To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
I can't wait for the final experiment. I doubt it will be final but I have another idea that you could do a lot more cheaply and could involve numerous flerfs with P1000 cameras. Let me know!
Free money from the government not a good enough reason? Also, they are hiding the existence of the firmament and that we live in a created realm, created by GOD
@DaveMcKeegan You forgot a very important argument: Not just the Russians but most technologically advanced nations were able to directly receive the radio, TV and data signals sent from the spacecrafts! Not only this, but with triangulation and with doppler calculations, they were able to pinpoint their location and speed!! Meaning: Other nations were able to check if the signals, the spacecraft were leaving earth in a realistic path and speed. If the spacecraft lands on the moon. Today we are even able to see in detail how the descent unit approaches the surface, slows down, touches down, only by looking at the radio signals! Perhaps this is a topic for an other video?
@@Sonnell You also forget the Russians were joining top secret American space operations collaborating building docking hatches to the same dimensions within a few years of the Moon Landings. Other nations were not quick to tell tales on their Allies just to score quick Clickbait lines of the day. And even today they wage war with each other albeit in Proxy fashion but still some how all agree on Space exploration 🤔
My brother is a moon denier. When I asked him why Russia wouldn’t reveal it was faked. His answer “Russia ain’t no snitch” well, there it is. He’s got us. Let’s pack it up.
My brother cannot get past the fact our Astronauts flew through part of the Van Allen radiation belt. When I tell him we put down laser reflector panels, moonquake seismic equipment and other devices on the moon that have been used for generations to provide telemetry to the Earth, he cannot account for that.
Ask him why a totalitarian, secretive, state censored society that could execute or imprison dissidents to the gulag on a whim without any consequence, never invited the worlds press to tour their rocket factories and witness launches and was desperate to get one over the capitalists, didn't fake a landing of its own ?
I seriously doubt they'd give Bart Sibrel the time of day, let alone any sort of actual information. It's especially notable that Sibrel must be lying, since the Chinese did release pictures that they took from orbit of the Apollo landing sites.
Actually the real reason they had to film on location is Neil and Buzz were infamous method actors who insisted on filming in a vacuum. Since it was determined to be too expensive to build a moon set inside a vacuum chamber they decided to land on the real moon instead.
The problem with fakery is that not only do you need to know how to fake something, you also would need to somehow futureproof it against future discoveries and forensics. This is how many faked videogame speedruns are caught, for example, when some new way to spot cheating is found out. It's impossible to prepare for eventualities you don't know yet.
@@johnglennmercury7To be fair if they only spotted the fake 50 years later and you died 15 years prior to that its not that important anymore. For the faker.
Yep. Basically. Why stop if you can keep faking it? I would assume they had prototype copies of the lander for design purposes, probably did some training sessions of the camera equipment, etc, and probably did it all inside a NASA hangar... And it might have looked like faking it in a studio to people passing by, especially if there was some fake moon landscape built (for training, or maybe just for shits and giggles because engineers get bored). I would assume the reason the "rumours" of faking it simply won't go away is because some elements of the design and training processes LOOKED like they were faking it to people not involved.
You should go to NASA's website and watch some of the moon landing videos they have there. Those may have been state-of-the-art special effects back then, but nobody would fall for them today. Go watch some and see for yourself. There's a reason why NASA conveniently "lost" all the original footage.
They found another thing that can rob taxpayer money more efficiently ..WAR..... i think they will attempt to fake mars in the near future, but now they already get 50 million budget per day so no need to rush anything
You didn't even mention the amateur radio enthusiasts across the globe who followed the ascend of the Apollo 11 rocket. Since it was broadcasting, it was easy enough to triangulate its position. There you have it: independent, real-time verification from just hobbyists that had nothing to do with either the USA or the USSR.
@@dreamdiction Correct, that was Apollo 10. The subsequent missions they landed. Slow and careful steps because space travel is incredibly dangerous and incredibly expensive.
My dad was one of THOUSANDS of engineers, designers, and craftspeople who worked on Apollo 11. Keeping all of those people silent? Faking the landing would be WAY harder than just going.
Yes, and the hardest to keep quiet would have been the hard charging astronauts. These guys were achievers who had risen to the top of competitive programs more than once just to become astronauts. Knowing that the most consequential achievement of their lives was a hoax would have badly affected all of them. Sooner or later, one or more would have just said, f this, I'm out, I cannot live like this, and spilled the beans. Yet none of them ever exhibited any signs of hiding anything. They were proud of what they'd accomplished, happy to discuss it, if perhaps some became a little tired of it eventually. Most would have demanded to go back to active military flight status and served in Vietnam as soon as they learned Apollo was a hoax. Again, none tried leave the program. Obviously it wasn't a hoax.
