Apollo 16 - Nothing So Hidden
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ธ.ค. 2011
- Click to subscribe! bit.ly/subAIRBOYD
Astronauts: John W. Young, Thomas K. Mattingly, and Charles M. Duke, Jr. Shows the landing and the three lunar traverses in the highland region of the Moon, near the crater Descartes. Includes an astronaut's eye view from the Rover; the lunar Grand Prix; the discovery of the house-sized rock; lunar lift-off; and the EVA 173,000 miles above the Earth. Microphones and cameras in Mission Control record the emergency problem solving during the prelanding crisis, and the reactions of scientists on Earth as the astronauts explore the Moon.
AWARDS: Golden Eagle, Council on International Nontheatrical Events (CINE), 1972 • Special Prize, 20th International Exhibition of Specialized Cinematography, Rome, Italy, 1973 • Special Prize, Technical Film '72 Festival, Prague, Czechoslovakia, 1972 'Diploma of Excellence, Salons, Internationaux de I'Aeronautique et de I'Espace, Paris, France, 1972
Credit: NASA/JSC
Launch date: April 16,1972
HQ-222 - JSC-580 - (1972) - 28 Minutes
The most viewed aviation channel on TH-cam
#AIRBOYD #AvGeek #Apollo - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
![[HIGHLIGHT] หมีLIVEปะ? | EP.171 เห็นแต่ในจอ วันนี้มาต้องขอคารวะ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gPWLxa0e_Z8/mqdefault.jpg)
I'd go back to the moon in a nanosecond but unfortunately we have LOST the technology.
@TwentyEighthParallel And it is a painful process to build it back up again.
@TwentyEighthParallel Just answer me this. How do you lose technology?
@@MrStooge. HE MUST BE AS DUMB as those moon rocks,how do you lose TECH,that you have already acquired?I guess that,s possible since it seems that HE HAS forgotten how to READ,SHYT 4 BRAINS.MORE LIKE ZERO PARALLEL
@TwentyEighthParallel Thanks for taking the time and your explanation may be plausible. Why weren't the factories retooled to enable and evolve further missions though? The tech we have now is so much more advanced it is unbelievable. So I suppose the real question is why did it stop? Imagine the first few transatlantic flights. They said yeah we can do that now let's not bother again and shut down the program we built to make it possible. Sounds crazy doesn't it.
Your parade of ignorance was already addressed, but I'm answering from a different angle.
YOU SAID: "I'd go back to the moon in a nanosecond but unfortunately we have LOST the technology."
== That is an out of context quote mine, and you know it. You know darned well that Pettit wasn't claiming that the technology was "lost" in the sense that nobody knows how. That's ridiculous. The Apollo technology was "lost" decades ago in the exact same sense that the technology to travel on supersonic airliners (Concorde) was lost decades ago. The people have all moved on, retired, died, whatever. There are no manufacturing facilities that are tooled to build Apollo components. There are no training facilities. The launch facilities were torn down and replaced to launch other rockets instead. The computer systems were retired (both the onboard guidance computers, and the ground-based mainframes). The radar tracking systems were retooled to do other things. The communications systems were completely changed to communicate in the more modern format than the old analog S-band radio from Apollo. Sorry, but you can't just go hop into a Saturn V, and launch. This isn't a 1969 Ford Mustang, where you can change the spark plugs, stick some gas in the tank, and go. Apollo was a MASSIVE worldwide program, involving many countries, many technologies, many people, many industries, etc. Yes, in that sense, the technology HAS BEEN LOST. But, for you to assume this means that "we don't know how," is just out-of-context cherry picking from a quote-mine. There are warehouses the size of aircraft hangars that contain Apollo documentation. Only a small percentage of it has been converted and uploaded to the internet. But, even that small percentage that is on the internet would take you a lifetime to read. It's truly an act of willful ignorance to sit there and take a single sentence spoken by a single person, and assume, from that, you know all there is to know about Apollo.
YOU SAID: "And it is a painful process to build it back up again."
== Yes. And, if you don't believe it, just look at the Soviet TU-4. That's just an aircraft, not a Saturn V. And, if you read up on it (I don't expect you to know what that is until you research), you'll understand what a painful process it was. And, they never quite worked right. The engineers begged not to build that thing. They said it's going to take them more time and more money to build a copy of the US B-29, than just to start from scratch and build a superior plane. But, the Soviet administration wanted a B-29 copy, so, they used their 3 captured B-29s to reverse engineer the thing, and build a fleet of copies (which had a ton of problems), instead of just listening to their own engineers. If they had just built a new plane, rather than a copy, they'd have spent far less money, and done it in far less time, and the plane would have been far better. Does this mean that B-29s were fake, because it was a painful process to reverse engineer something instead of starting new? No?? Why is it APOLLO that's fake if it's a painful process to copy it, but B-29s aren't fake because it was a painful process to copy it? Look, history has taught us a million times over that it's a painful process to try to rebuild old technology. It's far faster, cheaper, and better, to start from a brand new program's starting line. Now, does this mean they don't take the lessons learned from Apollo, or B-29s, or a million other examples? No, of course that's not what Pettit was saying. You take the lessons of Apollo, you apply them to modern technology, and THAT is what you build upon.
YOU SAID: "Just answer me this. How do you lose technology?"
== Good gods. Even you can see how ridiculous that sounds!!! Indeed!!! How do you lose technology?? The answer is smacking you in the face, but you're so deluded that you can't see it. The answer is that he wasn't saying the technology was "lost" in the sense that you're attempting to claim. He's saying the technology was "lost" in the sense that the SANE people understand (as outlined by my reply, and other replies from the other guy).
YOU SAID: "Why weren't the factories retooled to enable and evolve further missions though?"
== Because congress pulled the plug (the funding). Sorry, but they don't keep factories and tooling and personnel working on programs that aren't funded. Again, referring to the Concorde, you could ask the same thing, right? "But, why weren't the Concorde factories retooled to enable and evolve further fast airliners?" Well, those people don't work for free. Those factories don't maintain themselves. Once you stop the money, sorry, but you either shut down the factories, or you retool them to do other things, or you've got a hell of a lot of starving employees with no paychecks. Sorry, but this is just silly for you to even ask. And, frankly, to be honest, the most repulsive stuff isn't even that you don't understand these basic principles of economics, but, that you came to your conclusions before you asked the questions. If you had asked these questions before you came to your conclusions, I might get a chuckle out of you asking silly things about why factories aren't still operating after the money stops. But, I probably would just give you a friendly "d'uh" in the exact same way I give myself a "d'uh" comment every time I say or think something silly like that. But, you're different. You actually came to your conclusions first, then asked questions second. And, I have no tolerance for that. If you don't understand things, ask questions, by all means, yes. But, to sit here and accuse thousands of people of being criminals who deserve a lifetime in prison, because you don't understand why factories don't continue to operate after their funding stops... yeah, that's where I can't be friendly any longer. QUESTIONS FIRST. CONCLUSIONS SECOND. You insist on doing it the other way around, at the expense of spitting in the faces of the 450,000 people who worked for a decade on Apollo. There's something very perverse about throwing 4.5 million years of human effort out the window on the basis of a 1-line out-of-context quote-mine about a topic you know nothing about.
YOU SAID: "The tech we have now is so much more advanced it is unbelievable."
== So? Without congress approving it, NASA cannot buy a stick of chewing gum, let alone send missions to the moon. Congress decides how NASA's money is spent. There is an appropriations committee that allocates every one of NASA's dollars. If they don't approve a program to go to the moon, there is no program to go to the moon. But, Artemis was approved in late 2019. NASA and Trump and Pence and Bridenstine are trying to push for moon landings by 2024. Congress hasn't approved funding at that pace. They've only funded it at a pace that would put people on the moon by 2028-2030. But, funding can go up or down, so we'll see what happens after the election, and after COVID is behind us.
YOU SAID: "So I suppose the real question is why did it stop?"
== Because it was very expensive, and congress pulled the plug. The main reason they went to the moon in the first place is because it was a political message to the Soviets. This was a product of the cold war. Once we beat them to putting a man on the moon, congress wanted to stop the funding immediately. But, there were already contractual obligations to build X amount of Saturn V rockets, landers, command/service modules, plus all of the support personnel for all of the communications, launch facilities, etc. They couldn't just pull the plug without paying their contractual obligations. So, they let Apollo keep flying to the moon through Apollo 17, and pulled the plug after that. Some of the hardware for Apollo 18/19/20 was even under construction, partially completed.
YOU SAID: "Imagine the first few transatlantic flights. They said yeah we can do that now let's not bother again and shut down the program we built to make it possible. Sounds crazy doesn't it."
== Ridiculous comparison. Flying the Atlantic was always going to be a commercial success. People want to do that. Once those flights were commercially available, they sold tickets like crazy. Apollo isn't like that. There isn't much of a commercial market to go to the moon. And, it was amazingly difficult to justify, outside of the cold war. If you adjust for inflation into today's money, the cost of putting each person on the moon for Apollo was about $16 billion. Yes, EACH person. And, that gave them just a few hours each. No astronaut even walked on the moon for 24 hours. This is not a commercially viable business model. Very few people would spend $16 billion to walk on the moon for less than 24 hours. And, unlike air travel, which can be made extremely cheap over time, going to the moon cannot. Yes, you can reduce the costs of going to the moon, but not like you can reduce the costs of air travel. This is basic thermodynamics. Going to the moon will ALWAYS be outside of the reach of a common tourist, even just on raw energy costs alone. No, a better comparison in history would be circumnavigating the Earth. Magellan was the first. And, how long after that was it before the 2nd?? FIFTY YEARS!!! So, yeah, if you want to look at historical voyages as comparisons, yeah, use that one. Don't tell me you think Atlantic flights are the same concept as Apollo.
It’s like a breath of fresh air seeing how many people have woken up!
Clearly, you are still as comatose as a pet rock.
NebTheWeb Oh, I get it. You mean like the pet rock the astronots gave the Queen, just to find out after lab testing it was petrified wood! If you're not an essential worker, then you have plenty of time to do the research yourself. You'll find out soon enough NASA is a total fraud. Believe me, it hurt real bad to find out how much we've been swindled. Good luck.
TwentyEighthParallel Taking off your mask probably wouldn't help you one bit without removing the blinders first. You folks that think people who disagree with what the media has shown to be lie after lie...amazing! You wouldn't even know which end of a paint brush to hold.
