Was the moon landing faked - Mythbusters
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лип 2010
- More than 40 years on conspiracy theories still abound that the moon landing was a hoax. Mythbusters take a look at some of these claims and try to recreate the notorious 'faked' photos.
Subscribe to Discovery TV for more great clips:
ua-cam.com/users/subscription_c...
Follow Discovery on Twitter:
/ discoveryuk - Наука та технологія
oh god watch out for the comments section on this one
betotrono i was thinking the exact same
betotrono I
betotrono right 😂😂😂😂
betotrono Thanks for the warning
betotrono i
That proves it, the moon is flat
Ayy Oh Kayy THE SUN IS A FIDGET SPINNER RUNNING AT LIGHT SPEED CREATING HEAT FOR US!!!
Sansirow Jesus christ are you actually stupid? The sun is just a huge piece of paper that is attached to the underside of a plane and it flies through the sky I mean are there people who believe in the sun???? Dont be sheep
VanquishElite IMMA CALL MAH MOTHER N SHE LL DESTROY DAT ABERRATION THAT YOU CALL FACE!!!
lol xD
Ayy Oh Kayy LOL
Didn't realize a 60s technology cameras film could resist 250+ degree heat .I couldn't get mine to survive being in the glove box of my car...impressive
It's not really 250° in the sense that it's a warm day on earth. The _surface_ is 250° (and only after the sun has been up for a week!!) Did you know there is no atmosphere on the moon?
Your camera didn't cost billions of dollars though. Obviously your camera won't have the same quality as billions of dollars of technology, scientists extensively testing and planning the entire thing and the best engineers to build the rocket.
@@fluffycorgi3695The camera they used on the moon didn’t cost billions of dollars, though. You can see in the alleged footage that the camera is the same commercial one you can buy at the store, but what makes it even more suspicious is the fact that there isn’t any insulation or anything to handle the massive differentiating of temperatures that would otherwise destroy a camera here on Earth with less extreme conditions.
EXCLNT CRITICAL THOUGHT: I NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT🤜🏻🤛🏻
@@fluffycorgi3695highly doubt the camera alone costs billions of dollars 😂
Imagine standing on a surface that is 250°F in the direct Sunlight.
Same as being out on a spacewalk in low Earth orbit in the sunlight, where the temperature range in low Earth orbit is -250 F in the shade up to 250 F in the sun.
Although huge temperature variations occur on the Moon, the astronauts were never actually exposed to them. The maximum temperature on the Moon is +260F at lunar noon but with no atmosphere this refers to surface temperature not atmospheric temperature. Every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise. One lunar day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly 15 Earth days, and the astronauts were only on the Moon for a maximum of 3 Earth days, so they weren’t there long enough for the Sun to be at its highest and hottest.
Haha at least people are now waking up. We can’t even go 1% of the distance right now in 2022. Here is first hand proof it was faked. ua-cam.com/video/1uKFjkHYuHM/v-deo.html
@@gunternetzer9621 The moon has an atmosphere?
@@albertroundtree8546 An extremely thin one that hardly registers and makes it negligible, hence my comment about the Moon has no atmosphere to hold heat as on Earth.
The moon was a paid actor
emmm!! Actually I thought it was a star!
teter wells16 the moon isn’t paid squat and this is real
teter wells16 the moon will win the oscars next year
Lol
Lol
I kinda expected a 5 sec video of Jamie and Adam saying "No" together and video ending.
Aviv Metz why though? That would be ignorant of them
The Blue Blur no it wouldn’t. It’s ignorant to think something which makes no sense
Spaceman yes it would, the conspiracy exists and it makes people believe things that may or may not be true. And like the flat earth theory (which is stupid) there are some "proofs" so if they just said "no" that isn't going to persuade shit, people want facts and proof
+The Blue Blur There is no proof for the Flat Earth theory, nor is there any justification for it existing in the 21st century. At least the Moon Landings conspiracy theory actually has legitimate questions to ask about the official narrative.
The Blue Blur you live in a level realm. Its science fact. No space at all.
Actually they do get one thing wrong here. That model isn't Neil Armstrong as it has the red commanders stripe on the helmet. That wasn't added until Apollo 14, since in the first two landings it was hard to tell the two astronauts apart on video footage (Apollo 11 only had black and white video anyway so a red stripe wouldn't have been seen easily).
Hah I’m also a nerd but for planets
If you were to watch the Earthrise movies that were shot from the moon, notice anything wierd? The moon is tital lock to the Earth so that one side can only face the Earth. So from the surface of the moon the Earth CANNOT rise.Apollo debunked in one paragraph.
Maybe he knows that. But it looks like he already had that astronaut way before this video and just decided to use it and explain the stripes but new he don't have it before.
🤓🤓🤓
but the pictures have color and there was a second camera inside the lem "filming" in color with like 1 fps or something. The coolest thing about that is it was on the same side where the black n white camera was, so they both had overlapping FOV so sometimes you could see the astronauts in both videos at the same time AND some pictures where taking, so you can see one position from 3 different cameras. That is so cool. Also one really funny thing is, you can see how Neil made the photo of his footprint in the lunar dust. Some conspiracy theorists claimed, that it would have been impossible, as the camera was on his chest, but you can clearly see how took the camera off and held it in his hand. How stupid can you be ... also alle the people who wonder who took the photo of neil exiting the lem. no you idiots, thats neil taking a photo of aldrin ... THAT is also visable in the camera!! AND also you can see how bright neil is. His white suite is perfekt for the sunlight to get reflected, additionally lighting the scene of buzz exiting AND explain the small reflections in his boots and some other places. No stupid "there had to be studio light" bs... :D PS: i am a conspiracy theorist myself, i just love to goo deep into things and ask questions, but i do that because i want to know the truth, not to fall for another lie. So far, most of the apollo fake claims were easily debunked by watching the videos and photos of the moonwalks :D
they wanted to make the moon landing so realistic that they actually filmed it on location
We must totally trust Nixon and that Werner von Braun dude: he looks like a decent, honest fella....
@@bdleo300 Good point. Only Nixon said they went. And German Scientists are known for being incompetent. With solid proof like this everyone will be thinking moon hoax any day now.
😂BS@@bdleo300
Cannon Air force base in Mexico, thats hte exactly location when they film, the moon landing is fake..
I bet you still believe in Santa too😂
I'm more impressed with that cardboard model of the lunar module he made!
imagine what Stanley Kubrick could make with budgets of millions?
There was nothing that Savage couldn’t make. The man is a genius natural builder.
the lunar model is out of cardboard and aluminium foil
Okay. Let's start. Adam says that the astronaut figure is scale 1:6. Then I assume that the lunar lander is also 1:6. The only problem is that their sun is not in scale 1:6 or the distance between their model landscape and their fake sun is not 1:6 in relation to the parameters of reality. This is false propaganda and nothing else. Thanks so much. Im not a flat earther either.
@@oliverxvi4373 you're not a flat eather and you're also not smart
I hate it when people say the cow jumping over the moon was a hoax
Oh dear the cow did jump over the moon....