My father was a civil engineer doing structural stress testing on the first stage of the Saturn V and the Apollo 11 capsule. His stories were gold. If it was faked, they had half a million engineers fooled too. They accomplished it because no one told them they couldn’t.
First, I HIGHLY doubt the moon landings were faked, but I am familiar with conspiracies. Not everybody that is part of a conspiracy even knows they are part of a conspiracy. Operation Ajax and PBSuccess for example. Even those that do discover they were duped into a conspiracy and try to blow the whistle, they are typically disbelieved. Trust me of this as I have been duped into a conspiracy.
Ugh, it all comes down to "I don't understand it so it never happened." These are the people who use smart phones and computers every day, which basically none of us understand. They will never admit they're wrong, but that's OK because I always learn something new from your videos!
@@DeusSalis "Do you understand how they got a camera there before any astronauts?" Why are you asking a question which people have already answered for you?
It's like the old joke that they had Kubrick fake the moon landings, but he was such a stickler for authenticity that he insisted on shooting on location.
@@Green_Tea_Coffee No, quite familiar with the joke, which is why I linked it too his hatred of flying, which is why most of his films were shot in the UK.
- Americans never went to the Moon! - But what's with all the stuff and traces that are left there and were filmed later by LRO and Chinese? - They put it there on purpose! - Who? - Americans! Are you dumb or what?
Apart from the obvious Soviet argument, the two biggest arguments in favor of the genuineness of the moon landings are: 1. The details of the Apollo 11 mission are so coherent that if they didn't do it, they certainly had the theoretical and technological resources to do so. The mission was launched at the right time, with adequate means to get there, the moon was in the right position, it took the amount of time one could predict it would, and all the observations made by the astronauts correspond to verifiable conditions of the time. Faking a mission that you are capable of not faking just doesn't make sense. 2. Some of the observed data in the moon landings did not correspond to the scientific predictions of the time. It was expected that the moon would be covered in a thick and perhaps perilously deep layer of loose lunar dust, given the theorized age of the moon and the lack of wind. There was a potential risk that any craft would simply sink when it landed on the moon. This did not happen, and mainstream science was practically shocked at how shallow the moon dust was. If we had never made it to the moon, this sort of contrast between expectations and reality would not have happened.
@@germansnowman Arguably they could be left by a probe, so not a 100% sure thing there. Better to use the argument that at least 100K of the millions of people involved in both NASA and all the contracting agencies would have to be bought off because they would have information that would out some aspect of the program as being impossible. They would all have to be silent forever, and that just doesn't happen with that many people.
@@germansnowman 🤎 I live at only 10miles from the only Observatory in France.. where they can shoot the laser right to the moon. Its in Calern.. and btw.. some of the reflectors on the moon came from this observatory.. and they give it to Nasa before the Apollo Missions. (Sorry for my english)
I manage a team that is working on a lunar technology demonstrator for NASA. I also worked on a proposal for a module on Lunar Gateway. Both of these efforts rely on a ton of data from the Apollo missions. I'm curious if these moon landing deniers think if I'm in on it or if they think that in addition to filming things on a soundstage, that NASA also fabricated enormous amounts of data, telemetry, and analysis that is is remarkably self-consistent. For the former, what a fun accusation! For the latter, that many orders of magnitude more people to coordinate a cohesive story with and keep quiet.
The fact that all the moon footage (when they’re outside anyway) is filmed in a vacuum is undeniable. What is also undeniable is that believe it or not building a vacuum chamber big enough to fit a soundstage is a bigger engineering challenge than actually going to the friggin moon (and making it back).
Bloody this!! All it takes is a basic school level knowledge of physics and you watch the moon dust being thrown up by the wheels of the vehicle coming back down instantly in a perfect parabolic arc with no dispersal. That is not possible here on Earth, and there was no camera trickery back then that could have replicated this effect, while cgi didn't exist yet.
What we have here is evidence that making shit up is very easy. Fun fact, your brain makes many details up when you try to remember things. The more you try, the higher the portion of newly constructed conceptualization instead of contemporary memory.
Oh man, imagine the quatantine shutdowns they could enact. "we have no idea what this outer-space disease is and we don't know how to stop it. Shut the world down, shut it all down!"
There was a video that came out some time ago where a guy ran down the type of camera gear and filming methods that were used to capture the moon landing while also looking at the available movie special effects that were being used during that period. He proved that even with the best conditions, it was impossible to fake the floaty motion of the astronauts while they bounded about on the moon surface nor was it possible to fake the way the moon dust kicked up and settled. In short, in 1969 we had the technology to go to the moon. But we didn't have the technology to fake it.
That is true. But the excuse for the deniers is simply "NASA had secret more advanced technology than the rest of the world". Of course they cannot prove this claim.