Lol. How funny how the camera zooms out while the two astronauts are walking around. Remote all the way from earth, not buying it.
@@stolenjunk Don't care if you buy it or not. Its free anyway. Ed Fendell had control from Houston of all remote control aspects of the rover camera. The very same cameras that were used to shoot the LM lifting off from the moon. th-cam.com/video/5aDSYTMqyQw/w-d-xo.html
We left Myrtle Beach and drove straight to Florida to see Apollo 10. We arrived the day before the launch and slept in our car. Even as far away as we were, we felt the rumble and then the crackle as she pulled away. That was a long time ago, but it's one memory I will never lose.
Yes, and they stay around earth while you were here. You stay with the sensation of something incredible and they stay laughing about all the ignorant. Who goes to another planet or gets away from 37 earth planets to jump, play, drive a stupid car, etc? Who will use the 5 senses to spend so much money for nothing, not even create a base on the moon?
---- They become multimillions, billions, millionaires, and you what? You stay poor, right?
--- Today with so much technology they spend 20 billion on an SLS rocket that can't lift off? NASA is a money pig, a money sucker from the tax-payer.
Flexing myrtle Beach
@@jimwednt1229 That's the one.
Great memory for a kid. Too bad it was a complete fake.
@@Blessedcrumb where do you think those giant Saturn5 rockets went ?
Those massive things went up somewhere 😳.
The moon isn't "easy" to get to but it's not all that difficult to get to either.
Escaping earth's gravity is the hardest part. If you can get up high enough to get into orbit around earth all you need is a vehicle and fuel and a navigation system in order to get to the moon and enough fuel to get back to earth.
Guy in Houston: Hey can you get that rock right there?
Guy on moon: You mean dis un right chere?
Guy in Houston: Yeah dat un
Guy on moon: Ahh right
😆
Boy I'm surprised how good the radio reception on the moon works
No delay when they called the president either. Amazing.
Old Technology is the best
50 years later and we still struggle with making just a step for man let alone a giant leap for mankind. I cant even get such greatness today, 2020, on a mobile phone!
Direct line of sight radio communication using radio dishes. That's why millions of people can watch countless hours of satellite TV with small satellite dishes pointed at a geostationary satellite orbiting 22,300 miles up. Dishes like this;
www.protv.co.uk/uploads/Sky%20dish%20installation%20in%20Bletchley.JPG
The moon is about 11 times further away, therefore to receive the signal to the same strength would require a bigger dish, just like the massive radio dishes/telescopes used during the Apollo missions, like this;
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg/800px-Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg
So it's exactly the same principle.
Your satellite dish (if you have one) works because it is pointed *directly* at the satellite, where despite being over 22,000 miles away you can receive the TV channels perfectly if your dish is aligned correctly.
Now move that SAME satellite to the distance of the moon and the signal would be too weak for your small satellite dish, but if you have the massive Parkes Radio Telescope in the link above, then you'll receive the TV channels without any problems, and you'll also be able to receive and send radio signals significant further than the moon.
Although I'm sure you would agree that such a large radio dish is not practical to attach to your home ;-)
And because the Earth rotates, then for distant spacecraft you will need to use at least THREE massive radio dishes spread around the world to ensure that one of them is in direct line of sight of the spacecraft at any given time.
So it's not a mystery my friend, it's just science and engineering.
Oh and dont forget a phone call to the president.... Back in the 60's
It's far easier to fool a person than it is to convince a person that they have been fooled.
Hence conspiracy believers refuse to believe they have been fooled by conspiracy theorists :-)
@@yazzamx6380 so you still think Lee Oswald killed Kennedy and planes flew into the WTC and building 7 crumbled because of fire. You people are the funniest. Cant see outside the box because in your mind you are highly intelligent when in fact you have no common sence. Its no wonder the plandemic worked so well!!!!
The ascent stage of the LEM showed no thrust rocket propelling it upward. Was there some kind of rocked or was it lifted up by cables or what?
B.S.
Pedro Gonzales The fuel source they used was colorless in a vacuum . It was a hypergolic fuel called nitrogen tetroxide, in atmo it has a dark red haze and is very toxic.
Incredible. Fantastic. Literally.
The hardest thing for these astronauts is knowing when to be in character and when not.
*golf clap*
???
@@zxccxz164 I like how you put 1 and 1 together to get 3
@@zxccxz164 - The claim that the unprotected petrified wood was from the moon was an error made by the Rijksmuseum, a Dutch ART museum, where they assumed the rock donated to them was from the moon.
The museum were warned it was unlikely to be from the moon but went ahead and displayed it as a moon rock in 2006.
@@zxccxz164 - So in 2009 that warning was proven correct when a visiting geologist saw the rock and knew it can't be from the moon... and the rest is history.
So research matters my friend, you should try it :-)
I watched all this on TV when I was a child .
Bumblebee - My GT86
Me too back then we only had 3 boardcast stations sometimes 4 with PBS!
@vernon padilla : Your you tube diploma is showing.
@Angel Lee : don't worry, rocket science isn't for everyone.
It likely won't make any difference that you can't understand what happened half a century ago.
@Angel Lee : have you tried reading a history book? What happened a half century ago doesn't disappointment me at all. What happens these days, i do find disappointing.
Me too
In 1972 NASA went to the moon . Now they just go around in circles with all our modern technology?
Going back in 2024.
@@yazzamx6380
Don't hold your breath. Even before COVID19, they were never given enough money to make it by then. According to the White House OMB (Office of Management and Budget), congress only gave them enough money to make it by around 2029 or 2030, thus asked for more money (which wasn't granted, at least not as of a couple months ago). But, if all you're talking about was a slingshot mission around the moon and back, yeah, they might be able to do that by 2024. Anyway, if you have more up-to-date info, I'd happily admit to being wrong. But, thus far, the only time I hear the 2024 date is when NASA says that's what they're aiming at in speeches and stuff, but then, behind the scenes, they're still crawling to congress' appropriations committee to pay for it, but it never gets granted, at least not in the amount needed for that timeline.
Mr Paul Grimm, technology isn't the issue. Money is the issue. Congress controls every dime of NASA's money, and unless congress assigns dollars to going to the moon, nobody goes to the moon.
rockethead7 Aliens warned us to stay of their moon
@@rockethead7 - I agree with you on an actual landing on the moon, since the original plan was a mission in lunar orbit in 2023/2024, with a manned landing in 2028.
This administration has pushed to have the manned landing brought forward to 2024 without the funds to go with it, which is an unnecessary risk and all for the wrong reasons imo.
Therefore my view has been that they will still make it to the moon in 2024, but the original orbital mission, with a landing following years later.
Either way, just getting people to the moon again debunks 95% of the reasons conspiracy theorists put forward for why such a space mission is impossible :-)
25:22 icecream...?? With no gravity it's a miracle how they put the icecream into that cup.. so clean. Real heros all the way ;)
Many people, if not all, have a smirk on their face, like one does when pranking. Very concious of the camera.
(Pardon my English, not my native language)
Why would you think it was impossible? You can find photos and videos of astronauts eating tubs of ice cream on the International Space Station too, so are you saying that isn't real either?
@@yazzamx6380 yes. Not real. Bubbles in space.
@@nahigottagiveeveryonerespect - There are no bubbles in space except to those easily manipulated by charlatans :-)
So don't pretend this is about Apollo when you're really saying this is about all manned space missions.
Therefore if you're a flat Earth believer then just say so, otherwise state which manned space missions by any nation you accept as real and explain how you know it was real.
@@yazzamx6380 not pretending. Keep pretending in your fantasy gas ball millions of miles away. Keep believing everything you hear and see. You have made it to sheephood. Nah I gotta give everyone respect. Feeling Awesome Give God Our Thanks.
@@nahigottagiveeveryonerespect - If you believe the Earth is flat then you're not a Christian :-|
Anyway, can you say which version of a flat Earth you believe please? A brief summary in your own words would suffice.
I ask because there are many versions to choose from, i.e. dome or no dome? Edge (finite plane) or no edge (infinite plane)? More land and seas beyond the ice wall? Pillars or no pillars? Gravity or no gravity? Globe sun and moon or flat sun and moon? Rahu and Ketu, or just the moon? etc.
Once you say which flat Earth you mean, then your comments here will be in context of your flat Earth.
"You saw an example of goal-oriented teamwork in action" Well said, well said and so true. Will we ever be able to pull together like that again?
Yes, if we the people can find what unites us instead on solely what divides us.
I only have one thing. Has anyone ever noticed how fast the moon dust falls back to the ground when disturbed
Falls down at the rate of 1/6 gravity, i.e. 2.46 (square root of 6) times slower compared to dust on Earth in a vacuum (no air resistance).
Yazzam X you’re obviously very intelligent. I don’t know much about gravity in space. In laymen terms is it because the dust particles are denser and heavier compared to size. Is that why larger objects like humans and the rover fall slower and need weighted because the gravity on the moon is 1/6 less than earth
@@mfrank3518
In a vacuum, all objects will fall at the same rate of acceleration. But, when you're talking about stuff like dust, the best analogy I can give you is that it's a bit like hitting a golf ball in a sand trap (I'm not a golfer, I'm just using it as an example). Some grains of sand barely go anywhere. Some go at a high arc. Some at a low arc. Etc. They're all subject to the same gravity and same air resistance (no air resistance on the moon, just talking about golf sand shots on Earth). Yet, if you look at each individual grain of sand as hit by a golf club in a sand trap, it's a big spray, with wildly varying results, right? Why? Because it all depends on how much energy each grain of sand received, and the angles. Well, it's the same on the moon. If you look at dust behavior, you'd really have to know how much energy each grain of dust was given upon impact with something, and the angles. But, the point Yazzam was trying to give you was this... once you see a grain of dust on the moon is following a certain trajectory in a certain amount of time, you can use basic physics formulas to determine the amount of gravity being experienced. And, nobody for 50 years has ever found an example of the trajectories & timeframes that Apollo dust has traveled in the videos, and has been able to demonstrate that it's in anything other than the moon's gravity. And, it's not for a lack of trying. There have been many conspiracy believers who have been looking for some sort of mathematical evidence for 50 years to prove Apollo was fake. Thus far, none of them have found any. Instead, all you hear from the conspiracy crowd is "too much" or "too little" or "they can't have done that" ... and other phrases like that... never providing a single mathematical proof to support their assertions. Never. Not a single time. They will say, "the dust shouldn't have flown like that." Then, when you ask them to demonstrate the math using the moon's gravity as the frame of reference, they all clam up. I've only seen one example of a conspiracy nut trying to use math to show that the moon's gravity isn't correct in the videos. He argued endlessly about how the math shows that the Apollo 15 dropping of the feather and hammer didn't work for the moon's gravity, therefore they weren't on the moon. I kept asking for the math, but he wouldn't provide it, and kept asserting over and over and over that the math was on his side. And, once he finally showed the math, I immediately found his error, and I showed him where he got the math wrong, and I literally never heard from him again.
rockethead7 I’m not a conspiracy guy. I just got this video suggested from TH-cam for some reason and I noticed the dust that astronauts said (was fine as flour) falling at an unusually fast rate compared to everything else. Space may be a vacuum but even my dumbass knows that the moon has some gravity to it. That’s why the astronauts have weighted suits. The land rover is bouncing around yet space flour dust right behind the wheels is falling as fast as sand would on earth. There is a video where an astronaut mistakenly says humans have never been to “outer space”. It’s all bullshit.
