. But in the Nevada desert, is so ordinary, no one notices..
I've never trusted mythbusters since they made a whole episode testing if a daddy long leg had dangerous venom, and throughout the whole episode, they mistook celler spiders for daddy long legs!!! That is absolutely astounding!
Are they showing it can be faked or are they debunking the myth? 😅😅 I believed they went to the moon, so next time when they go light up the flame or something that can be visible from earth while shooting a film on moon. That would be a solid ground truth.
i distinctly remember this episode from when i was a kid. i could not believe people didn’t believe in the moon landing (mostly bc i couldn’t wrap my head around WHY anyone wouldn’t believe it), but the way that they presented the initial arguments seemed logical, which made it cooler to see them bust it. cool to see it uploaded! (shame abt the narrator getting stuck in the left channel)
If anyone is wondering why NASA doesn't just send a probe to the Moon and photograph the landing sites (all six of them) in order to prove they did, infact, land there, check out the vid I uploaded. It features the images NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission returned back in 2011 when instructed to descend to within 25km of the lunar surface.
Just watched your video. Nice one man. Subbed to your channel on the strength of that. I watched the Apollo 11 landing as a kid. We got up in the middle of the night to watch it here in the uk.
@@petetimbrell3527 Thanks! Too few people know about the LRO mission and those images it took. Unfortunately, many would say they, too, are just NASA fakes. I also followed the Apollo missions back in the day, which is something I'm truly grateful for, as it was a golden age for space flight.
6:00 It's perspective. They have a spotlight which is NOT parallel light. They have a point source of light, and the shadows appeared parallel. But this is like god rays.... Flat earthers claim the sun is super close because the god rays look like they diverge. God rays are parallel, but because of perspective, i.e. the clouds being close, they look like diverge onto the ground. Same thing happens with train tracks. Train tracks are parallel, yet they appear to converge.
How to win an argument. First start off by saying lots of silly things your opponent never said. Then when pulled change the subject over and over. Lol
@@daveyjones5702 basically that is what they do. They say people say things when they don't, that let them. Make bull shit videos. But the brain dead believe people did say ridiculous things
That was why Buzz Aldrin punched one man in the face when he followed him yelling that they Astronauts were liers. It is painful to risk your life to do something that others downplay or say that you faked it.
@@G-ra-ha-m he's a senior and had been harassed for hours by a guy calling him a liar, anyone would have punched him. If he hadn't punched him you'd say "come on, he's been on the moon and doesn't even get angry when questioned? suspicious..." because no evidence is enough for you. Also, who says you don't get angry about the truth? If someone called my mom a whore (which she isn't) they'd get a punch too.
@@tommythecat4961 You are making excuses. Rationalising. Maybe he was simply stressed as he was caught in a big lie, that he was unable to expose. He nearly confessed to a little girl.
@@G-ra-ha-m yes, rationalizing, because I'm being rational. Also, "nearly" confessed? So he didn't say anything. But it's ok, I know I won't convince you and I'm not trying to, just wanted to point out that suspicions are not the same as proof. The fact you think you wouldn't react to something a certain way doesn't mean everyone is the same. Some people never get angry, others kill over a parking spot dispute.
@@tommythecat4961 Find the footage where he talked with the young girl, it's quite touching. I don't blame him, pressure can be applied to the best of men. But they never went, I see that in most of the photos, the evidence is very clear: the photos are from earth, and are impossible on the moon, due to the landscape and the rocks.
Re the light in the Aldrin shot, there's also the light reflected by Armstrong's suit, re-reflected by Aldrin's suit back to the camera. Those suits reflect over 90%of the sunlight hitting them.
@@connectthedots5678 In an exosphere, the gases are so spread out that they rarely collide with one another. They are rather like microscopic cannon balls flying unimpeded on curved, ballistic trajectories and bouncing across the lunar surface. In the moon's atmosphere, there are only 100 molecules per cubic centimeter. Not enough.
'In a 2005 interview, Collin Powell ( US Secretary of State) stated that he did not lie (Iraqi WMD) because he did not know the information was false... ' Google
@@ArKritz84it's quite a bit like 80s cop shows with car chases. you can make a small part of the footage look like it should by speeding it up (ie, make cars appear to be speeding much faster), but nothing else behaves normally.
The video camera used on the moon was a slow scan camera with 10 frames per second and low resolution of only 100 lines. Once received on earth, it had to be converted for broadcast to 30 fps with 3:2 pull-down for NTSC and 25 fps for PAL.
The flag one always gets me. Supposedly NASA went to enormous effort to fake the landings - yet at the same time was quite happy to show something that would instantly prove them to be fake - ie the flag being blown around by the wind.
He means that the conspiracy theorists are being silly, why would nasa let wind blow in the set, that's just dumb, it it was fake they would make an effort for the flag to be still@@stoobydootoo4098
Perhaps that's why they didn't bother to alter that effect because they knew that anyone with any sense would know that the flag would flap around in a vacuum and if it didn't everyone would then know for sure that the footage was faked.
We all still miss you Grant, you helped make Mythbusters great. Also Jessie Combs who appeared a few times, she died achieving her passion for "The fastest woman on wheels"
Should have used Talac Powder for the first Boot Print test. Armstrong's Suit didn't have the Red Stripe on the Helmet Cover, Apollo 14 was the first Mission to do so The pic of Aldrin at the Foot of the Ladder, was taken as He came down, he had no dust on his legs, so why did they put dust on the Models The idea of simulating the Lunar Gravity in a Vomit Comet, was great. They also increased the Walkers Mass to what it would be fully Suited. Good Job
The moon dust at 1/6th Earth pressure, moves in an entirely different way to on Earth. Hence, even if footage was slowed down, you'd still be unable to replicate that fact. Plus all the hard shadows in every piece of film stay where they should, even whilst traversing by foot or Lunar Rover. There is good footage of the Lunar Rover travelling in 360 degress over a mile with far distant hills, all with the same one light source; no light fall off anywhere in any of the thousands of pics/films. We have footage from over 50,000ft up to landing on the moon with no edit cuts in the analogue film. You'd need one hell of an outside studio to film from that height, with a view of hundred of miles! Every divet, crater and dip, all perfect in the footage/pics, that would later be shot over 40 years later, using hi-res probes from China, India, Japan and the USA. No night-time flying bugs to spoil any shot! Not one word from foreign intelligence aiming to show-up the USA's (with many British staff) achievements....plus actually building Apollo rockets from nearly 3 million working parts, all designed to do what they were created for - going to the moon. We know how far the moon is from us, thanks to 3 seperate laser reflectors left there and we have seismic readings from their scientific equipment that was set up....oh and all 6 landing sights have also been photographed by numerous other countries over the last few years - all as they were, every foot print, lunar track and LM bases. Using 1968/9 to 1972 technology, it would be impossible to fake going there 9 times and landing 6 times - in fact, Hollywood tried to recreate it in a couple of recent movies, using modern tech/CGI and couldn't get it right. Go to 'March to The Moon' website to view thousands of their photographs in massive RAW files. If you were trying to fake something, there'd be a handful of pictures and a few short bits of grainy footage. Or, go to 'Apollo 11 in Real Time' website, to watch the complete journey from lift off to return. Every bit of dialogue, with films/pictures in 'real time' during the mission. (There's also Apollo 13 and the last 17 available)
Lots of BS by intelligent people. Last time people wereceate,lied& told fairytales were when Pharisee,super corruptRabbid,early Popes...telling world re. JUDAISM SECT.. REMEMBER BUDDY ?
That can't be Neil Armstrong suit. On Apollo 11 they did NOT have the red stripe on the commander suit. They started putting them on because it was difficult to identify who was on camera.
Neil Armstrong's spacesuit is at the National Air and Space Museum and I don't think they'd be happy about loaning it out for experimental science.....
I recently listened to the audio recording of the Apollo 12 lunar landing (you can find it on file 372 on the Internet Archive's Apollo 12 Audio Collection). The action begins at 02:15:00 with "Go for PDI" and leads to an interesting journey down to the lunar surface, culminating in touchdown around 02:34:00. What struck me was the remarkable clarity of the audio and the seemingly instantaneous communication between Mission Control and the Apollo 12 crew. Considering the moon is approximately 384,400 kilometers away from Earth, a round-trip radio communication should take about 2.56 seconds due to the speed of light. Yet, in the recording, the responses seem to occur with zero delay. I encourage others to listen to this historic landing and share their thoughts. Is the clarity and lack of delay in the conversation as astonishing to you as it was to me? Let's discuss!
For those interested in experiencing the Apollo 12 lunar landing in even more detail, I recommend checking out the 'Apollo 12 landing from PDI to Touchdown' video on the 'Apollo 12 - Apollo Flight Journal' UA-cam channel. The quality of the audio and the immediacy of the exchanges in these recordings are truly remarkable. It feels as though Mission Control and the Apollo 12 crew were in the same room, not separated by roughly 385,000 kilometers of space. It's a testament to the incredible technological achievements of the Apollo program. (or question the genuineness! ) Give it a listen and join the discussion.
Note: Research assistance for this summary was provided by Perplexity AI, whose advanced capabilities helped distill the complexities of Apollo 12's communication systems. "The Apollo 12 mission utilized a sophisticated communication system to ensure constant contact between the astronauts and Mission Control. Central to this was the Unified S-band (USB) system, a tracking and communication system that combined voice, telemetry, and tracking into one radio link. This system was developed specifically for the Apollo program by NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). The communication systems in the Apollo Command Module were intricate, with the premodulation processor (PMP) playing a key role in combining most of the audio, data, and TV signals for transmission by the S-band radio systems. The PMP also processed most of the voice and data signals received from Earth. In addition to the USB system, Apollo 12 used VHF (Very High Frequency) radio for communication between astronauts and the Lunar Module (LM) during lunar surface operations. The Command Module could also measure range to the LM over the VHF voice link as a backup. The communication system was designed for redundancy and versatility. For example, if the S-band radio failed on the Lunar Module, the Command Module could relay communication to and from the ground using the VHF radio. In summary, the Apollo 12 mission used a combination of the Unified S-band system and VHF radio to maintain communication between the astronauts, the spacecraft, and Mission Control. This complex and versatile system allowed for reliable communication over the vast distance between the Earth and the Moon."
@@bestplansmarketing3267 The delay only applied on one end. Sunscreen the recording was made on the Earth, the responses to the astronauts were immediate (or as immediate as responses usually are). The astronauts' replies, however, had the speed of light limited delay.
I just came here to see how Mythbusters would handle the conspiracy-theorist's (ridiculous) claims. I'm fully convinced they could have made the show much shorter, but fo rthe sake of showbusiness, made the episode longer. (... because some people need a longer ramp in order to understand the path of the logic presented. Which simply means 'ignorance'. The word 'ignorance' here is not used in a demonizing way. Nobody knows everything, nor a lot from the start.) I'm glad Mythbusters did this episode tho!! Science ftw! Physics ftw!