I like you Jones. Good one...😂😂😂😂😂🐮🐮🐮🐮🌔🌓🌒🌘🌖🌙🌛🌜
@@1dgoose ...I know that's rught!!!!
@@bdavis4075 🐱🎻🐄🌝🐕⚪🥄
The cow didn't jump over the moon. The flying pig told me.
But doesn't that prove that there is clearly a way to achieve that effect without actually being there?
Any event or scene in history can be recreated in a studio with a single photograph, but the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in hour and hour of Apollo footage can't be recreated in a studio.
1967 MY GUY, WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE COLOR TV'S, HUMANS CAN'T GO THROUGH THE VAN ALLEN BELTS, IMPOSSIBLE, SPACECRAFTS THROUGH THOSE BELTS WOULD GET DESTROYED FROM HIGH RADIATION
@@leelunk8235ok prove that mathematically
@@yazzamx6380that is where the devil is,1/6 gravitational force but not zero.There were methods that could levitate objects or even dust.
Space debris would tear the craft to pieces. There’s more debris out there than mentioned. Not only that , earth is frequently bombarded by small meteorites that burn up in atmosphere. Yet satellites stay up there for years unscathed? Yeah right, internet can actually work without satellites because it uses waves. I don’t believe we got satellites in space. Genuinely we are being lied to badly
this video is basically a demonstration about how easy it would be to fake photos of the moon landing
That's how an idiot's brain works. Pathetic.
Ya it's easy to fake a lot of stuff, no surprise. Moon landing happened tho don't get that wrong
Hence why they only focused on this single photo and didn't touch the waving flag, etc, etc
@@snellavision…they did a waving flag mythbuster as well.
@@snellavisionthere are countless hours of footage. That follows your "common sense".
Stop insulting Engineers who worked hard on this and astronauts who risked their life (and those who died too)
I'm sure you don't have a PhD in astrophysics and a respectable job. Go back to ur janitor job
UP NEXT ON MYTHBUSTERS! DID BUSH DO 911?
WE'LL BE TESTING WITH THIS REAL SKYSCRAPER
This is science you dumb ass
Rolando Delarosa no shit dumbass
+Rolando Delarosa EXACTLY! 9/11 requires science obviously!
sirbutteralotIII yes
Mythbusters faked the moon landing
Stalker Delight yes
I expected to see someone who got jebaited into saying no lol
Yasss
Hahahahahahahajahaaaaaa!
WOW MYTHBUSTER PROVE IT WAS FAKED AS THEY RECREATE PERFECTLY THE FAKED LANDING AND FOOTAGE!!! WOW!!!
Is there anything else that we could do over 50 years ago, they we can not do now?
How about jump on a supersonic airliner for a flight across the Atlantic?
We can do it now, but there are other factors we need to take into account.
1. The moon landing was a flex of power. Both the United States and The Soviet Union were racing to get there. It was an intellectual war. Both sides were throwing everything at it. There isn't any real power now for the United States to compete with. It's basic competitive economics. The United States has the monopoly on global power, at the moment, that is.
2. Due to the competitive nature of the moon landing, the United States and the Soviet Union threw a hell of a lot of money at the projects. Referring to my first point, the US government could in now way justify doing it again today. People are just not as patriotic as they were in the mid 20th century and really, the US have nothing to prove.
3. The US was basically better off in the 1960s. They still are the single global power. However, referring to point 1 and 2, they couldn't justify doing it, especially when the country is poorer. Put it this way, Baby Boomers could, in general, afford bigger houses than todays young adults. Using your logic, today's generation would be able to afford even bigger houses.
In conclusion, it all comes down to money and power. Technological speaking, we could easily go back. Financially speaking, it's much harder.
Yesss music they couldnt produce good music now.
100% fictionalized Apollo missions
I call bs... we all know the moon is made of cheese.
I
Jaden LaFrance swiss
@@iswiftyfox8997 DISGUSTING
@@Janpeders24 you monster....
@iSwifty but Swiss cheese has holes in it
To all the people who believe in these super intricate conspiracy theories, remember that the government can't even unlock a fucking iPhone.
+FlyntofRWBYNation And when they do, they find out that there was nothing incriminating on it.
+game4brains ' Actually, some guy dropped water on it when celebrating.
+FlyntofRWBYNation UGH!!!! Maybe you should rethink that statement. They didn't go through all that to unlock a freakin IPhone. They were using this simple ploy and looking at the big picture to enact laws to take away all encryption rights.
They were in actuallity, incredibly clever
Open Your Eyes Your evidence for that statement iiiiiiissss, where?
Open Your Eyes I know they were trying to pass the encryption law so that they could have a back door to every iPhone possible. That still doesn't prove that they were purposely "having trouble" unlocking the phone so that they could pass that law.
When I saw the "moon landing," I thought the 1st person on the moon must have been the photographer.
And what photographer would that be? Dumb comment.
There were cameras on the module that captured it??
@@Zack_Euler
The cameras were out of reach of the module.
Your assumption is actually correct. Neil Armstrong was the photographer who took this photo of Buzz Aldrin climbing out of the LEM.
@@simplydifferent7712This photo they recreated was taken with a camera Neil Armstrong was holding while Buzz Aldrin climbed out of the LEM. The TV footage that was broadcast of Neil Armstrong climbing down came from a camera on the side of the LEM that was pointed at the ladder. It un-stowed and began recording when Armstrong pulled a handle on the “porch” of the LEM before climbing down the ladder.
This does not prove the landings were real...or fake. Just some camera nerd stuff. The larger story and additional discrepancies are ignored. Exactly what one would expect from mainstream TV.
You said "This does not prove the landings were real...or fake. Just some camera nerd stuff"
That's not the point. The hx claim says that despite the moon being bright enough to cast shadows here on Earth, an astrnaut standing in the shadow of the LM should be completely BLACK with nothing seen in that shadow.
All anyone has to do to debunk that claim is to show that the astrnaut in shadow would be lit by light reflecting off the surrounding ground and surfaces, and that is exactly what they did.
So they've proven this ONE particular hx claim is wrong. Nothing more and nothing less.
You said "The larger story and additional discrepancies are ignored. Exactly what one would expect from mainstream TV."
So how many claims do you think anyone can cover in just 45 minutes?
This episode of MB was first broadcast in 2008, 14 YEARS ago, where they carried out experiments that NONE of the conspiracy theorists had done themselves!
To this day, no-one has carried out the same experiments as MB in this episode and yet arrived at different results, hence debunking the claims they tested.
Also, it doesn't matter which claims they selected because there would ALWAYS be many more which they couldn't test in a 45 minute programme :-|
@@yazzamx6380 No evidence for your wacky claims.
they dont debunk this... think better ... they have that guy with the white reflective tshirt stay right where you would need to put a reflective surface... they think they demonstrated the conspiracy theory false, but they actually proved it true... the white tshirt if put to real life scale wound not only be as big as conspiracists claims, but it would be giant compared to the lander and astronauts... aka more than capable of illuminating the astronaut in the shadow...