@@mfrank3518
I didn't say you were a conspiracy guy. I was answering the questions, and was pointing out to any other readers that this is how the conspiracy people work, and that's the source for a lot of misunderstanding.
Their suits were not weighted. They were heavy because of the necessary stuff. But, they didn't add any weight for the sake of adding weight.
As for dust falling right behind the wheels as fast as it would on Earth, well, first of all, you have to determine the frame rate used on the 16mm clip. It had several frame rates, and they didn't always use "normal speed" of 24 fps. At that frame rate, it chews through an entire film roll in about 2.5 minutes. Most of the time, actually, they ran it at half rate, or even less. Thus when viewing it back, it's at double or triple (or even more) of the actual rate. On the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website, they specify the frame rates used on many of the clips (not all, but many). You should go take a look at the one in question, and find out the frame rate, and then do the math from there.
But, that circles back to my point about the conspiracy crowd. Part of what I was trying to say is that the conspiracy crowd has been checking that math on every single clip for the past 50 years, and has never found a single one where the math doesn't work for lunar gravity.
Van Allen was fascinated with Apollo space program.
so was Van Halen, Van Morrison didn't give a fuck.
@@melaniecotterell8263 Rumour has it Van Damme was on the fence.
@@underdogpsychosis2841 I heard it's because he was chillen with von dutch
@@jamieshirey4926 hahaha
Yes he was amazed how Ass-tro-nuts could pass through all the trapped deadly radiation in the belts without being cooked to a crisp! Nobody ever landed on the 🌙 and nobody will ever travel farther than a lousy 400 miles because of the deadly radiation.
Thanks for the upload, AIRBOYD! I love these old mission summary documentaries.
Had the pleasure yesterday to see Apollo 60015 87 sample of anorthosite yesterday which was retrieved during this mission
I LOVE your channel, Airboyd and am a VERY happy longtime subscriber. Thanks for being awesome! 👍
Etypeman It’s you that is stupid
And you still believe in fairytails....disney world 👽🤦🏻♂️🤣
@@zorankostur are you talking about yourself ? You believe in crazy stories from some weirdos on the internet who learned cooking. And you dont believe professional astrophysicians and engineers ? LOL
look up : flat earth dave interviews 2 & realise what media does to locked down minds. I know its not a globe because after finding out it was flat, I asked over 700 military veterans about 95% confirmed the globe a lie. Test it measure that curve on your sphere & you'll realise you have been lied to about a lot. Test your belief........its no globe.
@@zorankostur : don't worry about it. Rocket science isn't for everyone. Just be happy with your flat earth.
I would've loved to see them dismount the Rover from the Lunar Module. To me that would've been just as interesting to see as anything else they did on the moon!
John Caldwell why haven’t you watched “deployment of the lunar rover”?
You can watch the WONDERFULLY "high resolution" video PARTIAL deployment of the Apollo 15 Lunar Rover here: (Wasn't 1970s technology GREAT??)
th-cam.com/video/VpqhVKwByZY/w-d-xo.html
Where they had problems deploying it, even though they supposedly practiced it MANY times to ensure it worked flawlessly. (like it needed to work -- they had a "scary" amount of problems with it)
Notice in the radio transmissions they occasionally "forget" to include the transmission time lag from the Earth to the Moon (ave. 2.5 seconds total to and from), and they talk in "real time". (that is, near immediate answer, and definitely NOT anywhere NEAR 2.5 seconds)
Also notice that they are working in shadow, which SHOULD be near-black, but rarely is in videos and photos. Depending which NASA report you want to BELIEVE, the lunar surface had the albedo of "black paint" (asphalt at most), so the suggestion that it was "light reflection from the surface" is a SAD JOKE.
And then, as you watch them drive the buggy (in other videos), NOTICE that they NEVER ONCE (afaik) turn their heads (bodies, since the helmets were stationary connected) from left to right. They ONLY look STRAIGHT AHEAD with minimal or mostly no movement and look like frozen dolls on a remote controlled vehicle.
AND, if you TRULY believe that they would allow them to drive KILOMETERS away from the Lunar Module, taking a chance that they would get stuck or have a vehicle malfunction, so there is NO WAY they could walk back to safety without DYING, then you are truly lost in your ability to think critically and logically and objectively. The whole Lunar Rover thing was ALSO a sub-JOKE of the greater joke.
@@YDDES was tha filme in the same studio???
@@YDDES where’s that film I’d love to see that one
@@Pabloso213 You have Google, haven’t You? Just write ”deployment of the Lunar Rover” in the search bar and You Will have both real videos and animated descriptions how it was Done.
Nothing as impressive as a Saturn V launch!
I loved what the final words of the Command Pilot said about America’s success!!
It's absolutely so unreal...
totally unreal
Certainly is . Lol 😂
@@martinattwood7801 Might be,.....sad but we will never know.
@@piano4014 maybe not officially. But I think the evidence is quite clear . Once you see through all the propaganda.
Correct
The lunar terrain is fascinating. That giant half rock looked like it could be the moon's version of Oregon's Half Dome rock
Yeah it was designed on it.
What jetting do you recommend for my YZ250? 2-stroke. Will the EFI 450 4-strokes run OK?
It probably was. Cuz Disney needed something to use for their FAKE moon landing!
Because they never did but you are too gullible to believe the movie.
Why is there wind on the moon?
How people can watch all these videos and claime they were filmed in a studio and wires removed without CGI just shows that intelligence has plummeted since this amazing achievement.
Well, you can try that mud on someone who isn't in film.
Kubrick helped, my guy.
Ever heard of 2001?
@@philyeary8809 2001 looks like what it is - an artist's depiction of the Moon in 1968 - not that good.
Forbidden Planet - 1956
@@kimbalcalkins6672 That is a bit unfair. That was 13 years before the moon landing. You can't have expected the effects to be anything but laughable in that movie.
@@nickrose8733 Actually the effects were very convincing, like the tornado in Wizard of Oz or panorama shots in Gone with the wind. th-cam.com/video/0hGezrmlztA/w-d-xo.html
6:40 why don’t you tell me what to do there John, uh Ok! 😂😂😂
WHAT A VIEW. ABSOLUTLY UNREAL
Yes, nothing like it on Earth.
FAKE💯
Unreal is right
@@drewthompson7457 go look on google earth...there is plenty like this on earth. Deserts and various different landscapes look out of this world but they are not. This just looks like
Nevada or somewhere
@@2phreshkru : where in Nevada do you find zero air pressure, and 1/6th gravity?
But keep believing your delusions , no one cares.
We went to the moon with technology that is less than my low end cell phone... right...😂
Exactly how much technology did NASA have?
And, they placed phone calls with technology that is less than your current cell phone also. Shocker.
Right!
You are very stupid...right...😂
No one here is fooled... WELL DONE 👍
???
....am I the only one who loves watching moon footage, but when seeing lunar rocks kind of half expecting to see them sprout legs and move around just as in the Apollo 18 movie?
At 28:24 the mic picks up a very obscure statement...
"I told them they better improve the skyline or we're in trouble"
Am still at 90% that we did get there at some point, but
from a conspiracy point of view it's a pretty heavy statement, but what do I know
...meh
waal, only when looking for signs of reality
Awesome video , thank you !
Reminds me of Dallas/Hagman
And Mary Poppins
I was 12. I just loved watching these films back in those days.
I was nearly ten years old at the time and watched every mission that I could comprehend at what it was. Seeing it now is so much more exciting and interesting. I say we should go back.
we can't go back, as NASA will tell you, we do not have the ability to get a human past the Van Allen belt
They never went 🤣
@@jayyelland8289 I didn't say that, but if they can't get a human through the Van Alen belt in 2022, how did they in 1969????
@@tonyjones7372
Sorry, but quoting from a 30 second clip from an Orion video made for children isn't an education. You obviously know absolutely nothing about the Van Allen belts. Real science isn't conducted by listening to Kelly Smith tell children that they have to solve these problems for Orion before putting people inside. All he was saying is that they needed to test the shielding before putting people in the craft. And, they did that in 2014, and it passed the test. Yet, 8 years later, you people keep on quoting from him anyway. Sorry, Tony, but your 30 second knowledge of the Van Allen belts isn't adequate.
@@rockethead7 Learn to spell and punctuate the English language correctly and people might even take you seriously and not just laugh at your lack of writing skills.
22:46
“The closer I get to it, the bigger it gets”
Trained astronutz amazed by perspective. LMFAO.
@Nature and Physics Dungheaps are usually smarter unless they were produced by morons like this one, then they are just dingle berries.
We can try N & P but these folks are at best fodder for poking fun at. Enlightening them is a hopeless cause but a good exercise for our brains.
@Nature and Physics If they would only read the ENTIRE document. They read dangerous radiation levels in the Van Allen Belts and claim we can't pass through. That makes me laugh!
@Nature and Physics 👴🏻
@Nature and Physics easy my boy, you look too serious to be right 👴🏻😁
@Nature and Physics Henri Poincaré, check this guy out, I swear it's useful for your problem
How did the camera get there first as the thing came in to land?
At least someone coming with the right question.
Hi, there was a camera attached to the outside of the lander.