@@GrandePunto8V Did you even watch it? lol It proves quite the opposite. What we can do today, could not be done back then, cinematics wise. Unless they actually shot on location (the moon).
7:51 They don't explain it clearly. The key idea at play here is the principle of perspective. Those shadows diverge due to the effect of perspective that squeezes them as they recede into the distance.
This video is for dummies that believe anything without doing their own research. It’s easier to swallow whatever BS than take time to research and use your brains.
@@efwaves4665right how sad is it that people forget about the Van Allen rad belt, the distance the belt is from us and far away the moon is, and most important how big a single computer system was in that era a entire wall just for one computer nasa mission control would have needed over 30 computers just to run the radio one to send one to receive, one to watch each little thing, the lunar lander was tin and aluminum..... no led no room for one single computer of the day yet people are buying the nasa launch controls computers did all the work and sent wirelessly the signal far beyond are orbit..... when the radios of the time could barely pass 50 yards on earth were forced to buy the entire bs of the moon landing was real...
Pete: right, we’ve got the moon set? Doug: yeah! Pete: astronauts ready to go? Doug: yeah! Pete: they’re about to put the flag in the ground? Doug: yeah! Pete: cool. Doug turn on the big fan in the studio. We need to get that flag blowing! Doug: what?!!!
Perhaps you are unaware, but there is quite a lot of historical writing that we had no moon before about 4039 BC. Perhaps they were mistaken, but there are many such legends. If so, how did it get it's almost perfect orbit and captured rotation, within known human history?
@@Ruda-n4hMultiple ancient records say the same thing, so it's rather better corroborated that your fantasy moon trip. Are you also aware that there's also many writings, in detail, before 713BC of a 360 day solar year, a different pole star and no precession? Have you read the evidence that Velikovsky found, decades ago? Have you wondered why all the wikipedia accountd of the 'building' of the old world structures are bogus? Here's a game for you: Find a nearby beautiful old building - an old station, post office or town hall: Look it up on wikipedia, and then dig for the timescales, logistics, who designed it, where they lives, what else they did, same for the builders who cut the stone - you'll rapidly run into a solid wall of 'no data'. Yes, the gradualism history we are told is a joke, even more so, than the moon trip story.
This is going to be epic! Not a big possibility but these guys should get back together, minus Grant, RIP, at least on a regular but much reduced schedule, might work. The scale of lighting probably doesn't match sun. Of course if light comes from a single source shadows at two different sides of a photo won't be parallel. In all honesty though, do you think that NASA and Stanley Kubrick, trying to fake the moon landing, would make the amateur mistake of using multiple light sources.
Jamie: Let me guess we are doing moon landing myths? Adam: Oh I know what one, that's where people believe the moon landing was fake Jamie: Yeah, the moon Adam: Oh I know that one, the moon
46:55 The reflector could have been left on the Moon by an automatic module, without human presence. The Russians did this and received the same signal. You don’t consider the Russian reflector as evidence of the flights of Russian cosmonauts to the Moon, right?
cos its a loada twaddle ? maybe losing the audio then uploading in mono to the left channel only bets copyright ? hes cut the original audi that synchs & triggers copyright is my guess
I did remember all the photo remake, but I forgot about the laser experiment. I didn't remember at all when I watched The big bang theory when they redo the experiment (not for real). I can't believe they stole a page for the Mythbuster playbook for that episode.
It doesn't. There are several telltale signs that would have been impossible to fake, firat and foremost the behaviour of the dust kicked up by the astronauts
An object in motion stays in motion unless an external force is applied (in a vacuum that is what happens) the flag just moves whichever direction the momentum is in….no wind to stop it
@@Shin-nr8ly The whole apollo show is just ridiculous, once you can see, it's all amateur hour! What's more concerning is how frightened authority is of people seeing it's fake. Is their crumbling empire really that fragile? I think it is.
@@G-ra-ha-m Isent that why Thay want to kill of trump he has all those Top Secret documents Thay'll let Him Live Till those Documents are Resecured. News Flash Ex President Trump died from a Unknow heart Issue today the Ex President was know for Up roar in witch his protesters Rioted the Well We all know the rest.
@@javiergilvidal1558 No, not at all. Specially the photography conditions, they were not replicating what supposedly happened. They didn't bust anything, just adding misinformation to help Nasa
@@javiergilvidal1558for the photo of the shadows all they had to do was go outside and they’d be able to take a photo with diverging shadows quite easily using only the sun as a light source.
@@G-ra-ha-m In a roundabout way, not in regard to the Hasselblad but an analogue camera and emulsion film use in space... Quote: "Ansco Autoset that John Glenn bought for $40 at a Cocoa Beach, Florida, drug store. Glenn used it to take pictures from orbit on Friendship 7 in February 1962." Those picture came out fine, the Hasselblad was just a more expensive camera, about 400 dollars, and retro fitted with some adaptations, for thick gloves and aiming while wearing a fairly rigid suit. So yeah, tests of the process and technology had been done, in vacuum, radiation, and cold completely off the cuff by an astronaut of his own volition. NASA hadn't even forseen the need or want for photographs before that.
@@GofuKyersen Hmm, your argument is circular, you assume they went, and that proves the film worked in those conditions, so that cannot be used to prove they didn't. The fact the the photos 'came out fine' gives us many many problems: Composition, focus, exposure, exposure dynamic range, radiation, temperature extremes and simple evaporation in a vacuum. Mathematically the probability is earth based photos, which is backed up the the rocks in the photos.
When I was a young kid, there was a woman living over the road called Stella. Her daughter, Lisa married a man called Neil Armstrong. But he wasn't the real Neil Armstrong. He was just a man with the same name. He hasn't actually been to the moon. They named their first son Louis.
It's been more than half a century, technology is on another level now, yet no one has ever come close to the Moon again.... Those guys from the sixties were really from another dimension, or maybe they used Alien technology and that's why it's been lost since :)
Cost. It is obscenely expensive to send a crewed mission to the moon, whilst the premature cancellation of the Apollo Programme due to the retraction of funding meant the abandonment of the heavy lift capability. NASA now have the SLS, but Project Artemis was only approved as recently as 2018. It used to be possible to fly passengers from London to New York in under three hours. Those guys from the sixties were really from another dimension, or maybe they used alien technology and that's why it's been lost since. :) Or perhaps, like Apollo, Concorde was not sustainable and was retired due to the expense?
@@yassassin6425 There are others supersonic jets flying around everyday now and then... There are no other men who have flown near that height before or after the Apollo missions.
@@merlinoner *_"There are others supersonic jets flying around everyday now and then..."_* Indeed, but none of them convey passengers from London to New York in under three hours and this has not been possible since 2002. So either Concorde was faked or it was retired due to its unsustainability and cost. *_"There are no other men who have flown near that height before or after the Apollo missions."_* Yep. So either that too was faked or the Apollo Programme was cancelled in 1972 and with it the heavy lift capability necessary to send crewed missions to the moon due to its unsustainability and cost despite the continuation of deep space exploration. A basic knowledge of the science, technology and history of spaceflight will dispel your incredulity and acceptance of/belief in dumb online conspiracy theory.
There are no commercially operated supersonic jets flying now. It's a reverse indication of uniformitarianism. Just because it happened before, doesn't mean it can be a routine operation. Apollo succeeded through focus and investment, it was cancelled because the cost was unsustainable and unjustifiable. @@merlinoner
No because the goverment gives you plenty of reason to always be suspicious and it’s good to not be gullible and it’s good to be a complete skeptic I find it more cringe that people just nod there head and agree to everything the goverment say, personally still think they didn’t go, the technology was apparently lost and so many other sketchy reasons, I do think the earth is a globe tho 😂
@@TrueSlice All governments all over the world lie and are suspicious but that's not the point. Who said I nod my head and agree to everything the government says. That wasn't even the discussion, the theme is around the moon landings and it is a fact we landed on the moon, unless you are claiming that every single space agency on the planet is lying, and all the scientists, and astronuats, etc are also all lying i.e. a huge global lie!
@@uriituw who says I’m a conspiracy head? I’m just saying I don’t trust anything the goverment say or do.. they are not in our best interest, they only want control and power.. just look at all the censorship that’s happening around the world, and especially in America, there 1st amendment is being breached by there own goverment, freedom of speech is dead, and with everything they do.. I SIMPLY DONT TRUST I stay away from politics.. doesn’t matter who’s in charge the world still runs the same way
the only thing adam got wrong is that they didn’t add the red stripes to commander suits until apollo 13 (and the first time they were seen on the moon was on apollo 14)
The astronaut's EVA suits also reflected a considerable amount of light, to the point where there were noticeable hot spots in some close-up photographs.
Let’s for arguments sake say it was sponsored by NASA. Does that make the Apollo missions any less true? It is quite sad that people like you continue with your easily disproven bs.
You know, arguments wont get u convinced, because u didnt get to your opinion via rational arguments in the first place. U believe this shit simply because it gives u a reason to feel smarter than everybody else. Which is pitiful at best...
Well, I'm sure they will when they can land an unmanned probe without crashing it. Their reputation is already low enough without adding the deaths of a few cosmonauts to their score sheet.
@@marcop1563 oh yeah, you sound like a real genius buddy. Explain how they crossed the radiation belts in a tin can without having problems with their electronics, health, film inside the cameras, food & water supply. Keep in mind they didn't even know about the radiation belts back then lol. Are the radiation belts a conspiracy theory? (N)aive (A)ssholes (S)upport (A)stronauts
@@marcop1563 oh yeah, you sound like a real genius buddy. Explain how they crossed the radiation belts in a tin can without having problems with their electronics, health, film inside the cameras, food & water supply. Keep in mind they didn't even know about the radiation belts back then lol. Are the radiation belts a conspiracy theory? (N)aive (A)ssholes (S)upport (A)stronauts
@@marcop1563 oh yeah, you sound like a real genius buddy. Explain how they crossed the radiation belts in a tin can without having problems with their electronics, health, film inside the cameras, food & water supply. Keep in mind they didn't even know about the radiation belts back then lol. Are the radiation belts a conspiracy theory? (N)aive (A)ssholes (S)upport (A)stronauts
@@marcop1563 oh yeah, you sound like a real genius buddy. Explain how they crossed the radiation belts in a tin can without having problems with their electronics, health, film inside the cameras, food & water supply. Keep in mind they didn't even know about the radiation belts back then lol. Are the radiation belts a conspiracy theory?
We at the Flat Cheese Moon Society do declare that it is impossible to land a rocket on a badly made Margerita Pizza in space. It doesn't even have a tomato sauce base, let alone prospects for a moon base. Wake up sheeple!
The funny thing is, they did EXACTLY what people claim NASA did, which is to replicate it in their studio. Even funnier, he acknowledged it but goes on to say "Thats not the point". But thats exactly the point. 🙂
By your logic it would be literally impossible to ever prove anything. It's okay to be ignorant, but it's usually better to stay quiet rather than speak up and make it clear you have no clue.