They think that computers weren't complex enough to handle orbital navigation, but were complex enough to generate photorealistic CGI in realtime for broadcast television and archival use.
@ESPLTD322 Tell them the British Empire of the 19th Century was achieved by their Navy navigating the globe with precision of less than a mile using a sextant, ship's clock, and nautical charts. They had global economic trading routes without GPS. It will blow their minds.
That and NASA's budget got axed by fools who ended up fighting dead-end wars for no reason other than ego-boosting. And sadly some of their once trusted contractors have decayed to the point of being pathetic, Boeing in particular, but it's nice to see new options pushing forward like SpaceX (Elon is an idiot but I still like SpaceX), Sierra Nevada Space (Dream Chaser deserves Boeing's wasted funding), and Rocketlab. Certainly hope Canada's own space agency gets more funding to help support this or even launch our own missions, we have the engineers we just need to get parliament to stop blowing our tax money on themselves
The space shuttle is the biggest reason NASA hasn't gone to the moon since the early 70s. That soaked up the manned space flight budget and couldn't leave Earth orbit.
@@therealuncleowen2588 We also have to consider that there isn't a real cost-effective reason to go back to the moon at large scale. Don't get me wrong - I've always been a big supporter of space exploration and colonization, but in recent months I've come to realize that it's not very practical. For example, there are dangerous environments here on Earth that are chock-full of resources, but only a handful of people go there - the ocean floors, for example, were once considered a prime location for human settlement many decades ago, but that never panned out. Space is far more dangerous, going there is for more difficult and the resources are far more scattered. I'd imagine that if we do eventually begin to exploit the resources in the solar system, it will be done by robots and a handful of hearty people.
I head a joke a while ago. NASA hired Stanley Kuebrich to fake the moon landing videos. But he was such a stickler for realism that he had the videos made on location.
@@colincampbell767 anyone who tells an asinine joke like this has no business calling anyone childish. Seriously, read the joke. If you think that’s clever… you’re just a dullard. Imagine a comic saying this… there’d be total silence except for 2 dimwits giving a courtesy fake chuckle.
And if NASA could fake it, other space-capable nations would have as well. The Soviet Union, for example, would have no reason what-so-ever to abandon going to the moon if they could have faked it. Or, if it could prove fakable, they also had no reason at all to not expose the fakery.
Mine is similar: If NASA faked the Moon landing, why stop? We could have had fake space stations in the late 70s, Lunar colonies in the early 80s, crewed missions to Mars in the late 80s, and surely Martian colonies by now.
@@Johnboy33545 Sorry johnboy, the whole cold war was a psyop designed to keep both populations living in fear, well at the same time allowing the elite families to embezzle hundreds of billions of dollars from both sides.
We're living in times where more and more people think that because I don't understand something, then it has to be fake. Yet those people usually have absolutely no idea how anything around them actually work - despite being able to operate them.
Exactly, I don't understand how some people just refuse to believe what's on the tv. Some people did not believe in the "safe and effective" narrative. Crazy conspiracy theorysts.
Which is a good thing. If you claim something is true, say, for example "Russia hacked out election", then you provide NO DETAILS as to how it was hacked, what you mean by "hacked", what specifically was done, I'll dismiss your claim. People without detailed technical knowledge (I'm an engineer), SHOULD dismiss claims when there's nobody out there that will explain and challenge their questions. The problem our society has is that we blindly trust authority WAY too much.
I know exactly how natural immunity works, and I saw a bunch of people pretend it didn't exist. People who don't have confidence in their own ability to understand are pathetic.
You forgot a very important argument: Not just the Russians but most technologically advanced nations were able to directly receive the radio, TV and data signals sent from the spacecrafts! Not only this, but with triangulation and with doppler calculations, they were able to pinpoint their location and speed!! Meaning: Other nations were able to check if the signals, the spacecraft were leaving earth in a realistic path and speed. If the spacecraft lands on the moon. Today we are even able to see in detail how the descent unit approaches the surface, slows down, touches down, only by looking at the radio signals! Perhaps this is a topic for an other video?
I remember seeing something on television {or maybe here on TH-cam} about the radio telescope at Jodrell Bank in the UK picking up transmissions from the astronauts descending towards the lunar surface. Their equipment was so sensitive -- which I found amazing, although it seems perfectly logical -- that they could measure the rate of descent of the Lunar Module by the Doppler shift in the radio frequency of the transmissions.