I think you're right. This whole video was a waste of time. You could put a Moon Landing-Denier in a rocket ship, go to the moon, and touch down on a moon. The Moon Landing-Denier would still say that the whole thing was fake, and probably that their experience was fake too. Or that NASA drugged them to think they went to the moon to concoct a plan to trick them to think that they landed on the moon. For some people, all of the evidence in the world still isn't good enough.
The comments are making my brain cells die, especially the newer ones.
You got that right
My brain is like a plutonium rod that overheated and melted. A warm pile useless shit on the floor
Yap. It gets more absurd. Just read the moon is a hologram now
@P. Spit lmfao you sure about that?
@@victoriannecastle LmFAO that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard
To get consistent results, they used the same set as they first did back in 1969.
hahahahaha
Probably not the same pool and water . Buzz and Armstrong would look like the Grey's if they would have survived getting passed the radiation belt, twice. 🤔🤔🤔. In the 60s we still had black and white Bulb TVs. But we had wireless video transmission to and from the moon and then it was accidentally deleted to record The Benny Hill show or a Barney Miller episode. Who the hell was in charge of the betamax or VCRs in NASA in those days. The greatest achievement of man kind and oops main footage was deleted. IDK but if I was in charge heads are gonna rolll, before the Eagle has landed.
@@wisegeeks Isn't he so right though? This doesn't bust any myth at all, all it proves is that 1969 used the same construct as Mythbusters did here!!
Wes Barnes lol that's funny.
Flat earther but yet, he doesn’t know his facts. Even as simple as the earth... ya... u do research haha. Gosh, this is what you expect from a flatbrain.
What people need to realise is that they made the exact same picture but they weren’t on the moon
Do you... think the Moon landing photos' veracity were predicated on the idea that it's impossible to build a scale model of something?
Absolutely agree ..a replica but not the real thing.. no real proof
And there wasn’t stars in the photos
That's to be expected due to the way cameras work. For example;
Google Image search; *Full Moon Photography*
Where are the stars?
Google Image search; *Full Moon Selfie*
Where are the stars?
Google Image search; *Telescope Mars*
Where are the stars?
Google Image search; *Full Moon Sports Stadium*
Where are the stars?
Google Image search; *Moon Airplane Photography*
Where are the stars?
The camera exposure settings required to capture brightly lit objects (clearly and in focus) is too fast to capture the stars at the same time, hence the examples above.
That's why we also don't see any stars in the background of photos and videos of astronauts in low Earth orbit.
A camera wouldn't capture stars bud.
www.bitchute.com/video/joNLiRUIV0M0/ its fake for sure
Simple exposure times, the exposure is too short due to how bright it would be so the stars don’t show up
Why didn't they just go to the moon?...
Steven English Ez myth solver
Steven English because NASA doesn't want people to go to Moon because if Allen life on moon
Hamish Mahoney Or because the aliens don't want humans near of them, the humanity have a lot of stupid people, cof you cof
Luis Enrique *cough* people who are blinded by their brain *cough*
@Hamish Mahooney Who's Allen and who cares if he lives on the moon?
Anyone who has ever learned of how reflections work, should be able to realize why the astronaut is lighter than the shadow. How this myth came about in the first place, I really want to know.
mamberu because they have a partial understanding of how shadows work in space. see, in space, shadows are utter black with no gradient. it's why you can't see the dark side of the earth in space pictures. the reason is because there's nothing to scatter the light and break up the shadow, so light travels in straight lines, drawing perfectly straight edges to shadows.
problem is, that picture wasn't taken in space. it was taken on the moon, which has a way to scatter light and cut shadows, the regolith dust that coats it, plus it's own pathetic atmosphere of dust. what that means is that shadows on the moon are more similar to shadows on earth than in space, and if i stand in a shadow on earth, i don't melt into the dark and vanish from sight, you can still see me because of scattered light. it's the same here.
but conspiracy theorists only listen to the first half, completely disregard the second half and make up an explanation to suit their feelings ("there's only one light source". yeah, there's only one light source when i stand in an open field at noon too, that doesn't mean i could step in a shadow and be gone).
Because they can't accept that they are wrong.
people who believe it are dumb, that's why their 'explanations' are dumb
Moon Landin aint real 😭😭😂 why would we not go back? Cuz we fkn cant😭😂
People who lived in the 60s/70s know how crude technology was then. When I say crude I mean really crude in comparison to today. Its hard to believe they went to the moon when you take a good look at 60s tech. Especially when they say they don't have that tech anymore and are unable to reproduce it. You would have thought that with something so important and groundbreaking that every little piece would have been kept and the whole thing massively documented right down to the smallest nut, bolt and rivet as this is meant to be man's greatest achievement. Why didn't they do this.
If it was faked give them 100 Oscars, it was 1969, grand salute to the filmmaker’s
If you were to watch the Earthrise movies that were shot from the moon, notice anything wierd? The moon is tital lock to the Earth so that one side can only face the Earth. So from the surface of the moon the Earth CANNOT rise.Apollo debunked in one paragraph.
As much research as they tend to do, it was odd that Adam started off with an error. Apollo Mission Commanders had Red stripes on their helmets, sleeves, and legs to differentiate them from the Lunar Module Pilots in photographs and videos from the Lunar Surface. The error is that the stripes were a solution to a problem that was discovered while analyzing the Apollo 11 photographs and trying to figure out which photos were of Neil and Buzz. There were no Command Stripes on Armstrong's Apollo 11 mission suit.
To be fair he doesn't say it's how it looked on that particular mission, just that he can tell it's Armstrong based on the stripes.
From Apollo 13 onward, the Commaders had arm, leg, and helmet stripes on their suits so that they could be distinguished from the LMPs in mission photographs.
Also odd that they neglected a major light-reflectivity-related component of Luna, which is the lack of atmosphere. They didn’t do this in a vacuum, which would slightly alter the way the light behaves, and didn’t even seem to mention it
In free documentary 'American Moon' from Massumo, (youtube) they debunk the debunkers.
All
Lunar pictures and videos
Are staged on Earth.
Not any single doubt.
If you were to watch the Earthrise movies that were shot from the moon, notice anything wierd? The moon is tital lock to the Earth so that one side can only face the Earth. So from the surface of the moon the Earth CANNOT rise.Apollo debunked in one paragraph.
The moon is actually a sausage and the earth is a bread. Hence we make a hotdog.
And the sun brings the mustard
@@sixela2268 😂
The comment section is a disaster
Why
Another troll saying nothing. :-)
Why
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 another troll saying dumbass shit :-)
@@baizuo_6246 well, you can always stop! lol
Me after watching the entire video and reading the thumbnail again and saying “soooo is it fake???”
It's fake. It's impossible to land on the moon due to non-atmosphere
They just proved that the moon landing was real. Maybe you should watch the video again or just stay dumb I guess
Do it again using 60's tecnology.
Why? There are no supersonic passenger planes in service today and yet Concorde first flew in 1969 and went into service in 1976. So should the next supersonic passenger plane be built using 60s technology? :-)
@badtuber1654 --If you have an argument to make about "60's technology," then feel free to make it.