1-the astronauts reaction in the returning interview 2-the astronauts contradiction about weather they saw stars or not 3-the camera recording the lift Off from the moon, how they moved the camera to follow the vessel and how they recovered the footage 4-not a single dust particle was attached to the vessel or was disturbed into the atmosphere 5-only one picture of earth from the moon is baffling 6-the Van Allen belts
We have undeniable proof we landed on the Moon and every single argument from conspiracy theorists is easily debunked. 1 They acted absolutely normal in the interview. They simply mantained a collected demeanor and cracked a few jokes. Conspiracy theorists simply cherry pick the clips where they look bored. 2 The supposed inconsistent clips are about different moments of the mission. In some of them they were in the condition to see stars and in some of them they weren't, that's what they were talking about. 3 This is quite easy to figure out and shows you didn’t do even the barest minimum of research. The camera used was SSTV camera connected to an high gain antenna capable of transmitting live the images to Earth (you do now they had television in the '60s, right?) The camera had motors controlled from ground to point it in different directions. 4 Dust was blown off in every recording of the landings. The engines mostly blew it off preventing it from sticking on the craft. 5 There are dozens taken during the Apollo missions. Again, you didn’t do any research before starting to throw accusations. 6 The craft had more than enough shielding to protect them and they passed in a portion of the belts with a smaller flux of particles.
Whoever was taking the pictures was reflecting the second light source??! And if you take into account the white suit reflecting the Sun that would illuminate the astronaut to the level of the original photo... I think you missed a bit in the experiment!
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU, Mythbusters, for fighting ignorance! I used to watch this show back in my youth on Discovery channel. Got migraine from the distorted image (my parents wouldn't get cable 😅), but it was worth it! Also: spending too much time around drugabusers or abusing drugs will alter one's perception of reality to a certain point, and I'm a living proof of this. I've been questioning the moonlanding a lot since I learned about Watergate and Daniel Ellsberg, coupled with my fathers (he's teaching social science btw) talk about money being the root of all evil today. That combo is enough to make ordinary people struggle with keeping their perception in check. Imagine the damage it can cause to a high functioning autist's by default altered perception and then amplified by an escalating cannabis abuse forced upon you by people supposed to be your best friends. Not that there haven't been other actual conspiracies before or after Watergate, but the moonlanding did really happen on the moon, and this episode proves it!
@@josefolsson5343 Then a large amount of dust will rise and coat everything. Except that's not what the photos show. They show rocks part buried in sand, mostly clean on top.
@G-ra-ha-m Okay. What about the shockwave from the impact? Is it impossible that it could have the dust in the center of a crater blown to the side? Besides, the jet from the Eagle-lander's engine should have been powerful enough to cause a temporary gust of wind powerful enough to blow dust at least 50 meters away in any direction. Personally, I'm really intrigued by the way particles might behave when manipulated by some kind of horizontal force if the air resistance is zero and the gravity 1/6th of the earth's, like on the moon. Newton's second law comes to mind. Although I leave it up to you to decide for yourself whether it's applicable to this scenario or not, I still think it might very likely explain your problem. Also, as have been demonstrated multiple times, all objects have the same weight in a vacuum. Therefore, it's very unlikely that the dust could linger around in the air long enough to be blown back to the crater of impact or any other place for that matter.
@@josefolsson5343 Shockwave in a vacuum? How? The photos show smooth hills and valleys covered in 'dust' (sand), with no evidence of recent landing around the clean stones. Put your beliefs to one side for a moment and take a careful look at the rocks in the photos. Where's the dust?
@@ArKritz84But its only SOMEONE ELSE'S 'proof, huh-huh', anyway, no?.. Means nothing in the minds of those who, totally regardless of such 'proof (huh-huh, again)' can and WILL ignore the FACTS presented to them, and probably just 😉 & say, 'All THAT is good & well, but when you know, you just know [as ME & MY THINKALIKES clearly do], yeah?'... (As in muppet brains WILL ALWAYS be muppet brains!)...
7:52. errrr.. you just actually proved that you can indeed make shadows in different directions when you put a light source close by.. which is exactly the problem really. The point is that from a light source far away they would be far more parallel, and not just on a single photograph. So you've been busted, busters.
The moon's undulating terrain is responsible for the shadows that don't appear to be parallel in many of the Apollo photos - this is also caused when the light source is far away, just as it was on the moon's surface of course.
What sealed it for me was the laser beam reflect back from the lunar surface, when I saw that spike begin to stand out I knew they went to the moon because there is no way that could be faked.
And apollo 13 was on its way in TLI when the disaster occurred and had to use the LM as lifeboat and rounded the moon even . If it was a hoax they only would be launched into LEO orbit for the duration of alleged hoax ( from moonhoax believer point of view) There are literally tons of proof they went to the moon and landed.. There were even lots of photos and there were photos on which one would say why were these made if it was just a hoax and how were they even made in the first place if it was a hoax ? Really a hoax is impossible with all we know and is proven.
I have absolutely no doubts about the authenticity of the Apollo missions but the Soviets landed two remotely operated Lunokhod rovers on the moon in the early 70’s that had retroreflectors mounted on top of them. The same laser range finding experiments have been done with them. One interesting connection with the Apollo landing sites is that the Soviets somehow lost Lunokhod 1 and were uncertain of its final location. That was until 2010 when the LRO images were gone over by Russian academics and the Lunokhod 1 was located. Confirmation by another county other than the US that the LRO images are good enough to prove the manmade objects are where they are supposed to be. Of course the hb’s still say the LRO images aren’t good enough. For me, the best proof is the UA-cam video titled Irrefutable Proof for Moon Landing- Lunar Gravity. It shows how experts in the field of kinematics can break down the EVA video footage to show beyond a doubt that the astronauts were in a environment with a vacuum and 1/6th G. Changing video speed to simulate lunar gravity as hb’s go on about simply doesn’t work.
Look up the news headlines" Dust: An Out-of-This World Problem by Niki Welch June 8 2021" or "Solar storms are sandblasting the Moon" 13 December 2011 or "Solar storms could sandblast the moon" Dec 7 2011.Check it out ! Then do the math using the "amount of material "x days the "retro reflectors" were installed. Too funny! Quote - "The moon gets periodically "sandblasted" by intense solar storms that can strip tons of material from the lunar surface, a new NASA study suggests. The sun is constantly emitting charged particles, or ions, in all directions in a stream called the solar wind." LOL !!! Is there a maintenance man up there? Bwhaa Ha ha!
@@BerndMorgan I was being sarcastic, they showed the alleged reflection of a laser beam on a screen as proof, I could generate the same signal on a screen with a few components, that was no proof 😅
Surely it would be easier now than 55 years ago. There is astronauts saying how we have a challenge getting through radiation belts but I thought they've already gone 😮
Nope, the technician was saying that the electronics of the Orion spacecraft needed to be tested going through the VABs, seeing as how modern, miniaturized electronics are FAR more susceptible to radiation than the old Apollo era stuff. So this obviously posed a challenge. And then it was successfully tested during Artemis 1 in 2022.
@@G-ra-ha-m The camera film was derived from that used for high-altitude photo reconnaissance, which was designed to withstand temperatures from 490°F down to - 40°F, and it was housed in aluminium magazines covered with reflective passive optical coatings. The radiation exposure level on the Moon from the distance of space was not enough to damage the film. It was much less than that of an airport x-ray machine’s direct radiation from a distance of less than a few feet. It had the same effect equivalent to leaving the film on a shelf for six months on Earth. And, in 1969, film was often left on shelves for far longer in many cases and still used. Furthermore, there are signs of radiation contamination in some of the images, if you look carefully; for example, lines running through the film, bright spots and a decrease in contrast and colour response. These effects are not easily detectable to the untrained eye and without access to the original material.
@@Ruda-n4h Kodak said it was ordinary film, it's in the record. You assertion that there was not enough radiation to cause even a small sign of fogging is circular - it assumes they went. Project Orion says different - they feared the radiation. You are claiming that going to open space for 2 weeks, crossing the radiation belts twice, with film in a regular camera doesn't fog, while a few seconds near a weak medical X-ray machine fogs film completely. Your argument is bizarre and not backed up by any science or data. The photos content show weathered scenes and perfect blacks - solid evidence of earth based photoshoots.
@@G-ra-ha-m You are making it up about Project Orion (they were talking about radiation effects on modern computers) and probably about Kodak too. Either that or they are in error. Their sources on this aren't very reliable - even the project manager didn't have a clue. There is no shielding for ordinary film going through an x-ray machine at that short distance, whereas there was in Apollo at a much greater distance. Low energy electrons were the main ionising particles that the astronauts had to navigate through and not electromagnetic waves e.g. ultraviolet, infrared, gamma etc. Electrons can pass through living tissue without creating much damage as they are very small. The command module’s outer hull was made of stainless steel and the (upper) heat shield from epoxy resin, which along with the fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls was a very effective form of shielding against protonic radiation. To reach the Moon and return safely, the Apollo astronauts had to cross the quarter of a million miles between the Earth and the Moon. They also needed to operate safely while in orbit around the Moon and on the lunar surface. During the Apollo missions, the spacecraft were outside the Earth’s protective magnetosphere for most of their flight. However, they were not exposed to particle radiation for long enough on a short 8-12 day round trip for it to be a significant risk. In 1968 the Russian Zond 5 sent a number of biological samples around the Moon and back, including two turtles and these specimens were recovered alive upon their return to Earth. The astronauts would have been at serious risk of electromagnetic wave radiation from energetic solar flares, however the Apollo flights coincided with the height of the solar cycle, the periodic waxing and waning of activity that occurs every 11 years. The increased strength of the Sun’s magnetic field that permeates the solar system acts like an umbrella, shielding the Earth, Moon and planets and therefore lessening the impact on astronaut radiation doses. That's in the record.
First off all, i love you guys. Second.. im the only one who bearley can hear the narrator? Im watching this on my phone, and for what reason i hear him only on my left speaker.
15:41 the light in the photo with the toy is much brighter (the ground is completely white), but the toy is still less lit than in the original photo. If you match the ground to the original photo, the astronaut will turn out much darker. In the original photo, the astronaut’s figure is illuminated much better and evenly over its entire height, but the toy is illuminated worse and unevenly: there is less light at the bottom, more at the top. So, the experiment confirmed doubts
So you guess you've become better than all physicians for 55 years ? After a few hours on UA-cam ? I've info for you : they laughed at you. Those are belts : you can avoid them mostly. And they are made of particles, stopped by a few mm of metal.
@@PierreBrandominiBrandominiWhy do you think that they never went back to the moon in all these decades then? Why wouldn't they go back to rape and pillage it of resources, claim it, sell it etc like they do with every other piece of land? Sorry but there's so many aspects to this whole thing that just don't add up.
@@PierreBrandominiBrandominithen explain to us why NASA says they have to find a way to get through the van Allen belts? Let me guess you didn't know about that statement?