Thanks guys. Thanks for being out there somewhere. Seriously. All of you.
I think 1970's was more exciting than today's era.
I'm finding all these covid lockdowns and restrictions fascinating, don't you?
Trust me Ashish, they were.
17:35 "it's absolutely unreal". Yes, we know.
They are telling us the truth with that statement but they use double, triple meanings with their speech!
Lol
@@spirit_dust Are you pretending to be stupid, or are you really that stupid?
4:30 Smooth motion in space of the lunar module then - stop 🛑
@@janjohansenmusic You are looking at a greatly sped-up version of the video. The actual rotation took almost 5 minutes to complete.
Back then technology was soo advanced!.
The tech was as advanced as it needed to be to get the job done.
It was expensive enough at that time.
@@drewthompson7457 Some naughty person lost all the telemetry tapes , and the technology to help go back …. Over fifty years later .. with 50 years advancement in technology/ manufacturing materials , software etc etc etc 🤔
@@rub1tan679 : your you tube diploma is showing. Ever heard of transcription? No?
Why are all the blueprints, etc. In the Library of Congress?
It seems you have no idea that many museums have Apollo equipment on display.
There are 2 Saturn V rockets on display.
I prefer reality to your you tube fantasies.
@@drewthompson7457 Brilliant 👍so you still have the technology to go back why the delay ???
@@rub1tan679 : a history lesson for you, since you can't find this info on your own.
After the 6 moon landings, Pres Nixon cancelled the remaining missions and slashed NASA's budget.
There was no money to complete the remainder of the Apollo missions.
That's why there is still unused Apollo era equipment in museums.
Since they are now over 50 years old, none are man-rated anymore.
In case you missed it, there was a recent test of a new capsule, one that will again be man rated.
Your You Tube diploma isn't doing you much good is it.
I'm so gonna put this through the projector and make it life size ohhhhhh thank you so much for this
The lunar atmosphere is sooo carateristic, so crystal, so neat, and so irreplaceable.
I just love listening to the technicians arguing with each other. I have no idea what they’re talking about. 7:25
As of 2020, there have been 14 astronaut and 4 cosmonaut fatalities during spaceflight. Astronauts have also died while training for space missions, such as the Apollo 1 launch pad fire which killed an entire crew of three. There have also been some non-astronaut fatalities during spaceflight-related activities.
Gotta get rid of the non-compliant.
Guess how many people died climbing Mt Everest?
@@thecoldglassofwatershow well said
The CIA was present at NASA the day before the fire of Apollo 1. Logical to assume the astronauts were killed.
Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee were murdered. Grissom hung a lemon on a hanger on Apollo 1, a big eff you to NASA. He knew we were going NOWHERE fast.. Russia was way ahead in the space race.
His last words in the capsule before they cremated him: "I can't hear a word you're saying. How do we expect to get ot the moon if we can't communicate between 3 rooms." Or something close to that. Learn the truth.
You can't just murder one astronaut,too suspicious. But you CAN create an accident and sacrifice others to kill the guy you want. NASA is evil.
please watch some : Flat earth dave interviews 2, do you think after the last 3 years media lies ?
“Three people can keep a secret... if two of them are dead”
And if Gus Grissom and his two colleagues were burned alive to silence them, then weaker people like Armstrong and his crew will keep NASA's secret. Check out the lemon pic Grissom placed on the "lunar" module. BTW, most pics of the lemon have been erased from the internet.
@@johnnewbold4622
HILARIOUS!!!! Wow, you take insanity to new heights!!! This is pure gold!!
YOU SAID: "And if Gus Grissom and his two colleagues were burned alive to silence them"
== So, let me make sure I understand how this conspiracy goes.... You're accusing people of murdering their friends/colleagues to "silence" them? For what? Because they might tell people that the Block 1 command module design was a lemon?? They didn't want the public to know that the Block 1s were so faulty. So, they "murdered" the crew. And, how did they "murder" the crew?? They did it by manufacturing a malfunction in the Block 1, thus proving the Block 1 was faulty? Are you getting this? You're saying that, in order to prevent the crew from telling people that the Block 1 was faulty, they created a fault in the Block 1??? Oh, you're a genius alright. Meanwhile, you're spitting in the faces of the people who died for Apollo, based on your ridiculously stupid "murder" notions. You know they never put people inside a Block 1 again, right? You know they acknowledged that the Block 1s were horrible, right? You know the company that manufactured the Block 1s went out of business before Apollo even ended, right? Yes, they made a bunch of Block 2s to fly to the moon. But, after the disaster of Apollo 1, that company wasn't going to survive intact. Oh, but yeah, right, sure, they "murdered" the crew for fear that they might reveal that the Block 1s were faulty, and the mechanism that they used to "murder" them was to prove that the Block 1s were faulty. No, they didn't just stage a car wreck or something. They didn't poison their food. Nope. Instead, in order to prevent the public from learning that the Block 1s were faulty, they told the public that the Block 1s were faulty??? How insane are you??
YOU SAID: "then weaker people like Armstrong"
== Armstrong was weak? He flew 78 combat missions. He was shot down behind enemy lines. He flew the X15 deathtrap rocketplane to the edge of space before ever joining the space program (technically making him an astronaut before even joining the astronaut group). He defied death for a living, and never skipped a heartbeat while doing it. And, you dare to spit on his grave and call him "weak"??
YOU SAID: "and his crew will keep NASA's secret."
== Why? What reason would they have?
YOU SAID: "Check out the lemon pic Grissom placed on the "lunar" module."
== You don't even know which craft is which!!! No lemon was ever placed by Grissom on any lunar module. He put it on the Block 1 command module. No Block 1 ever went to the moon. Nobody ever called the Block 1 craft a "lunar module." The Block 1s couldn't even dock with the actual lunar modules. There was no docking hatch on any of the Block 1s!!! You don't know what you're talking about.
YOU SAID: "BTW, most pics of the lemon have been erased from the internet."
== Well, gee, I wonder why? Could it be that many of the people who post that stuff eventually take it down themselves?? Have you tried posting a photo of the lemon on the internet yourself? Who takes it down? What happens exactly?
@@rockethead7 "...ye shall, most certainly, be summoned by a company of His angels to appear at the spot where the limbs of the entire creation shall be made to tremble, and the flesh of every oppressor to creep."
@@johnnewbold4622
YOU SAID: "...ye shall, most certainly, be summoned by a company of His angels to appear at the spot where the limbs of the entire creation shall be made to tremble, and the flesh of every oppressor to creep."
== How about "ye shall lay off the drugs" instead??
@@rockethead7 "...soon shalt thou learn."
For some reason, I've always been fond of Charles Duke after watching the Apollo 11 (2019) :)
He had me at "Twankquility".
*it's absolutely unreal"
I thing that always gets me is how slow the space rocket looks as it moves upwards with so much thrust!
Baloons with cgi
Have you watched the Saturn liftoff? How slow is that movement for the first 60 seconds?
Haha. Moves just as fast as an oversized weather balloon.
Comments like this I believe are placed to try and make us that know they never landed look silly. None of us that know they never landed have ever denied they took off in rockets. Just who's side you on????
@@kencombs9098 I think you need to go back to school as none of us that know they never landed have never doubted about the rockets taking of. You are thinking of the rockets you let off on bonfire night. Watch one of them in slow motion. They don't just go. They start slow then overcome gravity and go faster. Even us that know off the big bull shit know this.
And just how did they drag that dang buggy up there on the little lunar lander?
@Thomas Pickering - You didn't answer his question.
Here's an animation that shows how the lunar rover was folded up;
th-cam.com/video/7OL3OmM-CYQ/w-d-xo.html
Compare the folded up lunar rover in that animation to the real photos of the folded up rover;
www.collectspace.com/review/ap15-KSC-71P-206.jpg
The lunar rover was stored in the "quadrant 1" bay within the Lunar Module (in the Descent stage), labelled on this diagram as the LRV Stowage Compartment;
www.longislandaerospacehistory.com/Select/LM/XXX-LM-PROJECT/LM%20project/DESIGN/des-014.jpg
And here are the videos of the actual lunar rover deployment (on the moon and tested on Earth) and a documentary about the rover;
th-cam.com/video/-ShauSWcTC4/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ObEjEEfnBj8/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/5aDSYTMqyQw/w-d-xo.html
I hope that information helps
:-)
Let indoctrination answer 🤣
With a U-Haul tow rig of course! (see Yazzam's explanation).
Ethan Mai legos
All of the people in the control center actually believe that they’re controlling the space capsule. This is the most fascinating part.
Yeah, because they hired the smartest people from around the western world because they were also so gullible.
Meanwhile the go to expert for moon landing hoaxers, Bart Sibrel was a taxi driver.
it's amazing how confidently stupid people like you are.
Some might have some doubt but who dare😂
I love how they walk and jump
@@zxccxz164 more amazing is an irrelevant comment
At 9:50 to 10:00 and at 24:44 shouldn't we espect to hear voices sounding more like someone describing a push bike ride wile filming it on a bumpy,off road descent ? All those landings look and sound incredibly smooth. Especially the touch down.
Is cuz moon has trivial gravity
check the length of shadow at 24:10 , compared to say 14:44
This relay is pretty spectacular!!!...,
I think they should go back just as a daily reality show,
Id watch every day.............
And pay a million a day...
They need to do a remake using modern special effects. They could make it even more convincing.
Just brilliant. I was a small boy when this all happened, being allowed to stay up late to watch it. I am just as enthralled by it today as I was then.
It never happened
Are you buying this shit, Tim ?
@@jonathanbreedlove4286 : what never happened? Your intelligence?
Why do you ignore facts? Can't understand what happened?
You watched a movie production.
So you're saying you still love fairy tales🚀🚀🚀🛰
Very cool how the fellow astronauts worked to solve the problem. The crews of Apollo 13, 14, and 15 were there with their experience.
🤦🏻♂️🤣🤯
😂🤔🙄🥴😳
😂😂😂 experience in acting?
Hello, flattards
@@Blessedcrumb exactly 🤣
That NASA logo though...a serpents tongue wrapped around the earth? Odd choice to represent a space agency
@Travis Carr That's quite the imagination you have there. I guess people that believe in talking snakes would jump to those conclusions. Lol.