@@yazzamx6380 yes
@@cardinalRG yes, 60's computers consisted of blinking light bulbs. and Tesla's moon and mars "starship" rockets that are endlessly, extremely, more advanced appear to have failed and exploded 2 times. Dont make a big conspiracy about it.
@@badtuber1654 - In other words, by your lack of arguments to justify your claim, the answer is no :-)
Lmao y’all believe in the moon?
Hybrid_ Cuber can’t tell if your trolling or are for real
Hybrid_ Cuber well let me explain why we only see one side of the moon. Simply because the earths gravity is so strong that the moon don’t spin like other birds planets. Saturnus moon doesn’t spin either nor Neptune’s. And yes you do see the same stars it’s just that you can’t tell the difference
Hybrid_ Cuber and secondly the moon rotates the same speed as it revolves so that’s why
Hybrid_ Cuber I would recommend watching some videos about gravitation and how it all works. Everything in our solar system orbits the sun except the moons who orbits their planets wich in its turn obits the sun. The higher mass a planet have the bigger gravitational force it have wich is why the moons orbits the planets closest to them
@@ggurded2262 You're confused because you don't understand, not because you have any point whatsoever. You just don't understand. Study harder.
You could put a conspiracy theorist on the moon and he would still think it was fake. Let them think what they want: They want to feel special by supporting an unpopular position.
halberthawkins Give then their tin foil hats
halberthawkins Exactly
halberthawkins so true lol
halberthawkins it was staged my dude the landing did really happen no denying that but the photograph and the videos where staged or at least the first one maybe it became like live action towards the 2nd or 3rd landing
drumline guy this is why abortion is legal
Pick a sunny day.
Go outside.
Find a large building.
Look at the shadow the building casts.
Now, tell your friend to go and stand in the shadow and see if he turns "black" like that shadow, or if you can still see him.
Let me guess: You can still see him, and he is not "blackened" by the shadow.
"Problem" solved.
Take a photo thou
Don’t forget to tap your toes together
@@keithboddey Why? Can't trust my eyes?
@@timjoseph887 Whatever that means.
"Apollo 11 mission is fake!"
another apollo mission:
All apollo flights are fake, nasa is fake
Lol
Yeah it's
Yes its fake, because the location when they film is in cannon Air force base in Mexico,
I think they just proved that an organization can create a moon landing.
But they're showing why it's not a secondary light source from stage lights. The moon reflects light, a lot of it. If it didn't, moonlight wouldn't be a thing, since moonlight is only reflected sunlight.
I understand the reflectivity of the moon, how else would there moonlight? Either way debunking the hoax based on the photo by recreating the landing in a garage is almost in itself recreating a studio landing...that's the point.
@Cheryl Jolly what about the fact that lights that advanced didn't exist until 20 years after 1969?
@@Tennoinu Yeah i don't understand people, like "ha got you!, it got recreated in 40 years time!" it's fake! solid evidence!"
@@sogrim4816 They discussed this in the aired episode.
Not a conspirator or anything but all this did was prove it could be done in a studio.
it proved that the grounds the conspiracy is based on is false the conspiracy states that in order for him to be illuminated like that there would need to be a secondary light and they proved there didn't need to be one
Moon Man it doesn't change the fact that it proved it could've been staged the exact same way. Plus, McDonalds paid off grant imahara to tell you mcdonalds uses real ingredients what makes you think NASA didn't pay off myth busters to make up some bullshit arguments?
Yeah it was staged, they just spent billions engineering a rocket to not put anyone in it and pretend they landed on the moon so they could say they beat Russia. Makes so much sense doesn't it?
Don't forget that USSR went along with it, as well as Australia and the UK.
Jeff Vader yeah because you personally saw where that money went and you were also involved in the making of it right?
How did we get through the Van Allen radiation belt?
by avoiding the hotspots and moving really fast. Its not that complicated we can still move through it if we do it fast enough. Radiation isn't something that drops you dead on the spot, prolonged exposure is needed
You have been badly misled. No less a person than Dr. Van Allen himself said you'd have to spend a _week_ in the densest parts of the belts to receive a fatal dose. The Apollo astronauts passed that region in about 15 minutes.
@Tim22222 How did they have enough fuel to get there and back from the moon. Even Elon Musk says it would take eight times the amount they say they used.
@@jw4302 Do you agree that the van allen belts were not an impediment to an Apollo trip to the moon?
@Tim22222 I just watched the new Joe Rogan episode with the Sibrel guy, the "conspiracy theorist", and he makes you question things.
NASA
Says the ignorant :-)
There are no such "acts" and there never were. Get a life.
Not a bad one. We can’t even go 1% of the distance right now in 2022. Here is first hand proof it was faked. ua-cam.com/video/1uKFjkHYuHM/v-deo.html
FACTS FAKED
Like your ans..here's one nasa no aliens saw anything
Lmao what if the camera just used flash
Why should they? They didn't need a flash at all. They were there in bright sunlight (at the moon morning) just as you would be when you walk out on a sunny morning on some sand beach and take photos. No flash needed. A flash would have added additional weight to the misson and you would have needed additional batteries to operate it. Besides: it would have been some additional source of failure.
Pretty simple: you don't carry anything to the moon that is not absolutely needed - every pound counts. And there is one additional principle involved: KISS - "Keep it simple, stupid!"
Besides: As long as there is at least some light on something, you can brighten this area of the image up later in the dark chamber, as will everybody tell you who has ever actually worked in a dark chamber.
Then there wouldn't be that dark of a shadow behind the lander
Ethan Archibald Music they did not have that in the 1960 dumb ass
Nikerio Hey dumbass, yes they did.
Nikero there were flashes wayyy earlier than 1960
Hah! You think the moon is real?
Kristen Cantu earth aint real either
Neither are we
Neither our solar system
Neither is the universe
Kristen Cantu yea. Duh! 🙄
0:43 0:53 I always giggle at Adam doing this bit, as well as the S-Band sound effect they added here too.
What annoys me about the secondary light source theory that never seems to get mentioned is that there would be shadows from that source but there never is. You only see one shadow per object or person.
There were multiple light sources in the warehouse lighting seeing as they never done it in darkness and taken a shot from a single spot light to see how that camera handles exposure but shows exactly the same as the nasa photo. I’m neither say it was real or fake but this doesn’t debunk any argument.
@@hoofhearted1102 Are you suggesting any light spill from outside the test area is significant enough to reflect more light than the control light inside the blacked out area?
If you were to watch the Earthrise movies that were shot from the moon, notice anything wierd? The moon is tital lock to the Earth so that one side can only face the Earth. So from the surface of the moon the Earth CANNOT rise.Apollo debunked in one paragraph.
@@jokiklos7009 Link (google search phrase) to where we can find these “Earthrise movies” you speak of. Go ahead, we’ll wait. You’re an id*ot.
Here it is. They went to the desert 4 hours from L.A and here's what went down. They said they couldn't use the sun because it was night time so they used a single light to shoot heaps of footage. So, why didn't they wait a few hours for the sun to come out ? They wouldn't address that question.