I think most people would classify that as a plane crash. The landing gear broke, wing and engine partially removed from the plane from impact. Sounds like a crash to me. My take is loss of power, caused a hard landing which severely damaged the plane.
Late to the party here, but I really expected more honesty from the MythBusters. That shot of the model astronaut on the lunar module model ladder was so over exposed compared to the NASA original. Match (darken) the exposure of the lunar surface and then the astronaut suit will be so dark. I really did expect better guys.
It is Van Allen. And the one who told you about them has laughed at you. Those are belts. you can pass "up" or "down" them and avoid most of them. They are made of particles : a few mm of metal stop them. You really guessed you could be right versus all physicians for 55 years after a video on UA-cam ?
I will only believe when we go back, but strangely they cant seem to get even a 'soft landing' right yet - soooo looking forward to seeing the crater under a lander caused by the rocket...!!
They have been quite a few soft landings in the last few years. The lunar surface is hard rock beneath dust; the LM used a low pressure (for reliability) rocket engine that was firing at only 3,000 pounds thrust before landing so along with the very thin atmosphere and low gravity there was not enough pressure to produce a crater; if you look closely at some pictures of landing sites e.g. Apollo 11 you can see some disturbance under the engine.
4 weeks old, but they do own it. The about page said that this is posted by 'Banijay Science'. If you search for 'Banijay Science Mythbusters', there is a news articles from Deadline saying that they purchased the firm behind the series.
I’m watching this in 2023 and I forgot how good this show was. Look what we have now shows about digging holes and ufos.
It really was a great show, the drivel that they have on these days can't come close to the logical and practical scientific approach that this show applied to its subject matter. As the saying goes "You don't miss the water til the well runs dry!"... and the well is bone dry 😅.
Yes back then this show was the best there was
lets see if NASA Artemis can land it in 2025 again, if not they never was there or they totaly sux 🤣
@@MrLince-hr4of good point they need to filmed the vlag to show us 1 and for all we where there
@@Michael-mo1lx Lol. As if that would make a difference. Do you honestly believe the moon landing deniers would accept video footage from people they don't already trust. Absolutely not! I wish they would, but they won't. People are too stubborn to admit they were wrong, so I guarantee you if Artemis were to land near any of the Apollo landing sites, the deniers would just call it fake footage anyway. Wouldn't change a single thing 🤷
Regarding the footprint:
As someone who has been into Tracking for many years I can say: given a substrate of the right grain size / structure you can get very very clear footprints without any moisture present.
Just try leaving a footprint in dry campfire ash or cement. Those will be very sharp and visible.
Exactly what I thought. The pictures make it look like very fine lunar dust. Never been to the moon, so I can't confirm it is not beach sand. :p
I didn't see signs of a campfire or construction materials though. That's being silly though! I always felt perhaps the earlier missions garnered up supplies on the moon while the other guys trained for the film shoot
Jokes
@@aerotube7291moon dust is very similar to cement
yeah its called dry portland cement
I think these days what we need is reboot of Mythbusters called Conspiracybusters.
Very true.
History is chock full of conspiracies, as are most historical documentaries. The theory part is debatable, but so many are coming true not many are still in the 'theory' stage.
But until the clean rocks are explained, without earth weather, it remains a theory with evidence, that it was photographed on earth.
Well good luck with that. As most conspiracy theories are true. From the hoax 9/11 were luke Skywalker took out the entire twin towers complex, And recently the convid 19 scamdememic. The renamed common cold from the 1960s
the woke dumbasses and our govts. could not survived such a show ..........LOLOL
It is sad that those myths still have to be debunked after more than 6 decades.
I think NASA should send a rover with high resolution cameras to the Apollo landing sites and take some footages and shut the moon landing conspiracy debate once and for all.
I think NASA shouldn’t blow hundreds of millions (at least) on gathering footage that still won’t convince the tinfoil hatters. It’s not about evidence. There’s plenty of it. It’s about feeling special.
What's wrong with the pictures of the landings sites that we already have from lunar orbiters?
No, no-one should concede anything to conspiracy nuts, they ignore and dismiss anything that proves them wrong. They don't really care about truth, it's just an ego-trip for them.
A Japanese Rover in 2010 took a photo of the lunar landscape that exactly matches the Apollo photos.
You could send them to the moon and put them on the landing sites, and they would still claim that it was all faked.
This Episode blew me away 10 years ago, I didn't know people thought we faked the moon landing at the time. Either I was really naive, or it wasn't as well known, or probably a bit of both. Lol
Still fake & NASA clearly sponsored this
didnt do the back pack , didnt do the small "Gun sized " box that is missing from blueprints ( yanks cant go to the offy without a sawn off & revolver down their socks ),NO ONE except 1 SS mission can atest to the van allen rad belt cos they are the only humans whove been anywhere close to it ( 300 miles earth orbit )
@fredwicks8256 Did you know that a large number of astronauts who were reported deceased were actually discovered to be employed in various fields? Not even a name change occurred. And given the years that have elapsed up to this point, they appear to be the age they should be.
it was well known, but during the last 10 years those of "marginalized thought" (i just made that term up) have been able to confirm their stupid takes and illinformed hypothesis with each other through social media - and the trust in authorities have fallen and living conditions in the us has dropped so much that more people will tend to believe the crazies because they are anti-authority or "anti mainstream" or what ever word. It gives them agency in a world that is quite unbendable and companionship so it's understandable enough.
I should add: confirmation gives confidence, and confident people dare say what they think.
I have never met a single scientist or physics professor who has had the slightest doubts about the moon landings - if I ask them a totally neutral question about something related to the moon landings, they always continue the discussion just as if I had brought up a neutral conversation about water, and don't question the validity of the moon landings in any way whatsoever.
Still hard to believe grant is dead. R.I.P. buddy. ❤
oh. didn't know that. Just searched for it. Very sad.
sounds like vax injured
@@stew6302 F*** off with your conspiracy theories
I've never trusted mythbusters since they made a whole episode testing if a daddy long leg had dangerous venom, and throughout the whole episode, they mistook celler spiders for daddy long legs!!! That is absolutely astounding!
@@einarbarenholtz5952 So I can't trust you since at some time or another, you would have made at least one mistake in your life.
Jamie had an especially good mood in this episode and i have to say, its one of their best episodes.
Yeah I hadn't watched one for years, really enjoyed it
You would be in a great mood too if you were getting well compensated for selling the lie
@@Dazza19746 come on old timer they proved it flawlessly didn't they??...(no offence Intended i just grabbed inference from your handle)cheers
@@Dazza19746 you know, I won't criticize you on that, even tho I'm highly the opinion that there where no lies sold, even going so far, to call it a giving fact.
But, you shall have you pov.
I mean, I'm not criticizing you, but I would like you to explain if the Earth is flat, then how come the moon isn't crashing down to Earth? If all planets are flat? @@Dazza19746
It's crazy how back then you could just talk about stuff like this on TV without being canceled and having "Context" crap forced all over your uploads.
I can't even read my own comments here, youtube are terrified of what I say, like little cockroaches, scuttling away to protect NASA's lies.
No First Amendment here!
Crazy, right? It's like people are infantile and incapable of forming their own opinion and thoughts without being told what to think first by some higher authority than their own selves, just insane! Isn't it so???
I've never trusted mythbusters since they made a whole episode testing if a daddy long leg had dangerous venom, and throughout the whole episode, they mistook celler spiders for daddy long legs!!! That is absolutely astounding!
because they're lying about the moon landings, why would the government cancel someone that supports their narrative? for example low gravity was simulated using bungee harnesses, not slow motion photography. This whole video is propaganda. Sad that some people still think we landed on the moon.
I don't trust them what so ever.
The way they make the term conspiracy theorist a shameful thing should immediately show a person this is propaganda.
seeing feather and hammer fall at the same time is just amazing
Metal feather, works on earth too.
@@G-ra-ha-mWhaaattt...... a hammer and a feather falling at the same time.
In a vacuum chamber yes, but in your house?
@@fabianmckenna8197 Try it: you'll be surprised.
@@fabianmckenna8197 It's an experiment you can try at home.. have you?
too bad it was done in a studio.
My favourite apollo story is the "argument" between Harold Schmidt and Gene Cernan who both claim to be the last person on the moon.
Harold Schmidt, the only civilian to walk on the moon was the last person to climb down from the LEM of Apollo 17 - making him the twelfth and therefore last person to step foot on the moon.
When it came to leaving the moon however Schmidt was the first person to climb back into the LEM - leaving Cernan momentarily behind as the last person to stand on the lunar surface
😊
Yes. Definitely Cernan. I read his book and he wouldn’t let Schmitt touch any of the LM’s flight controls. Not even in the simulator.
It's Harrison.
@@mako88sb Dick Gordon his original commander was the same. As test pilots then had enormous egos, it might have been that Cernan didn't want a scientist to show that he could do the same. The astronauts were worried that people would say, 'oh well anyone could do it if they were trained' and it would take some of their lustre away. Schmitt was never fully accepted by them which is a shame as he must have had to bust a gut to keep up with them sufficiently to be chosen for a mission.
@@Ruda-n4h He was the 'geologist' who didn't notice that the rocks he was leaning on, were clean on top, which is impossible in a dust fall zone without weather.
But in the Nevada desert, is so ordinary, no one notices..
@@G-ra-ha-m They were on the moon and did geo study there. The moonlandings are not faked.
Second time watching this, I have to refresh my conspiracy busting skills because you never know when an actual "LUNATIC" will pounce!
Yess, that’s the episode I’ve been waiting for so long to watch
I've never trusted mythbusters since they made a whole episode testing if a daddy long leg had dangerous venom, and throughout the whole episode, they mistook celler spiders for daddy long legs!!! That is absolutely astounding!
@@einarbarenholtz5952daddy long legs have wings… crane flys
Are they showing it can be faked or are they debunking the myth? 😅😅 I believed they went to the moon, so next time when they go light up the flame or something that can be visible from earth while shooting a film on moon. That would be a solid ground truth.
My left ear loves this show.
@@SurfwidowBeaumont : Where is the fun then ?
AirPods
😂😂😂
Select additional settings, then stable audio, seems to fix the issue👍
It's because this is NTSC version. NTSC has less colours and it uses mono audio faked to stereo.
i distinctly remember this episode from when i was a kid. i could not believe people didn’t believe in the moon landing (mostly bc i couldn’t wrap my head around WHY anyone wouldn’t believe it), but the way that they presented the initial arguments seemed logical, which made it cooler to see them bust it. cool to see it uploaded! (shame abt the narrator getting stuck in the left channel)
If anyone is wondering why NASA doesn't just send a probe to the Moon and photograph the landing sites (all six of them) in order to prove they did, infact, land there, check out the vid I uploaded. It features the images NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission returned back in 2011 when instructed to descend to within 25km of the lunar surface.
Why would they waste money trying to prove the moonlandings to airheads?
Bruce sees all.
Just watched your video. Nice one man. Subbed to your channel on the strength of that.