@@nebtheweb8885 you gate keeper's make me laugh. You all have the same lame troll tactics. It is in the shape of a serpents tongue strategically placed around the earth and Orion's belt at the top of the planet. Which if you've followed NASA just a little bit you would know that NASA is infatuated with this part of the galaxy for whatever reason...they have even named a number of their spacecraft that have "traveled to the moon" Orion. Us critical thinkers I'm sure have a pretty good idea as to why that is. Either way this is my opinion and you are entitled to have yours.
@Thomas Pickering thanks for the link Thomas
@@traviscarr4698 I am happy you are amused. I am also amused at your idiotic paranoia and the fact that you believe in talking snakes. Ouuuuuu, looky! A serpent tongue!!! RUN!!!!!! Must be a conspiracehhhhhhhhh!!! Lol. Orion is a capsule that hasn't been fully tested so it hasn't been to the moon. It has been past LEO but that was just a test. Doesn't matter, you seem to have a problem with Orion for some reason but then again you would be complaining if it were another name anyway. Seek help.
@Thomas Pickering thanks for the link. I'm well aware that NASA is very low level shit when it comes to what is really going on. I've read a lot on the zionist movement and I am very familiar with Oded Yinon and the greater Israel project. I don't think it stops there though. It seems this reality offers up one rabbit hole after another, which if you ask me is that way for a reason. Distracted soul's are more easy to manipulate. I think your blog had some truths in it though. Keep truth seeking brother
22:53 "As our crew slowly sinks..." classic!
I believe that was Jack Schmitt, who would fly on 17 and was known for his sense of humor around MSC.
Nothing so hidden but the truth!
yup. back & forth up there like a bus trip to play golf. they stopped going because of the cost of golf balls- wot with the gravity they went for miles, [even landed back on planet earth-] & the caddy was complaining. that was why they made an inflatable golf buggy which attached to the front of the nose cone.
Yes, and they stay around the earth while you were here. You stay with the sensation of something incredible and they stay laughing about all the ignorant. Who goes to another planet or gets away from 37 earth planets to jump, play, drive a stupid car, etc? Who will use the 5 senses to spend so much money for nothing, not even create a base on the moon?
---- They become multimillions, billions, millionaires, and you what? You stay poor, right?
--- Today with so much technology they spend 20 billion on an SLS rocket that can't lift off? NASA is a money pig, a money sucker from the taxpayer.
Exactly
The truth is the only thing that NASA has sent to space is your imagination
@@patreeky5975
Flat earther or just an incredulous millennial?
After watching this, I realize how well they did the casting for Hidden Figures. Wow I could have sworn I saw the actors sitting in that room.
It sad that no matter how much anyone tells you it was real, you still won’t believe it…
Why?
Because you have no education and your parents probably never gave you attention.
@@kowen5499 believe what? Believe the moon landing happened? I definitely do! Working on my bachelors degree right now and have very loving parents by the way! 👍
@@dudybug oh I’m so sorry! I though you were saying that they were all actors. Congrats by the way! Once again I’m so sorry.
@@kowen5499 while I'm not a flat earth person ad hominem attacks against them only makes them stronger. I see many round earth believers calling flat earth people stupid, ignorant etc etc. Its Sad that flat earth people are more kind than round earth people.
@@kowen5499 no human being ever past the exo layer of earth where satellites and net-working are present . Let that science you taking sink in. Analogy incoming... We are in a box, investigate whats deep in the box (oceans) then outside the box, you alien.
WOW, they sure did have a LOT of equipment on that LM,... Lunar Rovers, Telescopes, all kinds of Cameras...good ones!, scientific sampling equipment, gas, communications equipment, batteries, food, circuit breakers, TP, water, TANG, oxygen, Rocks, space suits,etc., etc.
amazing what 10 years of planning can accomplish.... I wonder how far you can think ahead?
tetekofa, and all that radiation shielding that nasa has no idea how to get to work, as expressed by themselves when talking about any futurespace missions. It's as if none of this happend
Tons of extra oxygen and fuel. Good thing they had all of that for the multiple, unexpected revs around the moon.
Tetekofa
So, how many ”rovers” and ”telescopes” did they have?
Who says NASA has No ideas how to shield against radiation???
How did the camera man get there before the space craft to film all of it????
What are you talking about? What cameraman? What was filmed before they got there?
Renier, if you're not interested, why post?
This was answered even before the flight.
@@drewthompson7457 THE SPACE PROGRAM IS FAKED HERE IS HOW
th-cam.com/video/puDwYgWiWyQ/w-d-xo.html
It was Hollywood. They made it to the set earlier!
@@appleyes411 : Too bad there are so many bots on you tube these days.
they just post anything contrary to known facts and can never provide the slightest bit of false evidence.
That shot of the Saturn V taking off is the best I've ever seen
the bigest firework ever made , aye !
best hoax
@@physicalivan Honestly even if the moon landings we're fake the Saturn V is still a incredibly cool invention. Why shouldn't it be possible to put a person on one and shoot it towards the moon
@@_MaxHeadroom_ no one ever has been on one of those fireworks, absolutely no one, would you ride on one, come on tell me how ignorant you actually are😉
@@_MaxHeadroom_ nasa is a usa fraud
The guy with a flat top is the mission command coordinator I don't know what his actual title is but he's a badass!
You must be talking about Gene Kranz, flight director. His famous quote ... _"Failure is NOT an option"_
Never run out of oxygen, everything is always perfect, with a little scary almost happened story
Nature and Physics thanks
@Nature and Physics why aren't astronauts taking selfies on the moon? The camera exists for a long time
@@Nmoney702 Who's operating the cameras on the Moon? Some nice zoom outs, zoom ins and pan shots.
Stanley peut être...;)
@@alexcampbell3032 : if you haven't looked up an answer yet, the rover camera could be remote controlled from earth.
Profoundly sad how many people commenting here are living in fear.
Fear alright... Fear of knowing that NASA kinda mislead the world perception. Illusions are created to deviate one's mind into believing something which may or may not be the truth. But here again...what is the truth...it is what ever peoplecwant to believe. I have shown people something right in front of them.. They put their hands over their ears... Lalalalala... Funny
@@Mooseracks Don't be thick.
This was So funny, thanks!
Excellent! We were excellent at that time. I hope we can be excellent again.
You'll see it again blind sheep.matter of fact you'll probably get to see the first person on mars
Never happened
We’ve not returned to the moon because Martians have posted No Trespassing
Martians are people too. I saw Heavy Metal last week.
I heard it was the Venusians....
It's the lunatics
Not True'. they lost all the Golden evidence Like Billions of Dollars today. i would have been a little up set loosing 1 million. they also had the right machine to fly around and through the Belt. to day more money is spent on the Navy and air force , welfare and other life security's. life boomed after WW2 And now Later Day's are turning back seemingly for the rerun all over again, except a little harder each time. i never seen this part of moon landing and seems strange i would for get. Grace to us and hope the martians will reconsider .
@@trafficjon400 : What evidence was lost? There are also pictures of the Apollo landing sites.
Something funny happened on the way to the moon.
They never got their lol
Off The Cuff ,Who is paying you lol making you sound foolish
@@niteexplorer9934 *there.
Sorry, I had to ~ couldn't stand.
@@niteexplorer9934
YOU SAID: "They never got their lol"
== Did you graduate high school?
YOU SAID: "Who is paying you lol making you sound foolish"
== Was it drugs? Is that what turned you so paranoid delusional that you think people are paid to post TH-cam comments? And, who sounds foolish? You can't articulate a single sentence properly, can't spell, can't form a complete thought... again, was it drugs? Or, were you born this stupid?
@@niteexplorer9934 You mean they never got there.
The back story of what all went on, the right stuff for sure
You land on the moon apparently, but your too tired to explore so you go to sleep. Thunderbirds is more realistic
What would make landing on the Moon during the Apollo missions not possible? Facts only please, thanks!
A) Thanks for demonstrating the universal truth that every hoax nut has the reading and writing skills of a 2nd grader.
B) They brought sleeping pills on the missions, dewdrop.
C) Apollo 16's landing was greatly delayed by a problem with the SPS engine on the service module. They nearly had to abort. And, as a result of the delays, they landed around 7 hours later than they expected. Yes, they slept instead of explored.
Thank you NASA, thank you TH-cam
What a people! what a story! I am so glad that I can return here and watch it from time to time.
This story will keep you upbeat no matter what you do.
@@scottyboy2400 Ironically, people who take your advice and do the research that you only TALK about actually DO believe in this stuff. You're 12, I get it. It seems like ancient history. But we need to remember it because YOUR generation isn't going to achieve a damned thing. And before you tell me that my generation is causing global warming, let me just agree with that. We f**ked up. WE HAD TOO MANY CHILDREN. You're the problem. But all that aside, what kind of prick attacks a guy who posts a heartwarming comment about how happy watching this video made them feel? Feel good about yourself do you? What a jerk.
@@GeoffInfield this story is bullshit!! nothing to do with that, no matter what you say
@@crowntour4990,
What in the HELL makes you think anybody has to PROVE anything to an idiot like you? What makes you think anybody with an IQ above 50 gives a shit whether or not you believe that the moon landings were real? I am growing bone weary of you silly foil-headed numbskulls, who think, "Da government ALWAYS lies!" How much evidence do you idiots need?? How about the 500 MILLION eyewitnesses (including me), the testimony of the 24 men who actually WENT to the moon, the 450,000+ mathematicians, engineers, scientists, and technicians who made it happen, the 1,400+ Hasselblad 500C, 2 1/4" (70mm) square photos, or the 6,000,000 feet of 16mm film? Do you call ALL of these people LIARS? Did NASA FAKE all of that film? Why in the name of God would they do that, just so some idiots like YOU can claim to be smarter than anybody with the slightest modicum of intelligence?
@CHRIS SAVAGE : so you have located this magical studio that is in vacuum and only 1/6th G? Where is it - on the moon?
@@scottyboy2400 Mr. Spicoli, kindly sit down and shut up.
Let's be honest, none of yall searched for this
Actually I did as well as the other missions starting with the services failed attempts to get off the ground.
@@JoeOutdoors Now that was a cool video to watch!
Good for a laugh is about it, these are all really over paid bad actors.
Me? Honest? 😂
@@wavular : Go flip another burger - it will be a good career move for you.