When questions started to arise about the authenticity of the whole thing, they compared the moon tapes to the ones shot in the desert to prove that they are authentic... Get it ? But the ones shot in the desert were done using artificial light. The shadows are all wrong but so were Apollo's so they must be real, right. So they actually proved themselves as liars with their own evidence.
All of this is now proven and part of history as is the fact that no human has been through the Van Allen belt...but you probably don't care if you are a believer. Good luck.
Ironically enough, this goes to show how east it was to re create the “‘moon landing”, even though it was 1/6 scale it still goes to show how easy it was to take an almost identical photo as NASA’s
of course it would be easier to re create it 41 years later
@@kneesurgeryenthusiast6915 its not like they usding cutting edge tech not available 40 yrs ago.... especially nasa big budget
@@sandermez3856 not really
@@mocapcow2933 really? This video of mythbusters laying down sand, making a mock up model and coverng a building to make it as dark as possible is cutting edge and could not be done 40 years ago?
@@sandermez3856 they took pictures, you know how much hard it would be to create this, to real life scale, and record it all? No, cause people who are skeptics usually don’t have an understanding of cgi, or even regular science. They are people who come up with conclusions then try to get evidence, instead of using evidence to come up with conclusions.
**Sponsored by NASA**
Lol Sponsored by NASA to expose their fake moon landing
Dude with what money
Gu3stn0t3v1l lmao not
NASA : Never A Straight Answer
They don't have the money for that.
this video actually shows why there's small/closer horizon in so called actual moon footages
Nope. Although the moon's horizon is nearer due to its smaller size, it is missing MANY of the visual cues that we have here on Earth to determine distance. Hence no atmospheric fogging with distance, no trees and other objects of known size to judge distance, no clouds, no manmade features, and so on.
As a result, we cannot judge the distance to the horizon just by looking at a photo or video on the moon, including those taken by unmanned spacecraft and rovers.
Funny I’ve never heard of this as part of the fake moon landing theory, the question I always heard was who took the picture of them getting off the spacecraft for the first time?
Is that your question? :-)
Ok, I can actually answer this one.
So, during the landings, NASA has mounted Cameras on one of the legs that faced the ladder, this is why we ended up getting footage when no one was seen holding a camera!
Imagine now we have advance technology, but no one comeback to the moon, because the moon landing is fake, they took the film in cannon air force base in Mexico thats real.
if there were multiple light sources(like studio lights), then there should have been multiple shadows per object
if there was one light source then your gonna need on dam giant studio light
Can you shut the fuck up? Please, and thank you!
@@lawscriteria you don't understand his comment. he is agreeing that the landing was real
@@rocker761001 I didn’t tell him to shut up because of his comment it’s just because i hate people with that pfp
@@lawscriteria can he shut up more like CAN YOU SHUT UP
@@lawscriteria I don’t like people with YOUR PFP
Real astronaut washed his space suit with tide just before landing he is shinier than your experimental astronaut.
"Apollo Program"
Producer: Walt Disney deceased at that time.
Co-producer: Wernher Von Braun.
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Art Director: John Hoesli.
Writer: Arthur C Clarke.
Photographer: Geoffrey Unsworth.
Total cost = 169.51 billion current dollars.
What was 169.51 billion spent on? Lawn chairs on a go-cart, foil and curtain rods.
The director was more likely Kubrick's effects supervisor at the time - Douglas Trumbull - as he had worked in the past for NASA shooting training films.
Not only that, the sun's illumination is over 125,000 lux (and that's unfiltered without an atmosphere), which is much brighter than even the brightest indoor lights. I'd say that light they used for the set up would have hardly given them 500-1000 lux. That astronaut would have been much brighter with the sun shining.
I've always thought about that. How did the sun not burn their eyes.
@@solangelalebron1348 they had visors
@@solangelalebron1348 they had tinted visors as the other guy said
Had they tried to fake the sun,the single sourced light would have melted everyone on the sound stage.LOL How did they create the darkness of a vacuum/ space.We see no walls,ceiling yet the brightness matches the Moons low gravity, vacuum environment. Lets see Hollywood fake this.ua-cam.com/video/boFZ3cAws20/v-deo.html
The moon doesn't have much atmosphere supposedly why they couldn't see the stars
I always loved this episode. They proved the moon landing happened by proving it could faked.
Nope, they simply debunked a specific hoax claim, hence myth busted :-)
@@yazzamx6380 *thus
@@LetsMars - You said "*thus".
Oh, so you want to be pedantic :-)
Ok, here's the problem with your claim, there's a huge difference between still photos and video/film.
There isn't a single photographed event in history (Apollo included) for which we cannot recreate the photos of that event in a studio, but... to this day, no-one has EVER recreated perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
Even the most modern high budget movies like "The Martian" with its CGI effects doesn't attempt to recreate the 1/3 gravity of Mars for the surface scenes!
That's because it's impossible to recreate such effects perfectly in real time on a studio/set with actors, so they typically don't bother at all for Mars and usually resort to rather poor attempts for moon scenes, where only recently have they improved such visuals thanks to CGI (which wasn't available back in the 60s/70s).
Therefore if someone successfully recreates perfect 1/6 gravity in a studio and hence demonstrates uncut fake footage that matches the Apollo footage in every way (in terms of gravity) THEN I would drop that argument straight away, because that would be proof that it's possible to fake the Apollo footage here on Earth. :-)
@@yazzamx6380 lol
@@LetsMars - In other words, you have no counter arguments :-)
Could tell what the conclusion was before even watching it
Sure. Because we know they side with the science.
I don't know but people still can't go to the moon today.
They will once the SLS launches and is proven to work.
Make a Feather and Hammer drop at the same time and land at the same time with 1960 Tech, then come back to me and say it was faked
we talked about that in physics class, we also calculated the amount of gravity experienced where the video was taken and we got that it is around 1/6th that of earth which is what the moons gravity is. it could easily be faked tho by using a fake feather that would fall around the same speed as the hammer and a rope to slow the acceleration to 1/6th of gravity on earth, but i highly doubt it.
Moh_mmed What the fuck are you on about?!
Divyesh he was saying they couldnt have faked the moon landing what dont u understand?
Aiden Drake im not sure if they had the technology to make a vaccum chamber that big in the 60s lol
Well actually they did that in the episode. But decided to cut it.
BRUH. Reading these comments made me lose hope in humanity, we are fucking doomed if we continue like this, the education system is failing, fast.
Education is indoctrination! All you need is common sense. Trust your senses. Unlearn everything you were taught in schools. It's all lies, but the math works! everything else is pseudoscience, bullshit and unproven theories. Whatever you learn in schools is Masonic bullshit, indoctrination and lies.
Just ask yourself some questions like;
When has a nation ever made an innovation, (planted a flag on a new continent, made a scientific advancement) without any other nation following?
How was all the data and scientific research to accomplish the moon landing lost?
Why has the US not gone back to make a base?
Wouldn't it have been beneficial to fake the whole thing to be able to spend more money on the military budget, while the Soviets were actually wasting trillions on trying to get there?