I watched the Apollo 11 landing as a kid. We got up in the middle of the night to watch it here in the uk.
@@petetimbrell3527 Thanks! Too few people know about the LRO mission and those images it took. Unfortunately, many would say they, too, are just NASA fakes. I also followed the Apollo missions back in the day, which is something I'm truly grateful for, as it was a golden age for space flight.
Other countries have also photographed the _Apollo_ landing sites - most recently India.
i miss this show... so glad I can watch it now
why? it's all lies and childish nonsense lol
@shanktheglobe954 why are you even here then 😒
The mission commander stripes were only used from Apollo 13.
6:00 It's perspective. They have a spotlight which is NOT parallel light. They have a point source of light, and the shadows appeared parallel. But this is like god rays.... Flat earthers claim the sun is super close because the god rays look like they diverge. God rays are parallel, but because of perspective, i.e. the clouds being close, they look like diverge onto the ground.
Same thing happens with train tracks. Train tracks are parallel, yet they appear to converge.
.....And what is the Sun? .....Forget the fact that the suns light is traveling through space and undergoes no atmospheric refraction(s)!
How to win an argument. First start off by saying lots of silly things your opponent never said. Then when pulled change the subject over and over. Lol
That's online conspiracy theorists for you I'm afraid.
even easier way to win an argument: set up a fake opponent who says stupid shit that's easy for you to refute.
@@yassassin6425 'conspiracy theorist' is a term made up by the CIA to manipulate the weak minded.
@@daveyjones5702 basically that is what they do. They say people say things when they don't, that let them. Make bull shit videos. But the brain dead believe people did say ridiculous things
strawman arguments
@@daveyjones5702
I was on the moon at that time, drinking a beer, and waiting for these guys. They eventually arrived, and we had a drink.
😂😂 I was riding my unicorn on mars 89 years before.but its true because scientists also believed the convid vaccine was real and safe😂😂😂
@@acepilot3920 I didn't meet anyone with covid on the moon. Pfizer was not happy, they told me I'm a complotist.
Ahr, so that was you? NASA missed out blending you into the landscape.
I'm Going Back to the Moon. The Morrow then Again next week
Yeah me too, I was living on moon cheese and crackers for decades. It's absolutely lush, you should try it, just take a chunk out of it 😜🙃
That was why Buzz Aldrin punched one man in the face when he followed him yelling that they Astronauts were liers. It is painful to risk your life to do something that others downplay or say that you faked it.
No one gets that angry if they have the truth. There's no need.
@@G-ra-ha-m he's a senior and had been harassed for hours by a guy calling him a liar, anyone would have punched him. If he hadn't punched him you'd say "come on, he's been on the moon and doesn't even get angry when questioned? suspicious..." because no evidence is enough for you. Also, who says you don't get angry about the truth? If someone called my mom a whore (which she isn't) they'd get a punch too.
@@tommythecat4961 You are making excuses. Rationalising.
Maybe he was simply stressed as he was caught in a big lie, that he was unable to expose. He nearly confessed to a little girl.
@@G-ra-ha-m yes, rationalizing, because I'm being rational. Also, "nearly" confessed? So he didn't say anything. But it's ok, I know I won't convince you and I'm not trying to, just wanted to point out that suspicions are not the same as proof. The fact you think you wouldn't react to something a certain way doesn't mean everyone is the same. Some people never get angry, others kill over a parking spot dispute.
@@tommythecat4961 Find the footage where he talked with the young girl, it's quite touching.
I don't blame him, pressure can be applied to the best of men.
But they never went, I see that in most of the photos, the evidence is very clear: the photos are from earth, and are impossible on the moon, due to the landscape and the rocks.
Re the light in the Aldrin shot, there's also the light reflected by Armstrong's suit, re-reflected by Aldrin's suit back to the camera. Those suits reflect over 90%of the sunlight hitting them.
But the self cleaning rocks are still a mystery, unless there is weather.
@@G-ra-ha-m there is a small atmosphere.
@@connectthedots5678 In an exosphere, the gases are so spread out that they rarely collide with one another. They are rather like microscopic cannon balls flying unimpeded on curved, ballistic trajectories and bouncing across the lunar surface. In the moon's atmosphere, there are only 100 molecules per cubic centimeter.
Not enough.
'In a 2005 interview, Collin Powell ( US Secretary of State) stated that he did not lie (Iraqi WMD)
because he did not know the information was false... ' Google
You could take them there, they still wouldn't believe. Some people seem to be de-evolving.
couldn't you just speed up the frame rates of the original footage and see if the movement looks natural then?
You can do that right here on yt. There are long, boring videos of the EVA's. Here's a hint, though: it doesn't.
@@ArKritz84it's quite a bit like 80s cop shows with car chases. you can make a small part of the footage look like it should by speeding it up (ie, make cars appear to be speeding much faster), but nothing else behaves normally.
The video camera used on the moon was a slow scan camera with 10 frames per second and low resolution of only 100 lines. Once received on earth, it had to be converted for broadcast to 30 fps with 3:2 pull-down for NTSC and 25 fps for PAL.
They literally did it at 21:35
I hated seeing Mythbusters end I loved the show felt like the end of an era.
"The shaft is a little tight in the hole" 😂
Not funny.
@@charles_preston yes it was.
The flag one always gets me. Supposedly NASA went to enormous effort to fake the landings - yet at the same time was quite happy to show something that would instantly prove them to be fake - ie the flag being blown around by the wind.
Don't be silly.
Fortunatelly that didn't happen because there is no wind in space.
He means that the conspiracy theorists are being silly, why would nasa let wind blow in the set, that's just dumb, it it was fake they would make an effort for the flag to be still@@stoobydootoo4098
They didn't use much effort, actually.
That's why there are so many holes in the story.
Perhaps that's why they didn't bother to alter that effect because they knew that anyone with any sense would know that the flag would flap around in a vacuum and if it didn't everyone would then know for sure that the footage was faked.
We all still miss you Grant, you helped make Mythbusters great. Also Jessie Combs who appeared a few times, she died achieving her passion for "The fastest woman on wheels"
Should have used Talac Powder for the first Boot Print test.
Armstrong's Suit didn't have the Red Stripe on the Helmet Cover, Apollo 14 was the first Mission to do so
The pic of Aldrin at the Foot of the Ladder, was taken as He came down, he had no dust on his legs, so why did they put dust on the Models
The idea of simulating the Lunar Gravity in a Vomit Comet, was great. They also increased the Walkers Mass to what it would be fully Suited. Good Job
They weren't allowed to advertise beer.
Great show - good job!
The moon dust at 1/6th Earth pressure, moves in an entirely different way to on Earth. Hence, even if footage was slowed down, you'd still be unable to replicate that fact. Plus all the hard shadows in every piece of film stay where they should, even whilst traversing by foot or Lunar Rover. There is good footage of the Lunar Rover travelling in 360 degress over a mile with far distant hills, all with the same one light source; no light fall off anywhere in any of the thousands of pics/films. We have footage from over 50,000ft up to landing on the moon with no edit cuts in the analogue film. You'd need one hell of an outside studio to film from that height, with a view of hundred of miles! Every divet, crater and dip, all perfect in the footage/pics, that would later be shot over 40 years later, using hi-res probes from China, India, Japan and the USA. No night-time flying bugs to spoil any shot! Not one word from foreign intelligence aiming to show-up the USA's (with many British staff) achievements....plus actually building Apollo rockets from nearly 3 million working parts, all designed to do what they were created for - going to the moon. We know how far the moon is from us, thanks to 3 seperate laser reflectors left there and we have seismic readings from their scientific equipment that was set up....oh and all 6 landing sights have also been photographed by numerous other countries over the last few years - all as they were, every foot print, lunar track and LM bases. Using 1968/9 to 1972 technology, it would be impossible to fake going there 9 times and landing 6 times - in fact, Hollywood tried to recreate it in a couple of recent movies, using modern tech/CGI and couldn't get it right. Go to 'March to The Moon' website to view thousands of their photographs in massive RAW files. If you were trying to fake something, there'd be a handful of pictures and a few short bits of grainy footage. Or, go to 'Apollo 11 in Real Time' website, to watch the complete journey from lift off to return. Every bit of dialogue, with films/pictures in 'real time' during the mission. (There's also Apollo 13 and the last 17 available)
It’s seems you know a lot can u explain to me how they survived the vast amount of radiation please
They can't.@@genogenov981
Lots of BS by intelligent people.
Last time people wereceate,lied& told fairytales were when Pharisee,super corruptRabbid,early Popes...telling world re. JUDAISM SECT..
REMEMBER BUDDY ?
That can't be Neil Armstrong suit. On Apollo 11 they did NOT have the red stripe on the commander suit. They started putting them on because it was difficult to identify who was on camera.
He didn't say it was Neil Armstrong's suit.He stated that it was not even a real suit.
Neil Armstrong's spacesuit is at the National Air and Space Museum and I don't think they'd be happy about loaning it out for experimental science.....
Busted!
Spacecraft from China, India and Japan have also spotted these landing sites, providing further independent verification of the landings.
Yet those 3 countries are yet to provide a single image of these alleged sightings!
And Santa Claus will certainly bring you those pictures taken by those countries.
Sure they did!
they all in on it
All it proves is they have landed stuff on the moon, doesnt prove people were on whatever landed.. like the 7 rover's for example
I recently listened to the audio recording of the Apollo 12 lunar landing (you can find it on file 372 on the Internet Archive's Apollo 12 Audio Collection). The action begins at 02:15:00 with "Go for PDI" and leads to an interesting journey down to the lunar surface, culminating in touchdown around 02:34:00.
What struck me was the remarkable clarity of the audio and the seemingly instantaneous communication between Mission Control and the Apollo 12 crew. Considering the moon is approximately 384,400 kilometers away from Earth, a round-trip radio communication should take about 2.56 seconds due to the speed of light. Yet, in the recording, the responses seem to occur with zero delay.
I encourage others to listen to this historic landing and share their thoughts. Is the clarity and lack of delay in the conversation as astonishing to you as it was to me? Let's discuss!
For those interested in experiencing the Apollo 12 lunar landing in even more detail, I recommend checking out the 'Apollo 12 landing from PDI to Touchdown' video on the 'Apollo 12 - Apollo Flight Journal' UA-cam channel. The quality of the audio and the immediacy of the exchanges in these recordings are truly remarkable. It feels as though Mission Control and the Apollo 12 crew were in the same room, not separated by roughly 385,000 kilometers of space. It's a testament to the incredible technological achievements of the Apollo program. (or question the genuineness! ) Give it a listen and join the discussion.
Note: Research assistance for this summary was provided by Perplexity AI, whose advanced capabilities helped distill the complexities of Apollo 12's communication systems.
"The Apollo 12 mission utilized a sophisticated communication system to ensure constant contact between the astronauts and Mission Control. Central to this was the Unified S-band (USB) system, a tracking and communication system that combined voice, telemetry, and tracking into one radio link. This system was developed specifically for the Apollo program by NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).