Back in that time when America was still great! Oh to go back to THAT time. Teamwork was in the American bloodstream back then. The crew of the USS Ticonderoga stood ready to retrieve the 3 astronauts as the pilots of the U.S. Navy Sea King helicopter had already lifted off the deck of the Ticonderoga to deploy the Navy SEALs who jumped off the helicopter into the choppy waves and swam directly to the capsule to retrieve the astronauts, reaching out with rescuing hands to pull the astronauts onto a litter dangling from the chopper and saying something like:
"Hang on, we've got you"
THAT! was the America that could! Long gone now sadly
It absolutely blows my mind that we do not have a camera on the moon pointing at the Earth with a 24 or 7 streaming. It really doesn't seem like it would be that hard especially being to the same side of the moon is always pointing towards us. It just seems like that's one of the first things we would do. And as far as I know we still don't have one.
@TwoFourTwo he is talking about apollo 1
EPIC/DSCOVR has a camera pointed at the Earth 24/7. They want much higher resolution than a streaming video could ever offer. This takes a lot of bandwidth, which is difficult from a Lagrange point a million miles away, and limited dish time on Earth to receive it. Plus, it has other instrumentation on it which needs to send data back home, not just photos. So, it takes 12 very nice high resolution photos per day, assembled from multiple scans in the light spectrum. Why is this important to you?
As for putting one on the moon, huh? Why would you want one there? That's about the worst idea possible. The lunar surface ranges from 250 degrees (F) in the afternoon, to neg-250 (F) in the overnight. Wouldn't it just be easier to park a camera in space, rather than dealing with those kinds of surface temperatures? Also, in order to soft-land on the moon, you basically need to burn about 60% of your mass in fuel and oxidizer. Wouldn't you want all of that payload to be put into more functional stuff than just fuel you're going to burn off for no reason? Just park it in space. Also, if your camera is sitting on the moon, this means, by definition, half of the sky is blocked by the moon itself, and you have to wait up to two weeks for the moon to spin enough to see the part of the sky you might want to look at. But, if it's parked in space, you can have it turn the camera any direction you want, whenever you want.
@@rockethead7 Very good point.The IQ in people who don't think out of the box. We can fool the world 🌍 but the truth comes out in the end 😂
Beautiful loved it thanks.
So much government bull these liars made a lot of tax money stopit the nassaholes leing again
The control of the re entry capsule was so good it could land within walking distance of the carrier, 9 times - thats 60s precision for you, way ahead of what we have now.
Actually, with GPS guidance, I've seen video of missiles going thru windows.
@@drewthompson7457
The carrier can move…
@@veritateseducational217 : NASA also had the Mercury and Gemini missions to help them learn how to do it.
Why do people fetishize the past so much
@@TH-camhandle9000 :Why do people refuse to understand history?
You could try to understand the Space Race, but it seems you'd rather make stupid comments.
amazing feat. thanks for the video. here's hoping we get to the moon again soon
Oh No that won't be happening apparently Nasa doesn't have the technology to do it again 🤔🤣
@@Dp3.16
No, they don't have the old technology any more.
They have new technology now.
yes they can go again, Hollywood movie II.
My question is simply this: If it was so easy to go to the moon 50 years ago why haven't we gone back?
The USA sent men to the moon NINE TIMES from 1968 to 1972, landing on the moon during 6 of those missions. How many times did they have to do it before it would have been enough for you? :-)
Anyway, just because you did something it doesn't mean it was easy.
Sending people to the moon requires building the largest and the most expensive rockets in history.
The USA did it back in the 60s/70s with the Saturn V rocket to beat the USSR to the moon.
Today the USA have built the equally large and slightly more powerful SLS rocket to get people to the moon, where after a number of delayed launches is due to launch to the moon soon, testing both the rocket and the Orion space capsule designed to carry four astronauts.
I hope that helps :-)
1) Nobody says it's easy.
2) Because congress ended the Apollo program, and never approved another one until 2019 when they funded the Artemis program.
We celebrate Christmas, Easter, Veteran's day, 4th of July but there is not a peep about the "greatest humanity achievement?" How strange
🙏
Even Buzz said that " we didn't go!!.......
GOD REST Mr Gus Grissom RIP🌷🙏
And, what about all the people, who Said we went???
@@YDDES Czechs are great jokers and in one of their great movies is said ... why do you believe in God, no one ever saw him? And the unparalleled reply by Bolek Polivka, "I haven't see your c... and believe you have one."
The lesson: you have yours, I have mine (belief)
great point---millions of propaganda dollars squandered.
amarshmuse concepta ol' Gus sure did know what we now know today. Sadly he didn't know that it would cost him his life
I enjoy watching the technicians arguing. 7:27
What prevented them from freezing or boiling?
Hollywood Magic
The temperature
A space suit is actually a space ship in the shape of a suit. The big backpack they have on, called the PLSS (personal life support system), has heaters, and coolers, water tanks, oxygen tanks, and everything else they need to stay alive on the surface of the moon, or in space, for short periods.
In that one scene the flag looks twice the height of the astronaut yet he appears to be standing in front of flag and the horizon always looks close and we'll lit
Well, I'd suggest that you are probably correct, for the "one scene" you're talking about. But, there are many many hours of different scenes that don't look the same. When they traveled to higher ground, you can see for miles and miles. But, yeah, from lower ground or from valleys, sure, the horizon looks closer. Why wouldn't it?
Cissero4. Of course, the horizon looks close. I’s only about 1.5 Miles away, due to Moons small size. And ”Well lit”? Of course it is. It’s bathing in very intense sunlight.
Those were exciting times!
Yes, when lies were much easier.
@@AbdulAhad-wy3hi well yes, but actually no so shut up
Mr Paul Grimm wake up... its was a con dude.
Yes Sci fi was all the rage in the late 60s/70s.
The Dukes of Hazard on the moon.
Boss Hog on the moon, the lunar boars nest!
Daisy was left....
Well, there was one Duke on the moon, Charlie Duke.
Drew Thompson Good joke
@@drewthompson7457 you are the douche of hazard
'The big rock' is part of the back projected scene. Notice they don't go behind it or walk around it. It's far enough away that the perspective compression at that distance hides that the rock is a 2D projected image. The camera swings around a bit but nothing behind the rock moves at all in relation to the rock as would happen if it were a real 3D vista and you altered the aim of the camera slightly.
@edward young Ha ha, thanks! I'll take a bow.
YOU SAID: "'The big rock' is part of the back projected scene."
== Conspiracy garbage.
YOU SAID: "Notice they don't go behind it or walk around it."
== Pffftt. What? In this documentary? Did you bother watching the original videos in their entirety? Or, do you foolishly believe that this little 1/2 hour documentary is the entirety of the video that they captured?
YOU SAID: "It's far enough away that the perspective compression at that distance hides that the rock is a 2D projected image."
== If it "hides it," then how are you able to tell?
YOU SAID: "The camera swings around a bit but nothing behind the rock moves at all in relation to the rock as would happen if it were a real 3D vista and you altered the aim of the camera slightly."
== Then watch the hours upon hours upon hours upon hours of original videos instead of a 30 minute documentary. Good grief.
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16.house_rock.html
Apollo 16 was the best moon exploration by far in human history. The video quality is better than the rest of the Apollo's missions, even Apollo 17 couldn't beat. Anyway, thanks to the earlier predecessors Apollo 11, 12, 14 and 15, whom without them, improvisation of Moon exploration wouldn't be possible.
Can you actually watch the lunar orbiter at 25 minutes and see that as real and not a model? It spins and stops in an instant. That is just not possible. Also the astronaut at 12.45 is clearly pulled up by wires because he has no leverage to lift himself up as he is leaning right over. Less gravity does not change the basic laws of physics. Puppets on wires. Also 14,02, the Sun is impossibly large in his visor. In any convex lens the Sun is a tiny dot. Try it yourself. It is a game changer. This one shot at 14.02 proves that there is a large light source close to the astronaut. It is definitely not the Sun.
@@digdougedy
YOU SAID: "Can you actually watch the lunar orbiter at 25 minutes and see that as real and not a model? It spins and stops in an instant."
== You're answering your own issue, but, you're too ignorant to know it. Those film reels were only about 3 minutes long at full speed. So, what did they do? They slowed down the recordings tremendously. They lowered the frame rate tremendously for those long maneuvers. So, when you watch it played back at regular speed, yes, the motions appear very short and jerky. In reality, the motions were far slower. There are plenty of options to watch this at regular speed. There are a few channels on TH-cam that are taking all of those 16mm films and slow them back down to the correct speed (computer software that inserts CGI frames to replace the "missing" frames that were never shot). Or, you can slow down the playback speed yourself to 1/4th speed, or 1/24th speed, or whatever it was recorded at. Most of those clips have the original frame rate documented, so, you're welcome to do the conversions yourself. But, of course, they will be very rough to watch, like watching a slide show, rather than a film at 24FPS. But, for some of the missions, they actually ran the Maurer 16mm in one command module window, and the Westinghouse TV camera in the other. So, if you don't like the 16mm films because they're "sped up," you're welcome to go watch the TV video instead, because that was recorded at regular speed. The images aren't as good, of course, but, you won't see those "instantaneous" starts and stops that you get from the sped-up 16mm films.
YOU SAID: "That is just not possible."
== Yeah, but, you're just ignorant. Go to those source of those videos, and read the original frame rates yourself. Good grief.
YOU SAID: "Also the astronaut at 12.45 is clearly pulled up by wires because he has no leverage to lift himself up as he is leaning right over."
== He doesn't need leverage. It's a matter of 1/6th gravity.
YOU SAID: "Less gravity does not change the basic laws of physics."
== Correct. But, you clearly do not understand physics. I mean, you can search high and low, and it's a near impossibility to find physicists who agree with you. Physicists are the least likely demographic on the planet to think the Apollo missions were fake. Is this because the physicists don't understand physics as well as you do? Or, hmmm, maybe it's YOU who doesn't understand physics?
YOU SAID: "Puppets on wires."
== No, dummy. The flashing metal thing on top of the PLSS isn't a wire. It's a communications antenna.
YOU SAID: "Also 14,02, the Sun is impossibly large in his visor. In any convex lens the Sun is a tiny dot. Try it yourself. It is a game changer. This one shot at 14.02 proves that there is a large light source close to the astronaut. It is definitely not the Sun."