@@yakovendelman7659 because the moon is a luminary that generates it's own magnetic energy and light, it's not terra firma like earth. An astrophysicist from Australia tried to warn NASA in 1965 not to go to the moon, because nobody is ever going to be able to land on it. He said the moon is made of magnetic plasma. The sun is electrical in nature and the moon is magnetic and they are luminaries. If you can't land on the sun, you can't land on the moon. Nobody ever landed on the moon and nobody ever will, if NASA or the president tell you otherwise, you know they are lying to us.
@@xavierlopes9204 ahahahahahahahahaha please provide a link to those documents.... or did u just hear them in a bar one night. If the moon was made from plasma we would all be dead
@@yakovendelman7659 what's the point in going back to the moon exactly, anyway india or China are going there soon so hold tight
Idiots can be shown proof yet still not believe.
See this is why I stop arguing with people about this and flat Earth.
Why stop arguing? Maybe because you can't win? lol
I think it’s the fact that 1 shadow goes one way and another going a totally other direction.
Yep, it's called perspective :-)
We can’t even go 1% of the distance right now in 2022. Here is 1st hand proof it was faked. ua-cam.com/video/1uKFjkHYuHM/v-deo.html
If you were to watch the Earthrise movies that were shot from the moon, notice anything wierd? The moon is tital lock to the Earth so that one side can only face the Earth. So from the surface of the moon the Earth CANNOT rise.Apollo debunked in one paragraph..
Didnt you think about camera having flashlight turned on??
XD
A. Hdh. Didn’t you think about that a flashlight wouldn’t just light up the astronaut but the shadow too??
XD
No u
Lol Lol unless it was concentrated just on the astronaut then not so much
Madmarty there as no way it could have been just on the astronaut there would still be light surrounding the astronaut
Lol Lol yea I guess but anyway it's not because of another light we all know that
Way easier way to bust this- just point out the reflective panels that they left on the moon that scientists still use today.
The Conspiracy theorist always gloss over that point. One thing the mythbusters forgot was to add the reflective coming off of Neil Armstrong's space suit, if that is added Buzz Aldrin is even brighter.
Christian Caisley lol there are no panels Lololol...prove it
Grab a space laser of your own and find out for yourself. They are there, and the stupidity of moon hoaxers continues to astound me.
Ps. Lolollolololololllol!!111!! roflcopter
toto wolf Actually, the Russian, Chinese, Indians(India), the European Space Agency, Japan, etc. have already pointed their space lasers there. Scientists from around the globe use it for lunar research. It is the best way to accurately measure the distance between the Earth and Moon. If they did not get a return signal they would have reported it.
No no no clearly every single scientist from every country in the world, including ones who are enemies against each other, are all in on this massive conspiracy. Wake up sheeple!
I'm sorry i could barely contain my laughter.
I commend the guys who are still replying to new comments to this day refuting the Moon Landing deniers. Some heroes don't wear capes.
How do you know I'm not wearing a cape?
Me, sitting a cape and nothing else, telling hoax folks to look up BoPET.... 🤣
❤👏
ty
And these are the same people that think the Earth is flat.
Adam personifying the Neil Armstrong figure with the little ‘Quindar’ beep is absolutely adorable.
It's technically an Alan Shepherd, Dave Scott, John Young, Eugene Cernan figure, and the reason being is Neil Armstrongs suit did not have the commander stripes.
@@pnwdiver1734 ah i see you are a man of culture as well
@@ziji6261 If we want to get super technical, Apollo 13's Commander Jim Lovell's space suit was the first to have the red stripes, unfortunately he didn't have the opportunity to walk on the moon.
@@pnwdiver1734 yeah
If you were to watch the Earthrise movies that were shot from the moon, notice anything wierd? The moon is tital lock to the Earth so that one side can only face the Earth. So from the surface of the moon the Earth CANNOT rise.Apollo debunked in one paragraph.
They could have just said: A secondary light source would have created a further shadow and saved 4.03 minutes of our time
yes,, they could easily shorten the video,,, too much drama to come to a conclusion . and now comes the next questions, how come only one camera shot /video of Aldrin , on his right back side ? what happen to the camera that videoed Neil armstrong, it was on his left front angle ? the film run out on the hasselblad videocam ?
Have you never watched myth busters before?
Bob, They didn't mention Neils suit? It was like a light bulb in the sun of the Moon.. The white spacesuits reflected about 90 percent of the light striking it.
But by recreating this picture on earth with stuff we have on earth just adds to the fact that it could’ve been done on earth. Not saying I believe it was fake, just saying.
Who took the photos?
the astronauts
Where are the stars...
Exposure…
I challenge somebody to give me evidence that it was faked that cannot be proved wrong
Ikr NASA knew they would’ve been caught in the future if they faked it so they didn’t besides if that was the case someone would’ve leaked it by now. We’re going to the moon in 4 years on the Artemis mission and they’ll show the site where Neil and Buzz once step on unless people want to claim that the astronauts going there put those “props” there
ua-cam.com/video/fMcpKJ18nmo/v-deo.html
7/11 was a part time job
@That Guy James I don't see any reference to 9/11 i just see that 7/11 is a part time job, I agree with him.
I work at dunkeroil
Gordon Schnick tbh there is a difference between ‘was’ and ‘is’... 7/11 IS still a part time job there is no was cuz it always will be a part time job. It was a joke one the less so who cares
9/11 = Tisha B’Av
Actuality the brightness came more from the reflection of the sun from Neil Armstrongs Eva suit while taking the photo of Buzz Aldrin.
Watch the 2017 documentary American Moon.
Why
@@leelunk8235 because it explains everything. Time to stop believing stupid crap. Watch the documentary on Rumble.
@@ednutter3482 MOON LANDING WAS FAKE YOU CLOWN. HUMANS CANT GO PASY THE ISS .TOO DANGEROUS
NOT IN 1969 AND CERTAINLY NOT IN 2024
@@ednutter3482 IT WAS FAKED DUDE
HOW IGNORANT CAN YOU BE. 1969. WE DIDNT EVEN HAVE CELLPHONES BACK THEN LOL
it's real, I'm the moon
No I’m the moon, and I’m lactose intolerant
No im the moon and I'm allergic to ppl
Somebody please moon me!
@Donald Trenton great one
It’s the cameraman
The sheer irony in recreating moon landing footage on set to "prove" its wasn't done on set lmao
Er, since when is a photograph the same as footage? :-)
I guess all those scientists who do experiments must be taking the wrong strat too, since models or small scale situations are fake and can't tell you about larger scale or external phenomenon.
Shows how utterly delusional you flerfs are
Cry harder Flerf.
Lol forreal tho 💀
Why not show the landing with the dust flying around. That a film crew a with tripod took, that were already on the moon. I cannot find the dust flying video anywhere?
"That a film crew a with tripod took"
Not sure which is worse, your ignorance or your English! But if you really want to see dust flying around, try the film taken from the LMP's window in all 6 landings: ua-cam.com/video/nrKHtXxYlkk/v-deo.html
Haha Here is 1st hand proof it was faked. ua-cam.com/video/1uKFjkHYuHM/v-deo.html
You probably forgot about the camera man who shoot the video and never came back😂😂😂
You probably do not realise that cameras do not need a man standing next to them to operate them! Take care.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth they sure need somebody to place them there to remotely control them dont they?