The communication systems in the Apollo Command Module were intricate, with the premodulation processor (PMP) playing a key role in combining most of the audio, data, and TV signals for transmission by the S-band radio systems. The PMP also processed most of the voice and data signals received from Earth.
In addition to the USB system, Apollo 12 used VHF (Very High Frequency) radio for communication between astronauts and the Lunar Module (LM) during lunar surface operations. The Command Module could also measure range to the LM over the VHF voice link as a backup.
The communication system was designed for redundancy and versatility. For example, if the S-band radio failed on the Lunar Module, the Command Module could relay communication to and from the ground using the VHF radio.
In summary, the Apollo 12 mission used a combination of the Unified S-band system and VHF radio to maintain communication between the astronauts, the spacecraft, and Mission Control. This complex and versatile system allowed for reliable communication over the vast distance between the Earth and the Moon."
@@bestplansmarketing3267 The delay only applied on one end. Sunscreen the recording was made on the Earth, the responses to the astronauts were immediate (or as immediate as responses usually are). The astronauts' replies, however, had the speed of light limited delay.
the audio is not like we are used to.
The show is on the right ear and the voice over is on the left ear.
Switch to mono 😅
@@uxartmusicvideo-andphotogr2043I even tried to use earphones, same issue
I'm just pretending Robert Lee himself is providing narration from the other side of my loungeroom
Sounds like another conspiracy to debunk their findings.
Select additional settings, then stable audio, seems to fix the issue👍
I just came here to see how Mythbusters would handle the conspiracy-theorist's (ridiculous) claims.
I'm fully convinced they could have made the show much shorter, but fo rthe sake of showbusiness, made the episode longer. (... because some people need a longer ramp in order to understand the path of the logic presented. Which simply means 'ignorance'. The word 'ignorance' here is not used in a demonizing way. Nobody knows everything, nor a lot from the start.)
I'm glad Mythbusters did this episode tho!! Science ftw! Physics ftw!
Episode just proved that you can shot all this on Earth... So what's "busted" here really?
@@GrandePunto8V Did you even watch it? lol It proves quite the opposite. What we can do today, could not be done back then, cinematics wise. Unless they actually shot on location (the moon).
@@GrandePunto8V The episode proved that the "evidence" that conspiracy nuts claim to have can be disproven, that's what this episode does.
7:51 They don't explain it clearly. The key idea at play here is the principle of perspective. Those shadows diverge due to the effect of perspective that squeezes them as they recede into the distance.
You wouldn't use 20 odd different men,go half a dozen times,and film thousands of hours of footage if it was a hoax
Oh no ? Think twice !
Maybe continue to sleep as you did your whole life. But I hope you do your research and stop “believing” things.
This video is for dummies that believe anything without doing their own research. It’s easier to swallow whatever BS than take time to research and use your brains.
@@efwaves4665right how sad is it that people forget about the Van Allen rad belt, the distance the belt is from us and far away the moon is, and most important how big a single computer system was in that era a entire wall just for one computer nasa mission control would have needed over 30 computers just to run the radio one to send one to receive, one to watch each little thing, the lunar lander was tin and aluminum..... no led no room for one single computer of the day yet people are buying the nasa launch controls computers did all the work and sent wirelessly the signal far beyond are orbit..... when the radios of the time could barely pass 50 yards on earth were forced to buy the entire bs of the moon landing was real...
Never let the truth get in the way of a good 'ole American conspiricy theory!
Yeah like the tax funded CIA murdering JFK
You win, the conspiracy theory becomes a conspiracy myth.
Pete: right, we’ve got the moon set?
Doug: yeah!
Pete: astronauts ready to go?
Doug: yeah!
Pete: they’re about to put the flag in the ground?
Doug: yeah!
Pete: cool. Doug turn on the big fan in the studio. We need to get that flag blowing!
Doug: what?!!!
I was hoping someone would comment that man has been to the moon and found out it's hollow and aliens are based there :P
You just did.
whyfiles is fun
@@stoobydootoo4098
Perhaps you are unaware, but there is quite a lot of historical writing that we had no moon before about 4039 BC.
Perhaps they were mistaken, but there are many such legends.
If so, how did it get it's almost perfect orbit and captured rotation, within known human history?
@@G-ra-ha-m The historical history MIGHT be wrong you know.
@@Ruda-n4hMultiple ancient records say the same thing, so it's rather better corroborated that your fantasy moon trip.
Are you also aware that there's also many writings, in detail, before 713BC of a 360 day solar year, a different pole star and no precession?
Have you read the evidence that Velikovsky found, decades ago?
Have you wondered why all the wikipedia accountd of the 'building' of the old world structures are bogus?
Here's a game for you: Find a nearby beautiful old building - an old station, post office or town hall: Look it up on wikipedia, and then dig for the timescales, logistics, who designed it, where they lives, what else they did, same for the builders who cut the stone - you'll rapidly run into a solid wall of 'no data'.
Yes, the gradualism history we are told is a joke, even more so, than the moon trip story.
Yes, I'm being followed by a moonshadow
Moonshadow, moonshadow
Leaping and hopping on a moonshadow
Moonshadow, moonshadow
Communication of the Lunar Landing came through Australian earth stations.
Wait... but the pictures should have been upside down then!!!!
This is going to be epic! Not a big possibility but these guys should get back together, minus Grant, RIP, at least on a regular but much reduced schedule, might work. The scale of lighting probably doesn't match sun. Of course if light comes from a single source shadows at two different sides of a photo won't be parallel. In all honesty though, do you think that NASA and Stanley Kubrick, trying to fake the moon landing, would make the amateur mistake of using multiple light sources.
I don’t know if THAT will ever happen.. Adam and Jamie aren’t exactly on friendly or speaking terms… Heck, I’m pretty sure they’ve got a beef going.
Nasa and Stanley didn't care as the sheeple wouldn't notice.
Jamie: Let me guess we are doing moon landing myths?
Adam: Oh I know what one, that's where people believe the moon landing was fake
Jamie: Yeah, the moon
Adam: Oh I know that one, the moon
46:55 The reflector could have been left on the Moon by an automatic module, without human presence. The Russians did this and received the same signal. You don’t consider the Russian reflector as evidence of the flights of Russian cosmonauts to the Moon, right?
It actually took them 5 seasons to do this episode???
How on earth did you get the copyrights to this!?? 🤯
cos its a loada twaddle ? maybe losing the audio then uploading in mono to the left channel only bets copyright ? hes cut the original audi that synchs & triggers copyright is my guess
I did remember all the photo remake, but I forgot about the laser experiment. I didn't remember at all when I watched The big bang theory when they redo the experiment (not for real). I can't believe they stole a page for the Mythbuster playbook for that episode.
31:43 and 32:05 watch at 0.75 speed. They didn't play the gravity rig in slow motion. They proved it could be faked.
It doesn't. There are several telltale signs that would have been impossible to fake, firat and foremost the behaviour of the dust kicked up by the astronauts
I heard "i want to believe"
What is going on with the sound?
Ye it sounds weird
The narrator is in mono, I guess a bug when loading it up in high definition.
Even on my phone speaker, the narrator is in mono and flat
Definite proof they did not go to the moon. The audio results prove it.
Select additional settings, then stable audio, seems to fix the narrators volume level👍
I think this entire episode is made in a studio
What you say us only a theory.it was really made on the moon.
Yawwwwwwwwn.....
Probably the same or similar studio to the real thing...
An object in motion stays in motion unless an external force is applied (in a vacuum that is what happens) the flag just moves whichever direction the momentum is in….no wind to stop it
The flag is not the problem. The rocks in the photos are the problem.
We want that Old Nasa Clip that Shows a Cable Attached to the Astronaut Flash just he was falling that Clip Caused some Oopsies with nasa back then.
@@Shin-nr8ly The whole apollo show is just ridiculous, once you can see, it's all amateur hour!
What's more concerning is how frightened authority is of people seeing it's fake.
Is their crumbling empire really that fragile? I think it is.
@@G-ra-ha-m Isent that why Thay want to kill of trump he has all those Top Secret documents Thay'll let Him Live Till those Documents are Resecured. News Flash Ex President Trump died from a Unknow heart Issue today the Ex President was know for Up roar in witch his protesters Rioted the Well We all know the rest.
Awesome job guys! 👍
Never trust Americans
We proved the moon landing didn’t occur in a studio by proving it in a studio 😂😂😂
No. They proved in a studio simulating moon conditions that the landing might have occurred on the moon
@@javiergilvidal1558 No, not at all. Specially the photography conditions, they were not replicating what supposedly happened. They didn't bust anything, just adding misinformation to help Nasa
Another Conspiracy Theorist!
@@Lordwebmerlin You spelled realist wrong
@@javiergilvidal1558for the photo of the shadows all they had to do was go outside and they’d be able to take a photo with diverging shadows quite easily using only the sun as a light source.
To the vacuum chamber technician . So do you know how to use this thing? He's answering.: Ofcourse i use it on the fake lunnar landing recording 😂😂😂
Another test should have been testing the Hasselblad film cameras in a vacuum with extreme temperatures. I dont think any photos would be clear.
They did test the cameras in vacuum, and cold and radiation.
With radiation too - but ALL the deep blacks are perfect.
@@GofuKyersen Can you prove that?
@@G-ra-ha-m In a roundabout way, not in regard to the Hasselblad but an analogue camera and emulsion film use in space... Quote: "Ansco Autoset that John Glenn bought for $40 at a Cocoa Beach, Florida, drug store. Glenn used it to take pictures from orbit on Friendship 7 in February 1962."
Those picture came out fine, the Hasselblad was just a more expensive camera, about 400 dollars, and retro fitted with some adaptations, for thick gloves and aiming while wearing a fairly rigid suit. So yeah, tests of the process and technology had been done, in vacuum, radiation, and cold completely off the cuff by an astronaut of his own volition. NASA hadn't even forseen the need or want for photographs before that.
@@GofuKyersen Hmm, your argument is circular, you assume they went, and that proves the film worked in those conditions, so that cannot be used to prove they didn't.
The fact the the photos 'came out fine' gives us many many problems: Composition, focus, exposure, exposure dynamic range, radiation, temperature extremes and simple evaporation in a vacuum.
Mathematically the probability is earth based photos, which is backed up the the rocks in the photos.
Great show guys 🎉
When I was a young kid, there was a woman living over the road called Stella. Her daughter, Lisa married a man called Neil Armstrong. But he wasn't the real Neil Armstrong. He was just a man with the same name. He hasn't actually been to the moon. They named their first son Louis.
It's been more than half a century, technology is on another level now, yet no one has ever come close to the Moon again.... Those guys from the sixties were really from another dimension, or maybe they used Alien technology and that's why it's been lost since :)
Cost. It is obscenely expensive to send a crewed mission to the moon, whilst the premature cancellation of the Apollo Programme due to the retraction of funding meant the abandonment of the heavy lift capability. NASA now have the SLS, but Project Artemis was only approved as recently as 2018.