== It's called "glare" for a section of the video that's overexposed. This isn't difficult to understand. The same thing happens on Earth all the time. On a video or in a photo, often the sun will look a lot larger than just the outline of the sun's diameter. It often lights up the surrounding frames also. Just look for overexposed photos of the sun, and you'll see many examples. See, on the moon, it's pretty difficult to get the exposure to be good for all angles. The dark spots are greatly underexposed, while the sun-facing sides of things are overexposed, all in the same frame. See the flag patch on Duke's left shoulder? (On the right, from our view.) No? It's all bleached out because the image is overexposed, right? Go look at any photo of Duke that is properly exposed. One example is AS16-116-18718. See how vibrant those red and blue colors are in the flag? Yet, at 14:02 in this video, you can barely even see that it's a flag, because it's so overexposed. There is no "game changer" here. You are just as ignorant about what happens in overexposed video images as you are ignorant about what happens when you record 16mm film at a low frame rate.
@@rockethead7 So the videos have to be manipulated to make them look right OK. By this logic have to pretend that the large light source in the visor of the astronaut is deliberately expanded to make it look like a bank of flourescent lights?
I never said anything about flashing wires. What I said was that he manages to lift his body up whilst leaning over, face down, whilst his feet are not on the ground. Watch it again. Regardless of the strength of gravity the fulcrum remains the same. The fulcrum is his toes, so there is no leverage to lift his leaning body unless he is suspended by wires. There are a few instances like this in other footage. I would just like to say that I too used to call people ignorant and stupid before I actually started to look closely instead of justifying the mistakes by saying it was impossible to fake. The most obvious one that you can verify yourself is the large light source in the convex lense of the helmet. Hold a pair of sunglasses so that the sun is behind you and the convex side is facing you. The Sun will appear as a small sphere. Turn them around and it will appear larger. No amount of squirming can explain a large reflection in the masks of every Apollo mission. Only a large light source close to the subject will do it. Sorry. But it is true.
@@digdougedy
YOU SAID: "So the videos have to be manipulated to make them look right OK."
== Yes, because they were recorded at a very low frame rate. Or, as I said, you can go watch the TV signal version, rather than the 16mm film version. This isn't complicated.
YOU SAID: "By this logic"
== What "logic"? As I explained, and you're ignoring, the film reels were only about 3 minutes if they ran them at normal speed. When they had these very long maneuvers, they slowed the frame rate. What "by this logic" comment is this? It's not "logic," it's just factual.
YOU SAID: "have to pretend that the large light source in the visor of the astronaut is deliberately expanded to make it look like a bank of flourescent lights?"
== Dummy, nobody said anything about "deliberate." It's just how exposure works. The sun is bright. If it's overexposed, it tends to bleed out onto video or film much wider than just the outline of the sun itself. This happens on Earth too. I instructed you how to see this exact same effect yourself.
YOU SAID: "I never said anything about flashing wires."
== You said they're on wires. I said that you've got wires confused with the communications antennae.
YOU SAID: "What I said was that he manages to lift his body up whilst leaning over, face down, whilst his feet are not on the ground. Watch it again."
== Your delusional mind is imagining things. His feet are on the ground. Good grief.
YOU SAID: "Regardless of the strength of gravity the fulcrum remains the same. The fulcrum is his toes, so there is no leverage to lift his leaning body unless he is suspended by wires."
== You just got done saying that his feet weren't on the ground. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
YOU SAID: "There are a few instances like this in other footage."
== More instances of your imagination? Dandy. Have you seen a doctor?
YOU SAID: "I would just like to say that I too used to call people ignorant and stupid before I actually started to look closely instead of justifying the mistakes by saying it was impossible to fake. The most obvious one that you can verify yourself is the large light source in the convex lense of the helmet. Hold a pair of sunglasses so that the sun is behind you and the convex side is facing you. The Sun will appear as a small sphere. Turn them around and it will appear larger. No amount of squirming can explain a large reflection in the masks of every Apollo mission. Only a large light source close to the subject will do it. Sorry. But it is true."
== So, you just ignored my entire explanation? I already described how/why that happened, and how you can verify it. In one ear, out the other. You're clearly not even reading anything I wrote. Sorry, dummy, but you're just plain wrong.
Surprised the “rocket scientists” didn’t delete this footage as well. You know nasa can’t afford new tapes with all that money they get for not going to the moon.
@Thomas Pickering >strangerinajewishworld
Kek
why would they delete it? and tape has mass (which is pretty expensive)
Guys are driving the Rover like a found dune buggy in the mud then five mins later narrator-'they occasionally get hit with lunar dust because the fender came off' Wonder how. lmao
@Thomas Pickering what's this about
@@cavemanlovesmoke4394 : it's about the indoctrination that thomas received. He posts this useless link every chance he gets to advertise his stupidity.
Love a bit of sci fi.
Still amazes me that any rocket can push upward and stay balanced. Take just the handle out of a toilet plunger and try to balance it on one finger; then try to raise it.
@@Monkeyboysdontknow I didn't say that I don't understand it. I said that it still amazes me. Also I wasn't talking about the LM, I was talking about the lift off of the Saturn V rocket.
@@liquidbraino The same principles apply. Physics does not change, but I do get that you are not trying to discredit the missions, as so many posters here are trying to do. I apologize for my misconception.
@@Monkeyboysdontknow I know, that's part of what amazes me. The fact that a human brain does all of those calculations in a split second but we're not even consciously aware of it. We're simply balancing a stick, and we don't need to understand the math behind it but in order to get a rocket to do the same thing requires computers, gyroscopes etc.
The split second decisions that your brain has to make can be programmed into a computer and if it fails - astronauts die. And one thing that does kind of piss me off is the fact that nobody ever talks about Margaret Patterson, it was her software that landed men on the moon but she doesn't even get an honorable mention in movies like "Hidden Figures" because she's white.
She wrote the software that ran those numbers (she was kinda sexy too back then). She also coined the term "Software Engineer" because she was literally the first software engineer. I'd love to see a movie about her, her story is fascinating but history forgot her. Left her out of the history books. They also never mentioned in "hidden figures" that there was another entire room filled with white women doing calculations so which are the real "hidden figures"? The ones they made a movie about or the ones that are still being ignored to this very day?
Sorry, I kind of went on a weird tangent completely unrelated to my original post.
@@liquidbraino No problem. I know a fair amount about the physics and history of the Apollo missions, but the story of Margaret Patterson is a welcome new addition. Thank you.
@@Monkeyboysdontknow I've been obsessed with the space program since the book "The Right Stuff" came out. I had a friend named Jerry that I was hanging out with for a few years, got to know his Mom pretty well to and Jerry figured out that I was obsessed with the space program. So one day he points at a spot on the floor near his room and says "sit right there", so I did & he goes digging through his closet for like minutes tossing stuff onto his bed then he comes out with a cardboard box and plops it onto the floor right in front of me without saying anything. It it's with a loud thud (was heavy) so I opened it and the box was FULL of manuals from the Apollo missions. Looked like typical government or military technical manuals which I already loved because I collect military technical manuals but THESE were all from Apollo, with detailed diagrams of every single system (turns out his Mom worked on Apollo and he never told me until that day).
I sat there for hours and just devoured it all then when I got to the bottom of this huge box there were a bunch of magazines from 1965 to 1972, Time magazine, people etc. I read all of the biographies of the astronauts and their wives and thought it was interesting that prior to 1965 these articles were mentioning volcanoes on the moon. They thought there were volcanoes because they kept seeing red flashes of light coming from certain craters. So I kept reading hoping to find something around 1968 about these flashes of red light but after 68 they quit talking about it. There was no "we figured it out" or "still trying to figure it out" or "never figured it out", they simply quit talking about it as if it never even happened.
Amazing how they made it passed the Van Allen Belt with absolutely no I'll effects. People must have been tougher then because today, it would talk huge amounts of lead shielding just to protect the instruments on an unmanned flight.
@Hummer's Revenge Science. REAL science, not NASA´s bullcrap
@Hummer's Revenge cause I work in NASA
@@Gozne More lies.
@@Monkeyboysdontknow I expected you to believe me if I told you I work in NASA.
@@Monkeyboysdontknow Actually I dont work at NASA, I AM NASA.
Apollo 16, Spectacular!
Spectacularly fake Lol
Never happened
who was the photographer on the moon who filmed the landing and take off❓
Landing: Charlie Duke.
Takeoff: Ed Fendell.
Nice, also how does a rocket burn in a vacume? Why did astronauts say they cant make it past the van allen belt. How did they have the fuel to come back? Why wzs there no dust on the pods after firing thruster rockets to land. How did those rockets fire in a vacume? How do guys pop up off the ground at an angle, then there ia a dune buggy throwing sand which falls just like on earth. How did that dune buggy get there, is it a transformer?
@@LarryBrooks-cf9qp
YOU SAID: "Nice, also how does a rocket burn in a vacume?"
== Rocket engines are different than jet engines. A jet brings fuel, and then uses the oxygen in the surrounding air to do the burn. Rockets in a vacuum do not have any oxygen in the surrounding air, because there is no surrounding air. Rockets contain fuel tanks, and oxidizer tanks. Then, the fuel and oxidizer are injected into the engine bell together, where the burn happens, and the high speed expanding hot gasses push the craft. Sometimes the oxidizer is literally liquid oxygen. Other times it's an oxygen rich compound. And, occasionally, it doesn't have oxygen at all, but it called an "oxidizer" because it creates the same chemical reaction as oxygen.
YOU SAID: "Why did astronauts say they cant make it past the van allen belt."
== We don't have a man rated booster big enough to lift a manned craft that high. The last one in operation was the Saturn V, back in the early 1970s. There were two manned variants of the Saturn V, both of those variants sent men to the moon nine times from 1968 to 1972 (landed six of those times). After that, the Saturn V was retired (except for one more launch, Skylab). Until recently, nobody on the planet has even tried to build a rocket that big again. But, the SLS is roughly the same size and capacity, and is in development right now. When it's done, it will send manned (and woman'd) craft to the moon again. But, right now, there is no such rocket booster in existence.
YOU SAID: "How did they have the fuel to come back?"