@@UA-cam-ADMlN Absolutely. That is what the Apollo astronauts did. Take care.
@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth GAYeyea gpt
@@theflipbook1280 The Westinghouse TV camera did not use film. The signal was transmitted to Earth using Unified S-Band transmission and the giant radio dishes of the MSFN. Take care.
If the moon missions were faked the USSR would have been the first ones calling BS. Also, if you don't know how things react in a vacuum or how light scatters and reflects, take some science courses and expand your mind a little bit.
No, what they need to do is actually live up to the experience for them to actually believe the science. Why not stick them in a vacuum chamber and see for themselves how their bodies react? That'll be beneficial for both sides.
What if there is complicity. Why rule it out. Why go by tv. Why not use common sense. Think out of that idiot box. Nobodys friend or foe nations. We all are greedy insecure and envious.
Vaccumm is another big BS. What divides the vac from atmo. Who has seen that divide. 11 thousand satellites up there. Get a live vid evidence. Also if vaccumm exists then by definition it must suck up entire mass if any. It cannot be allowing atmo or mass to resist. If it do so its not vaccumm. Its just another extended layer above atmo. # Vaaccumm hoax
@@MA-uf8ly Actually vacuum and atmosphere aren't separated.The atmosphere just thins up to the point where it seems no atmosphere is present but there is an atmosphere.This is why satellites need to be replaced or boosted back after a few decades or so.Also how does saying that no nations are friend or foe explain why the USSR wouldn't call bullshit if the US faked the moon landing?
@@sohanturtorial3856 theories n theories.... no satellites up there. Disprove me. Show live vid of sats from any other sat. Ok. Show me sats from telescope or any scope one can. If we can snap mars then y not our own sats. To believe is faith. To prove is truth. Complicity :: u scratch mine i scratch yours. Who would not "cooperate" if deception receives funding...
They faked the myth busters.
Proof!
ua-cam.com/video/ZOKcmSY-MZQ/v-deo.html
Next up on mythbusters: did the mythbusters fake the moon man?
Your actually proving the photo was fake...
Nope. The hx claim says that despite the moon being bright enough to cast shadows here on Earth, an astrnaut standing in the shadow of the LM should be completely BLACK with nothing seen in that shadow.
All anyone has to do to debunk that claim is to show that the astrnaut in shadow would be lit by light reflecting off the surrounding ground and surfaces, and that is exactly what they did.
So they've proven this ONE particular hx claim is wrong. Nothing more and nothing less.
@@yazzamx6380 Proof?
they dont debunk this... think better ... they have that guy with the white reflective tshirt stay right where you would need to put a reflective surface... they think they demonstrated the conspiracy theory false, but they actually proved it true... the white tshirt if put to real life scale wound not only be as big as conspiracists claims, but it would be giant compared to the lander and astronauts... aka more than capable of illuminating the astronaut in the shadow...
These nice guys have always been very aware of the risk of busting anything of importance. Telling the truth about Apollo 11 would finish the channel prematurely.
Making up your own reality doesn't address the myths they debunked :-)
Is everything a conspiracy theory nowadays?
IWantToDie Yes.
Herr Doktor the worst one is either the lizard people in the government theory or the “chemtrail” theory.
No flat earth has got to be the worst. ;)
Imagine bumping into a moon landing, chemtrail, flat earth, anti vax, lizard conspiracy vegan
I have a conspiracy theory
We will all die
Sort these comments by new if you need a laugh.
Thanks the best is here, same as the votes, those are rigged too.
Wait, you can sort comments?! FFS...
So you create an exact replica set of the moon landing and say they must have been there to get those results, when your same results came from a model set.
I'll copy and paste an earlier reply;
Photographs and film are completely different my friend :-)
There isn't a single photographed event in history (Apollo included) for which we cannot recreate the photos of that event in a studio, but... to this day, no-one has EVER recreated in a studio the perfect 1/6 gravity seen in Apollo footage where even the kicked up dust and dropped objects fall at the rate of the moon's gravity. Not even in the moon scenes in the highest budget sci-fi films (remember, no advanced CGI existed back in 1969-1972).
The red stripes to identify the commander of the mission where not used yet on Apollo 11
People are really dumb.
Ikr
*Always has been*
Right? The believe anything the government, including NASA, tells them!
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 my oh my.
@@justnoah2073 i'm sayin! lol.
It's quite simple, really. People who can't accomplish anything don't understand how other people can.
It's science not life or success
Yeah that makes sense with your logical fallacy. More like "I believe we went to the moon over 60 years ago, over half a century and havent returned because NASA tells me that it's too hard and a Painful process to try to rebuild the technology. And it just so happens to be the only technology that has become less efficient over the course of 60 years". But sure, keep on believing a bunch of people, including NASA who use green screens and have more foul-ups than Harlem globetrotters game.
@@YdOntYaCryAboutIt69 Actually one shift of the flag is convincing enough. The astronaut quickly rotates the flag with a sharp movement, and the corner of the flag quickly and gracefully swings above the cross bar. That can't happen in our gravity, and couldn't be emulated or faked. That was a result of .17g, they were on the moon. Done. Your welcome.
@@crispbacon3763 Yeah, I did.
@@TheJollyGreen Oh ofcourse, I forgot, You've been to space, you've experienced .17g and you are basing ALL of what you're saying and believing on the information given to you by the very people who write the textbooks, want you to believe what they say and you've given up on your own physical senses to justify an invisible force. But sure, I can tell by your retort that you haven't looked into the excessive number of NASA inconsistencies across the last 60 years, Haven't learned your history when it comes to why an agenda such as faking space missions would exist, along with believing that space bubbles exist too. Can you explain how bubbles occur in space?? Please enlighten me, because as it stands NASA spokepeople state it is debris and NOT bubbles, but then they proclaimed astronauts needed snorkels in space. As it stands now, NASA has been losing support steadily due to their MAJOR greenscreen failures, the regular failures and inconsistencies regarding space, a vacuum that never sucks away earths atmosphere and a constant requirement to base everything on Gravity and your main basis for evidence is a flat moving while you're watching a video which was filmed in a slower speed in order to generate an odd look so people such as yourself will defend it as being "the moon bc it looks different and we dont know what the moon would be like". Let's not forget that these "AstroNOTS" cannot utilize the gravity of the moon properly and reach heights of more than 12 inches when jumping, when they should be jumping upwards of 4 to 6 feet with Zero issue physically. But they aren't on the moon, they are utilizing cables, have a pretty good budget and have been deceiving people for nearly 70 years, so theyve become pretty efficient and yet still they are fouling up on an almost daily basis. Just look into The Moon crossing the earth and watch how pathetic the footage is, it is sad, cringy and shows how little they think of us as a civilization. Anyway, I'm happy to believe what I Know, tou keep on believing scientism founded by some Nazi rocket scientists who even proclaimed upon their final death marker( gravestone) Psalms 19:1, just look into it, why would the father of Rocketry do such a thing? hmmmmm.
Light bounces off stuff. Including the moon. They dont know that?