It used to be possible to fly passengers from London to New York in under three hours. Those guys from the sixties were really from another dimension, or maybe they used alien technology and that's why it's been lost since. :)
Or perhaps, like Apollo, Concorde was not sustainable and was retired due to the expense?
@@yassassin6425 There are others supersonic jets flying around everyday now and then...
There are no other men who have flown near that height before or after the Apollo missions.
@@merlinoner
*_"There are others supersonic jets flying around everyday now and then..."_*
Indeed, but none of them convey passengers from London to New York in under three hours and this has not been possible since 2002. So either Concorde was faked or it was retired due to its unsustainability and cost.
*_"There are no other men who have flown near that height before or after the Apollo missions."_*
Yep. So either that too was faked or the Apollo Programme was cancelled in 1972 and with it the heavy lift capability necessary to send crewed missions to the moon due to its unsustainability and cost despite the continuation of deep space exploration.
A basic knowledge of the science, technology and history of spaceflight will dispel your incredulity and acceptance of/belief in dumb online conspiracy theory.
No. they simply have the budget.
There are no commercially operated supersonic jets flying now. It's a reverse indication of uniformitarianism. Just because it happened before, doesn't mean it can be a routine operation. Apollo succeeded through focus and investment, it was cancelled because the cost was unsustainable and unjustifiable. @@merlinoner
Anyone else feel the conspiracy theorists cringing in shame 🤣🤣🤣
No because the goverment gives you plenty of reason to always be suspicious and it’s good to not be gullible and it’s good to be a complete skeptic I find it more cringe that people just nod there head and agree to everything the goverment say, personally still think they didn’t go, the technology was apparently lost and so many other sketchy reasons, I do think the earth is a globe tho 😂
@@TrueSlice All governments all over the world lie and are suspicious but that's not the point. Who said I nod my head and agree to everything the government says. That wasn't even the discussion, the theme is around the moon landings and it is a fact we landed on the moon, unless you are claiming that every single space agency on the planet is lying, and all the scientists, and astronuats, etc are also all lying i.e. a huge global lie!
I don’t think they cringe or feel shame. Just look at the bullshit conspiracy theorists go on about!
@@TrueSlice”…nod there head…”
The gullible one here is you. I don’t think you know what skepticism is.
@@uriituw who says I’m a conspiracy head? I’m just saying I don’t trust anything the goverment say or do.. they are not in our best interest, they only want control and power.. just look at all the censorship that’s happening around the world, and especially in America, there 1st amendment is being breached by there own goverment, freedom of speech is dead, and with everything they do.. I SIMPLY DONT TRUST I stay away from politics.. doesn’t matter who’s in charge the world still runs the same way
I wouldn't want to be in the capsule when they empty it and then have to get out if there are air bottles in it
the only thing adam got wrong is that they didn’t add the red stripes to commander suits until apollo 13 (and the first time they were seen on the moon was on apollo 14)
get loads wrong 1st ones comical 200 lights in a studio & they claim its 1
There were four sources of light sun, earth, moon and the sun shield on lunar modul.
The astronaut's EVA suits also reflected a considerable amount of light, to the point where there were noticeable hot spots in some close-up photographs.
Sun is the only source numnuts, objects in its rays are merely lit up by the sun. are you 12?
@@fkucutube really, what about night on moon?
Nope, those aren't sources. They reflect light from the sun. The things you named don't provide light on their own
@@larsausa3453 I know and all know, I think english hasn't term for it, has it?
This episode was funded by NASA 😂😂😂
That's all you have ? You guess you're clever ?
@@PierreBrandominiBrandomini man u triggered 😂
Let’s for arguments sake say it was sponsored by NASA.
Does that make the Apollo missions any less true?
It is quite sad that people like you continue with your easily disproven bs.
You know, arguments wont get u convinced, because u didnt get to your opinion via rational arguments in the first place. U believe this shit simply because it gives u a reason to feel smarter than everybody else. Which is pitiful at best...
If you investigating someone, you dont play by their rules with their equpment in their facility. Helps credibility a LOT
Maybe Russia or China send a team to the moon to investigate it
I hope so.
Well, I'm sure they will when they can land an unmanned probe without crashing it. Their reputation is already low enough without adding the deaths of a few cosmonauts to their score sheet.
you mean there are still people who think we landed on the moon? hahahahahaha
Yes there are still intelligent people in the world. Crazy right?
@@marcop1563 oh yeah, you sound like a real genius buddy. Explain how they crossed the radiation belts in a tin can without having problems with their electronics, health, film inside the cameras, food & water supply. Keep in mind they didn't even know about the radiation belts back then lol.
Are the radiation belts a conspiracy theory?
(N)aive (A)ssholes (S)upport (A)stronauts
@@marcop1563 oh yeah, you sound like a real genius buddy. Explain how they crossed the radiation belts in a tin can without having problems with their electronics, health, film inside the cameras, food & water supply. Keep in mind they didn't even know about the radiation belts back then lol.
Are the radiation belts a conspiracy theory?
(N)aive (A)ssholes (S)upport (A)stronauts
@@marcop1563 oh yeah, you sound like a real genius buddy. Explain how they crossed the radiation belts in a tin can without having problems with their electronics, health, film inside the cameras, food & water supply. Keep in mind they didn't even know about the radiation belts back then lol.
Are the radiation belts a conspiracy theory?
(N)aive (A)ssholes (S)upport (A)stronauts
@@marcop1563 oh yeah, you sound like a real genius buddy. Explain how they crossed the radiation belts in a tin can without having problems with their electronics, health, film inside the cameras, food & water supply. Keep in mind they didn't even know about the radiation belts back then lol.
Are the radiation belts a conspiracy theory?
People get far too touchy about this subject if anyone questions if the landing was genuine or not, so no comment from me.
We at the Flat Cheese Moon Society do declare that it is impossible to land a rocket on a badly made Margerita Pizza in space. It doesn't even have a tomato sauce base, let alone prospects for a moon base. Wake up sheeple!
The funny thing is, they did EXACTLY what people claim NASA did, which is to replicate it in their studio. Even funnier, he acknowledged it but goes on to say "Thats not the point". But thats exactly the point. 🙂
You miss the point of what he actually said, which was that it came from a single light source
HUGE IF TRUE (its not)
By your logic it would be literally impossible to ever prove anything.
It's okay to be ignorant, but it's usually better to stay quiet rather than speak up and make it clear you have no clue.
@@Mike-if1nn Did your mother just die? 🙂
your lord and saviour jesus christ died.@@schadenfreude6274
1-the astronauts reaction in the returning interview
2-the astronauts contradiction about weather they saw stars or not
3-the camera recording the lift Off from the moon, how they moved the camera to follow the vessel and how they recovered the footage
4-not a single dust particle was attached to the vessel or was disturbed into the atmosphere
5-only one picture of earth from the moon is baffling
6-the Van Allen belts
We have undeniable proof we landed on the Moon and every single argument from conspiracy theorists is easily debunked.
1 They acted absolutely normal in the interview. They simply mantained a collected demeanor and cracked a few jokes. Conspiracy theorists simply cherry pick the clips where they look bored.
2 The supposed inconsistent clips are about different moments of the mission. In some of them they were in the condition to see stars and in some of them they weren't, that's what they were talking about.
3 This is quite easy to figure out and shows you didn’t do even the barest minimum of research. The camera used was SSTV camera connected to an high gain antenna capable of transmitting live the images to Earth (you do now they had television in the '60s, right?) The camera had motors controlled from ground to point it in different directions.
4 Dust was blown off in every recording of the landings. The engines mostly blew it off preventing it from sticking on the craft.
5 There are dozens taken during the Apollo missions. Again, you didn’t do any research before starting to throw accusations.
6 The craft had more than enough shielding to protect them and they passed in a portion of the belts with a smaller flux of particles.
Whoever was taking the pictures was reflecting the second light source??! And if you take into account the white suit reflecting the Sun that would illuminate the astronaut to the level of the original photo... I think you missed a bit in the experiment!
Just like you missed having some brains 🤔🙄😕
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU, Mythbusters, for fighting ignorance! I used to watch this show back in my youth on Discovery channel. Got migraine from the distorted image (my parents wouldn't get cable 😅), but it was worth it!
Also: spending too much time around drugabusers or abusing drugs will alter one's perception of reality to a certain point, and I'm a living proof of this. I've been questioning the moonlanding a lot since I learned about Watergate and Daniel Ellsberg, coupled with my fathers (he's teaching social science btw) talk about money being the root of all evil today.
That combo is enough to make ordinary people struggle with keeping their perception in check. Imagine the damage it can cause to a high functioning autist's by default altered perception and then amplified by an escalating cannabis abuse forced upon you by people supposed to be your best friends.
Not that there haven't been other actual conspiracies before or after Watergate, but the moonlanding did really happen on the moon, and this episode proves it!
It's not ignorance, the photos are easily proveably false, just look at the rocks: buried in dust, but with scant/no dust on top.
@G-ra-ha-m Question: what happens when meteors collide with the moon's surface?
@@josefolsson5343 Then a large amount of dust will rise and coat everything. Except that's not what the photos show. They show rocks part buried in sand, mostly clean on top.
@G-ra-ha-m Okay. What about the shockwave from the impact? Is it impossible that it could have the dust in the center of a crater blown to the side? Besides, the jet from the Eagle-lander's engine should have been powerful enough to cause a temporary gust of wind powerful enough to blow dust at least 50 meters away in any direction. Personally, I'm really intrigued by the way particles might behave when manipulated by some kind of horizontal force if the air resistance is zero and the gravity 1/6th of the earth's, like on the moon. Newton's second law comes to mind. Although I leave it up to you to decide for yourself whether it's applicable to this scenario or not, I still think it might very likely explain your problem.
Also, as have been demonstrated multiple times, all objects have the same weight in a vacuum. Therefore, it's very unlikely that the dust could linger around in the air long enough to be blown back to the crater of impact or any other place for that matter.
@@josefolsson5343 Shockwave in a vacuum? How?
The photos show smooth hills and valleys covered in 'dust' (sand), with no evidence of recent landing around the clean stones.
Put your beliefs to one side for a moment and take a careful look at the rocks in the photos.
Where's the dust?
Another thing is that the main rival the soviet union did not object to the landings claim by USA.
Loved the show, But, All it proved to me is that all of it could (and probably was) be done on earth
Not to a level that stands up to even the slightest scrutiny, though.
@@ArKritz84But its only SOMEONE ELSE'S 'proof, huh-huh', anyway, no?.. Means nothing in the minds of those who, totally regardless of such 'proof (huh-huh, again)' can and WILL ignore the FACTS presented to them, and probably just 😉 & say, 'All THAT is good & well, but when you know, you just know [as ME & MY THINKALIKES clearly do], yeah?'... (As in muppet brains WILL ALWAYS be muppet brains!)...