== Well, you're sure asking a lot about rocket science for a person who doesn't even know how rockets burn. You are obviously asking these questions straight out of a standard conspiracy playbook of dumb things to ask on the internet. But, I'll trust (for now) that you're not dumb, and that you are honestly asking these questions, and not just spewing conspiracy oriented fake questions, with no intent on listening to answers (which most conspiracy nuts do). You have not done anything but ask questions, so I completely respect that. Asking questions is 100% wonderful. Ignoring answers is 100% repulsive. So, yes, I'm on your side here, until you give me reason to believe otherwise. My advice, however, is to actually go try to learn how the science works, and not take your first line of "education" from conspiracy sources (which is quite obviously what you're doing, even if you yourself do not believe in silly conspiracies, you're still obviously taking these questions from conspiracy videos). The conspiracy people do not understand anything about this topic. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zip. Zilch. And, there's a reason why there isn't a single aerospace engineer or rocket scientist anywhere on the planet who ask these questions you're asking, and the questions you're asking are isolated to people who literally know nothing. Anyway, the answer is in thermodynamics. If you boil away all of the mechanics of how rockets work, and just cut straight to the thermodynamics, it's easier to understand. But, I'll assume you don't understand thermodynamics already, because you probably wouldn't ask this question if you did. So, even though it's impossible to teach thermodynamics over TH-cam comments, I'll give the super short thermodynamic lesson. The job of the Saturn V booster is to lift 100,000 pounds of payload (command/service module, lunar module, and people) to an altitude of 240,000 miles, with orbital velocity speed around the moon still remaining. That's the energy required to do the job of getting Apollo to the moon. It's a lot of energy. Then the lander does its thing, takes two people down to the surface and back, and connects back with the command/service module to go home. The job of the command/service module is merely to break lunar orbit, with a payload of a few people and rocks. Once they break lunar orbit, they basically just "fall" back to Earth. This doesn't require much energy.
== Or, think of this another way. You need to throw a 100 pound rock to the top of a skyscraper. How much energy will that take you? Then, once you get it to the roof of the skyscraper, you break away half of the rock, leave it behind on the roof, and then simply lift the 50 pound rock over the edge of the skyscraper roof and drop it to the ground. Which took more energy? Lifting/throwing/carrying the 100 pound rock up the skyscraper? Or, tossing the 50 pound rock over the edge and letting it fall back to the ground? Well, that's basically Apollo, in analogy format. The Saturn V had the job of carrying the 100 pound rock to the top of the skyscraper. The service module just needed to lift the 50 pound rock over the guard rail on the roof and drop the rock back home.
== Thermodynamics.
YOU SAID: "Why wzs there no dust on the pods after firing thruster rockets to land."
== Well, once again, you are obviously getting this from conspiracy videos, and not checking for yourself. There was dust on many of the landing pads. The conspiracy videos are dishonest, and only show you ones that didn't have any dust, or very little dust, or at a bad angle to see the dust. But, if you actually looked through the photo archive, rather than listening to conspiracy videos, you'll see plenty of photos showing dust in the landing pads. But, the conspiracy crowd is never honest. Never. They won't show you those, because it kills their fake narrative. But, the short answer for why there wasn't MORE dust than there was, is because there wasn't an atmosphere. On Earth, you might get a lot of dust all over the place when a helicopter lands or something, because there's an atmosphere for a dust cloud to form, swirl around, and fall back onto pads. On the moon, with no atmosphere, dust will just take the same trajectory as a thrown rock (out and away). No dust clouds. No swirling air to linger in, and fall back down. Nope, it just gets blown to the sides, and the only dust you'll get into the pads will be whatever little amount that is there when the engine is still running, and finds a good angle to bounce into the pads. It wasn't a lot, nor should it be a lot. But, yes, if you'd ignore the conspiracy videos, and check for yourself, you'll find dust in many landing pads.
YOU SAID: "How did those rockets fire in a vacume?"
== Didn't you already ask this question?
@@rockethead7 so ed is still there?
@@LarryBrooks-cf9qp
Thanks for proving yourself the idiot you apparently were. I answered your questions. And, all you did was reply with stupidity.
What a great video!!! Thank you so much 👍👍👍😘💕
Great production. Just like the fake landing. Come on people.
The dust fell back to the ground so fast, for it to be weightless, and no wind..
Name the timestamp?
*for it to be weightless*
Who said it was weightless? You know kiddo that moon has gravitational pull too.
@@tgstudio85 no. he doesnt know that. people just think everything floats in space. idiots
What ive always found strange about the footage of the moon rover bouncing along is that, if you look at the arm thing covered in gold you can clearly see the reflection of the moon and the equator but the never move, the rover is bouncing all over the place but the reflection never changes. Has anyone else noticwd this? Is there a reason why? Given that the view in front is jumping about everywhere, then the reflection should lose the equator
At 28:24 the mic picks up a very obscure statement...
"I told them they better improve the skyline or we're in trouble"
Am still at 90% that we did get there at some point, but
from a conspiracy point of view it's a pretty heavy statement, but what do I know
...meh
You'll be surprised what they accomplished in area 51.
@@SebbyD th-cam.com/video/4-zzqW1WKZE/w-d-xo.html nah mate
Because it is not on the Moon. No man was on the Moon.
@@rukaslyricist Great. I saw this, too. No one was on the Moon.
"I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond but....."
We lost the technology! Silly boys lose everything.
@@liz.217 : The tech is not lost, check the many museums that have Apollo era equipment on display. Florida has a complete Saturn V rocket on display. Libraries have books of Apollo era tech. But do you really expect NASA or even any car company to rebuild 60 yr old teck?
@@drewthompson7457 I was quoting a popular video of a NASA employee. I know it's ridiculous to think the biggest human achievement was not securely and meticulously documented. But thats what NASA claims. Never A Straight Answer.
Drew Thompson Nobody expects to rebuild old tech, but they say they can’t do it today because it’s “a painful process to build it back again”, yet somehow sent a rover to Mars?
@@liz.217 NASA never lies about anything do they?
5,000 degrees on re-entry, wow, what an air conditioner they must have had in the capsule.
The parachutes and their strings managed to survive that immense heat of 5,000 degrees in a little container at the top of the Command Module. Thank goodness. Can you imagine what would have happened if a couple of the strings had burned through on re-entry and then they tried to open the chutes?
Hahahaha....experts who know nothing about ablation.
@@paulward4268 Exactly. And without even a practise run through to see if the Steel and Aluminium layer could protect the chutes and strings. I think some people are making straightforward comments and not pretending to be experts. That is good. Just asking really straightforward questions about how a half inch of Steel and a quarter of an inch of Aluminium could hold back 5,000 degrees on a lengthy Apollo re-entry. It would surely be glowing red-hot and frying the chutes and their nylon strings? The 4 inch thick steel columns of the World Trade Centre (100 floors below the plane impact) turned to dust after some jet fuel burned for 45 minutes 100 floors above. It's just a Crazee Universe !
Ablative heat shield. Look it up. They are still in use today. In short, the heat shield is designed to disintegrate, flake away, and take the heat with it.
@@Lanarkish
What in the world are you talking about? They tested every single capsule type (and its heat shield) before putting people inside. What do you mean when you say there were no practice runs? For the Apollo command module, they flew 5 command modules (and their heat shields) in space on unmanned missions, before ever flying people inside.
You know so little about this topic that you didn't even know those unmanned missions ever took place. Yet, you're sitting there questioning the validity of such a trivial topic as how a heat shield works? You sit there with your mocking tone, as if the entire planet's aerospace engineers simply forgot that re-entry can get hot if they don't have a heat shield?
Your kitchen oven can be 500 degrees inside, yet, you can put your hand a quarter inch away from the glass, and you barely feel any heat. Why? Because it's simple cheap insulating glass. A fireman wears a little plastic suit capable of withstanding 1000 degree temperatures (or 2000 degrees for the better suits), and the person inside barely feels any heat. Imagine what you could do with an ablative heat shield.
i think we've lied more in ten days, then most people do in ten life times
You must be quoting the Democratic party.
@@compellinglyhigh646 nasa, but that also fits, lol
Ekaw, who are “we” and what are the lies?
What are the lies? Well the first is 'We went to the Moon'.- after you open your eyes and see that.... All the other stuff is far more easy to explain. Like unsealed gloves -same damaged buggy in two diff missions- The sound of a tool in a vacuum.camera cross hairs blocked by photoshop, shadows in diff drctns.Wrong rocket engines on Sat V add infinitum! The WE of course is our Govt Space Agency/Millionaire maker for govt officials.
Tim, how would you know what an unsealed glove looks like? If an astronaut on the moon is holding a tool then the hand holding it is inside the suit where the microphone is. If the tool vibrates then we would hear it. If two vehicles are supposed to be identical and they both have the same feature then it is not damage. Dah. Of course US astronauts went to the moon. Denying it is ridiculous on so many levels. Even amateur astronomers could see the command module in route and the Russian knew how to track space craft. As has been said many times, it would have been a lot easier to go to the moon than to fake it.
18:26 putting together a panorama from the live video feed. Very cool.
I'm still amazed that so many ppl fell for this. I'm even more surprised ppl still believe it. Humans are very easy tricked.
The evidence is overwhelming that the missions happened, as documented. I'm not amazed at how YOU let yourself get tricked to believe otherwise, though.
@@Monkeyboysdontknow LOL
it gets better every time, at 18:40 there's plenty of shadow, then at 19:08 the shadows have vanished, then later they're back again, so good
How Did We Put All That Evidence And Tracks Up There Then...
@@davidsumner9348photoshop .....quit falling for foolishness.....research the fraud with an open mind and you will come to the same conclusion .
Imagine standing in spacecraft so far from your home planet and being utterly professional and cool. What a bunch of rocket men.
😵💫
Imagine believing this shit is real lol
Well, they were well trained, and had a schedule to keep, and the were professional.
But yeah, pretty amazing.
@Nick Giorgione : you like making stupid, unfounded comments.
FYI: there is no air on the moon. Most people know this, how did you miss it?
SO FAKE
11:28
😂😂😂
Who was on the ground-at a distance filming the lunar module as it lifted off the surface??
@Thomas Pickering - Answer his question.
From Apollo 15 onwards, the Apollo TV cameras were remotely controlled by Ed Fendell at mission control (Google Search: Ed Fendell Apollo).
It's called remote, mission control took over the mounted cameras, com on you conspiracy lima beans always keep shit up.
@@autobahnman6869 : in defense of the brain dead, they have noticed that the TV remote doesn't even work from across the basement. So you can see them having trouble understanding how remote control could work on the moon....
@@yazzamx6380 bollocks