Moon landing denying cultists are like flat earthers. They don’t grasp simple concepts of science.
Imagine you survive 2 days in a rocket and almost get stranded on the moon but make a landing and people think its fake just because you didn't get darkend by a shadow. Understand moon dust properties first. But the video proves just that
Thats one image 😂 what about the others where you see shadows going at different angles , more then one light source
The Moon Landings definately happened because my wife uses Moon Dust in her make up sometimes.
@@Carl-mw3ft Irrelevant jokes aside, cate to provide your history-changing, substantial evidence supported by sound logic and/or reputable sources that both refuted the mountains of evidence we have to prove we landed men on the Moon as well as every single credible scientist and expert in every field related to space travel in the entire world Carl?
Do better, learn.
The CIA hired Stanley Kubrick to fake the moon landing but he was such a demanding director that he would only fill on location
Before I finished reading your comment I was shaking my head then by the end I started laughing. Lol good one.
Actually, Donald Ramsfeld said that Stanley had his private set to stage the landing in case mission was unsuccessfull but, the they just didn't need it. For whatever reason, Stanley never left his property ever after.
@@John-Doe-Yo if everyone was so sure what they knew was right wisdom would not be a word. instead of shaking your head have the courage to find the truth for yourself. That TV on the wall is no source for truth. it's purpose is profit and programing
10 idiots repeating exactly the same dumb joke
What if they did exactly what you guys did but on a bigger scale, with more moon dust and a bigger substitute sun?
Then you wouldn't be able to, from home, prove that we've been to the moon yourself... but you can.
It all happened, it was actually Pluto
“Moon Dust” sounds like an alien drug
20 kremulans a gram, good stuff...
You wanna buy some moon dust?
the reason why buzz was lit was because the light bounced off the surface and also bounced off niel armstrong because his suit is white
finally someone who have knowledge
moon works like a mirror and it bounces the sun light to other directions.
@@pchead except that Buzz Aldrin admitted to an eight year old girl on camera, that the moon landing never happened, it was faked, and the look on his face when he said that, was priceless, he felt like a lying fraud and was obviously distraught. Your knowledge can't replace the truth!
He was lit because he blazed a huge doobie before he put the suit on
@@xavierlopes9204 You good, mate? You just said "eight year old girl". Of course he would lie, she's just a small child! Buzz either didn't want her to risk her life by becoming an astronaut, or he didn't want that child to be confused. God bless astronauts.
His suit was bright against the darkness of space
just remember these HOT SHOTS will tell you crack lighters don't explode in your car on a 100 degree day 🤣🤣🤣
What has that got to do with this topic?
I am more interested in how the Navy was set and ready for splashdown. How fast and how out of control really was the craft? Was the calculated position preset for the Navy to be in position and HOW? JUST HOW?
Oh this one is really easy. The trajectory people were top of their game. They could calculate anything they wanted to with a spacecraft, and provided a primary and a secondary splashdown site. The CM was going up to 25,000 mph, but not really out of control. It was reentering the atmosphere in an angle that allowed the heat shield to ablate, while not being too steep to burn up, or too shallow to bounce back out of the atmosphere. And yes, it was a preset calculated position for the navy to be in. I’m not smart enough to tell you the math behind it. But the trajectory and retro and recovery guys definitely can if you ever google it.
I am simply amazed that their calculations were so spot on considering the speed and velocity. With that, I am sure they had the best G for e suits for re entry. A rough slightly wrong angle and 13gs or more will slam them forward. It all seemed so easy for them.
@@-TheOracle- the velocity and trajectory is the point, they calculate with that where it will be.
@@jetpond7904 it is still simply amazing that if the Apollo was off by feet during reentry, at their speed, they would have been off by thousands of miles. Another fun fact. The fastest speed per hour for the Apollo was estimated at around 3318.06 miles per hour. Could you imagine the precision maneuvering it took for those spacemen to pinpoint that precise point of entry? Amazing.
What is even going to be more amazing is when we go back to the moon, the slightly above average space watcher will be able to watch it real time as we have technology all around the world that can zero in on the smallest thing out in space. We even keep track of space junk the size of a football if we wish. Going to be fun this next time around as there is no way to control who watches. We all will be from beginning to end.
@@-TheOracle- I know all about this stuff I study the mechanics but they calculate with the trajectory where they’ll splashdown and they have backup plans for if they do go off course
I know nobody will see my comment but sometimes when I’m bored I go to the garden,cover myself with soil and pretend am a carrot 🤣
Someone saw your comment🤣
thats some great shit i respect you
I sometimes cover myself with sand alone on the beach and pretend to be a shell
26 people saw it
@@aosman2484 Now 30
1:12 pls lets take a moment of silence to appreciate the beauty of this mans mustache.
Gay
@@lawscriteria how
@@OsamaBinLackin_ satafu ya prick
@@lawscriteria n8ggà
I’m pretty sure you’re like “What The Fuck”
They proved it's not fake by faking it? uhm...
Nope, they simply proved in this video that one specific hoax claim is wrong. Nothing more and nothing less.
@@yazzamx6380 you are imbecile... they dont debunk this... think better ... they have that guy with the white reflective tshirt stay right where you would need to put a reflective surface... they think they demonstrated the conspiracy theory false, but they actually proved it true... the white tshirt if put to real life scale wound not only be as big as conspiracists claims, but it would be giant compared to the lander and astronauts... aka more than capable of illuminating the astronaut in the shadow...
"Sincerely,
Gubmint"
Did you guys prove they went to the moon by replicating a moon landing picture?
or
Did you prove the didn't go to the moon by replicating the way they faked a moon landing a picture?...
You're kidding, right? Did you even try to watch and understand the video?
How would NASA have known all of these facts back then if no one had ever been there before?
www.techinsider.io/neil-degrasse-tyson-moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-2016-1
That's the funniest reply I have seen. You have to be a special kind of clever to come up with this. You even had me going for a minute until I realised you were a poe. Well done :D
Owen Veloz they did prove it possible to fake.
That's how science is done indeed. You try to figure why something occurs. Once your explanation doesn't contradict itself or the rest of what you know of the world you try to setup an experiment that is as accurate as possible and then compare its reproducible results to the phenomenon in question. If it fits you can represent it to the world as THE explanation as long as nobody comes up with an explanation that fits the afore mentioned criteria better.
Nobody has, and NONE of other factors and parties that are/were sincerely involved contradict the historic event of the moon landing so that we, social media consumers, exposed to more dis- than real information, especially by exchanging so called information with our semi-informed counterparts on the web, can SAFELY ASSUME, WE FUCKING INDEED MADE IT TO THE MOON. So suck it!
I'm not saying we didn't go to the moon but the camera was positioned in the shade which would block sun glare so this experiment needs to be redone correctly.
+jtuno122 the camera wasnt in the shade and it was in a similar place with the original camera (angle)
not only that but there was no light glare in the original photo
try agaim
www.techinsider.io/neil-degrasse-tyson-moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-2016-1
No they didn’t make it to the moon FAKE
Stop reading it after ur first sentence. Too boring