7:52. errrr.. you just actually proved that you can indeed make shadows in different directions when you put a light source close by.. which is exactly the problem really. The point is that from a light source far away they would be far more parallel, and not just on a single photograph. So you've been busted, busters.
The moon's undulating terrain is responsible for the shadows that don't appear to be parallel in many of the Apollo photos - this is also caused when the light source is far away, just as it was on the moon's surface of course.
@@sailorman8668 no, that's just on some pictures.
Wrong. If the light direction and intensity is the same on the surface ...you get the same result.
No woke transgender, DEI, minority, inclusion, LGBTQ-BS - how was this show ever approved
They should have got in vacuum chamber in the suit, that would be really something😂
I like that
This show is brought to you by NASA!
Is NASAfull of shtttt ??
Loved mythbusters
What sealed it for me was the laser beam reflect back from the lunar surface, when I saw that spike begin to stand out I knew they went to the moon because there is no way that could be faked.
And apollo 13 was on its way in TLI when the disaster occurred and had to use the LM as lifeboat and rounded the moon even . If it was a hoax they only would be launched into LEO orbit for the duration of alleged hoax ( from moonhoax believer point of view) There are literally tons of proof they went to the moon and landed.. There were even lots of photos and there were photos on which one would say why were these made if it was just a hoax and how were they even made in the first place if it was a hoax ? Really a hoax is impossible with all we know and is proven.
I have absolutely no doubts about the authenticity of the Apollo missions but the Soviets landed two remotely operated Lunokhod rovers on the moon in the early 70’s that had retroreflectors mounted on top of them. The same laser range finding experiments have been done with them. One interesting connection with the Apollo landing sites is that the Soviets somehow lost Lunokhod 1 and were uncertain of its final location. That was until 2010 when the LRO images were gone over by Russian academics and the Lunokhod 1 was located. Confirmation by another county other than the US that the LRO images are good enough to prove the manmade objects are where they are supposed to be. Of course the hb’s still say the LRO images aren’t good enough.
For me, the best proof is the UA-cam video titled Irrefutable Proof for Moon Landing- Lunar Gravity. It shows how experts in the field of kinematics can break down the EVA video footage to show beyond a doubt that the astronauts were in a environment with a vacuum and 1/6th G. Changing video speed to simulate lunar gravity as hb’s go on about simply doesn’t work.
Really?
Do you believe Covid came from 🦇 ans 9.11 was doen by Saudi's?
A bunch of 🧠 💧💧💧naives.
Look up the news headlines" Dust: An Out-of-This World Problem by Niki Welch June 8 2021" or "Solar storms are sandblasting the Moon" 13 December 2011 or "Solar storms could sandblast the moon" Dec 7 2011.Check it out ! Then do the math using the "amount of material "x days the "retro reflectors" were installed. Too funny! Quote - "The moon gets periodically "sandblasted" by intense solar storms that can strip tons of material from the lunar surface, a new NASA study suggests. The sun is constantly emitting charged particles, or ions, in all directions in a stream called the solar wind." LOL !!! Is there a maintenance man up there? Bwhaa Ha ha!
@@BerndMorgan I was being sarcastic, they showed the alleged reflection of a laser beam on a screen as proof, I could generate the same signal on a screen with a few components, that was no proof 😅
Surely it would be easier now than 55 years ago. There is astronauts saying how we have a challenge getting through radiation belts but I thought they've already gone 😮
Nope, the technician was saying that the electronics of the Orion spacecraft needed to be tested going through the VABs, seeing as how modern, miniaturized electronics are FAR more susceptible to radiation than the old Apollo era stuff. So this obviously posed a challenge. And then it was successfully tested during Artemis 1 in 2022.
@@ArKritz84 But the old film had perfect blacks: no fogging.
What type of radiation affects silicon chips but avoids photographic film?
@@G-ra-ha-m The camera film was derived from that used for high-altitude photo reconnaissance, which was designed to withstand temperatures from 490°F down to - 40°F, and it was housed in aluminium magazines covered with reflective passive optical coatings. The radiation exposure level on the Moon from the distance of space was not enough to damage the film. It was much less than that of an airport x-ray machine’s direct radiation from a distance of less than a few feet. It had the same effect equivalent to leaving the film on a shelf for six months on Earth. And, in 1969, film was often left on shelves for far longer in many cases and still used. Furthermore, there are signs of radiation contamination in some of the images, if you look carefully; for example, lines running through the film, bright spots and a decrease in contrast and colour response. These effects are not easily detectable to the untrained eye and without access to the original material.
@@Ruda-n4h Kodak said it was ordinary film, it's in the record. You assertion that there was not enough radiation to cause even a small sign of fogging is circular - it assumes they went. Project Orion says different - they feared the radiation. You are claiming that going to open space for 2 weeks, crossing the radiation belts twice, with film in a regular camera doesn't fog, while a few seconds near a weak medical X-ray machine fogs film completely. Your argument is bizarre and not backed up by any science or data.
The photos content show weathered scenes and perfect blacks - solid evidence of earth based photoshoots.
@@G-ra-ha-m You are making it up about Project Orion (they were talking about radiation effects on modern computers) and probably about Kodak too. Either that or they are in error. Their sources on this aren't very reliable - even the project manager didn't have a clue.
There is no shielding for ordinary film going through an x-ray machine at that short distance, whereas there was in Apollo at a much greater distance. Low energy electrons were the main ionising particles that the astronauts had to navigate through and not electromagnetic waves e.g. ultraviolet, infrared, gamma etc. Electrons can pass through living tissue without creating much damage as they are very small.
The command module’s outer hull was made of stainless steel and the (upper) heat shield from epoxy resin, which along with the fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls was a very effective form of shielding against protonic radiation.
To reach the Moon and return safely, the Apollo astronauts had to cross the quarter of a million miles between the Earth and the Moon. They also needed to operate safely while in orbit around the Moon and on the lunar surface. During the Apollo missions, the spacecraft were outside the Earth’s protective magnetosphere for most of their flight. However, they were not exposed to particle radiation for long enough on a short 8-12 day round trip for it to be a significant risk. In 1968 the Russian Zond 5 sent a number of biological samples around the Moon and back, including two turtles and these specimens were recovered alive upon their return to Earth.
The astronauts would have been at serious risk of electromagnetic wave radiation from energetic solar flares, however the Apollo flights coincided with the height of the solar cycle, the periodic waxing and waning of activity that occurs every 11 years. The increased strength of the Sun’s magnetic field that permeates the solar system acts like an umbrella, shielding the Earth, Moon and planets and therefore lessening the impact on astronaut radiation doses.
That's in the record.
First off all, i love you guys. Second.. im the only one who bearley can hear the narrator? Im watching this on my phone, and for what reason i hear him only on my left speaker.
If N> Armstrong was the first guy on the moon.........WHO took the photo of him coming down the ladder ? OR.... how was that done ??
The camera was on the leg of the lander.
Are you drunk?
Google remote camera apollo 11
15:41 the light in the photo with the toy is much brighter (the ground is completely white), but the toy is still less lit than in the original photo. If you match the ground to the original photo, the astronaut will turn out much darker. In the original photo, the astronaut’s figure is illuminated much better and evenly over its entire height, but the toy is illuminated worse and unevenly: there is less light at the bottom, more at the top. So, the experiment confirmed doubts
Please make some more shows like this in 2024
No one's been to the Moon yet, period.
I think they have now managed to land some equipment on the Moon 2024.
Gaz.
Dumb*ss
Yes portable Shithouse.
You are a very stupid person..
Okay, debunker guys, come back to me when you can traverse the Van Allen Belts...
So you guess you've become better than all physicians for 55 years ? After a few hours on UA-cam ? I've info for you : they laughed at you. Those are belts : you can avoid them mostly. And they are made of particles, stopped by a few mm of metal.
@@PierreBrandominiBrandominiI always love these nincompoops who think they googled something (“did my research”) and think they are physicists 😂😂
@@PierreBrandominiBrandominiWhy do you think that they never went back to the moon in all these decades then? Why wouldn't they go back to rape and pillage it of resources, claim it, sell it etc like they do with every other piece of land? Sorry but there's so many aspects to this whole thing that just don't add up.
@@PierreBrandominiBrandominithen explain to us why NASA says they have to find a way to get through the van Allen belts?
Let me guess you didn't know about that statement?
@@PierreBrandominiBrandominibut they don't have the technology to go back on the moon in 2024 😂
I think most people would classify that as a plane crash. The landing gear broke, wing and engine partially removed from the plane from impact. Sounds like a crash to me. My take is loss of power, caused a hard landing which severely damaged the plane.
Late to the party here, but I really expected more honesty from the MythBusters. That shot of the model astronaut on the lunar module model ladder was so over exposed compared to the NASA original. Match (darken) the exposure of the lunar surface and then the astronaut suit will be so dark. I really did expect better guys.
Pretty convincing actually.
Yeah, I noticed that also. It was a very poor debunk attempt.
One Small Step For Man. One GIANT LIE For Mankind 😮
That's all you've found to think that some people are interested in you ? Here is news : NASA doesn't care about you. At all.
Thanks for posting this episode. Would appreciate it if you would add the original air date of the episode in your description.
It was the day it was on the telly ..Hope that helps
Aug 27 2008 ( IDBM website usually has air dates )
@@mcfcguvnors Don't you mean IMDB?
Nope.... How did they get through the Van Ellen belt.. They've never been.
why do you think the VABs even exist?
It is Van Allen. And the one who told you about them has laughed at you. Those are belts. you can pass "up" or "down" them and avoid most of them. They are made of particles : a few mm of metal stop them. You really guessed you could be right versus all physicians for 55 years after a video on UA-cam ?
You mean you've never been 🙄
I will only believe when we go back, but strangely they cant seem to get even a 'soft landing' right yet - soooo looking forward to seeing the crater under a lander caused by the rocket...!!
They have been quite a few soft landings in the last few years. The lunar surface is hard rock beneath dust; the LM used a low pressure (for reliability) rocket engine that was firing at only 3,000 pounds thrust before landing so along with the very thin atmosphere and low gravity there was not enough pressure to produce a crater; if you look closely at some pictures of landing sites e.g. Apollo 11 you can see some disturbance under the engine.
Then you will believe.
They went to the moon another 5 times.
In total 6 missions between 1969 and 1972.
How come this series is being fully uploaded in UA-cam without any copyright strikes? Not complaining, but curious
It might be claimed (which means they leave it up but get the revenue) or the rights are owned by some entity which does not care.
4 weeks old, but they do own it. The about page said that this is posted by 'Banijay Science'. If you search for 'Banijay Science Mythbusters', there is a news articles from Deadline saying that they purchased the firm behind the series.
Every single moonrock brought back has been shown to be a normal earth rock,..so theres that.
Not one single sample of the lunar surface brought back by the USA, Soviet Union or China has been shown to originate from earth, so there’s that.
You're an expert in geology ?
The moon is formed from parts of the earth.. so yeah
Fortean Times science.