Also, some had contracts from NASA to do it. The MSFN needed large dishes around the world so as to maintain contact with the various spacecraft when the US had the earth in the way of their own stations. It is beyond belief that every one of these foreign sub-contractors were so corrupt as to cooperate with a conspiracy or so technically incompetent to understand that the signals they were relaying could only be from a point-source on the Sea of Tranquillity:)
Lol, all former British empire and NATO countries are run by the same people behind the scenes. Hardly a surprise they tried to back up the nonsense claimed by the CIA
Bart Sibrel: The Chinese are blackmailing NASA to get their technology Also Bart Sibrel: NASA cant get to the moon because they dont have good technology
I'm a little late to the party, but that stood out to me right away. NASA couldn't get to the moon, so the USSR blackmailed NASA for tech that didn't work. RIiiiiiight. That makes sense /s
I'm pretty sure Rogan is a moon landing denier. He just actually followed up on a question/claim there, which is so rare it makes him look rational for once.
@@davidmurphree6020he's said both. He does argue for both sides. He usually is pretty strong on things he believes. But that seems to be one he's not denying, he's just arguing both sides.
I convinced one denier with this quick retort- “why haven’t we gone back? Because there’s no money to be made there.” His mistrust of greedy government made more sense to him.
🤨. The thrust in atmosphere vs gas mass ejection in a vacuum is millions of lbs of thrust vs hundreds of grams thrust . Anything that leaves earth at escape velocity doesnt have the gas mass ejection fuel onboard to ever slow down from escape velocity . The ship would scale up to big to leave earth if it carries the necessary fuel to scrub off 11km a sec velocity . To reach escape velocity the craft needed extra tanks they discard , in space they have a puny gas mass ejection thruster + limited fuel to undo that ^^^ enormous reaction that was pushing off thick soupy atmosphere. every trip is 1 way . Every trip is a high speed crash unless people at your destination meet you in space + slow you down. The host + all earths engineers cant argue with this ^^^^ its a fact a ten year old could work out .
@TheCraigy83 as you get higher, the atmosphere gets thinner thus the thrust required becomes less. Rockets do not propel by pushing off off a "solid" surface, they propel by the fact that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, the exhaust being ejected from the rocket nozzle pushes the rocket forward regardless of air or lack thereof. The command module also used the moons gravity to help it slow down for lunar orbital injection, and they used the earth's gravity to help get them back home.
@@brucethen the crafts earth rockets are optimised to push off atmosphere its necessary to reach escape velocity low down while they still have a ''back stop '' to push off because as you say thrust becomes less as the ''back stop '' / air gets thinner . The moons pull is puny / 1/6th earth. the craft is going too fast and it will be further accelerated slighty by the moon on approach lol. they'll simply fly right past it and cant add ANY turn values at 11km a second without suffering horrendous G lock injuries.. Its pull will have almost no effect at slowing the craft ,it will just undo what velocity it added on approach ! and they'll be out of its reach long before it has any real effect . the crew **already added the velocity to comfortably escaped a bigger pull /earths 6x times more pull so the moons 1/6th is irrelevant** ... They cant begin an orbiting turn at 11km a sec without dying.. Moon doesn't have the pull to force orbit the craft.. *You need magic to happen for something from earth to land safely on the moon* .
The biggest photographic evidence of the veracity of the lunar missions, at least to my mind, was the shots of one astronaut skipping and jumping under lunar gravity - something that would have been impossible to replicate on earth under 1g. Their other movements would have also been significantly different when trying to film in the same shots.
Because of the movement of the lunar dust and not the astronauts. We could fake the actual movements of the astronauts, it would probably look a little too consistent, but until relatively recently we would have had no way to fake the movement of the dust.
@@davidlewis5929 Even now that requires cutting edge technology and might not look like it did in reality. And it would be fairly questionable to why then make multiple missions. Because if you fake only one moon landing you wouldn't risk any inconsistencies. Given that we had multiple moon landings this also means that the faking had to be done consistently. That is really hard to do without having actual knowledge how lunar regolith behaves. And obviously you would have to prepare samples of fake material that would believably be from the moon and has properties that would make your footage believeable. Faking a moonlanding would have been really hard without being on the moon. Because we did now send multiple probes to the moon and they did took actual samples and stuff (Non-flat earth deniers mostly deny manned missions, not unmanned ones). So the US would have to know how the moon behaves and how the material on the moon behaves without being there to make it consistent with material and data retrieved in the future. So the only way to fake a moonlanding would be by performing a moonlanding first to know the exact properties of its surface and the conditions on the moon.
Yep, having the moon dust fly off in strictly ballistic arches under vacuu and reduced gravity was definitely impossible to fake at that time and would have posed a much bigger challenge than “adding in the stars” - and there you go, that shows exactly the naivety of the moon landing deniers thinking. Truth is consistent in other aspects too if one has enough expertise. For example the lighting on the moon gives it away: it’s not hard to recognize that parallel, hard shadows in combination with an evenly lit area foreground to background is impossible to pull off using one or more local studio lightsources. Local lightsources will give you diverging shadows and a noticeable light falloff. If one would try to compensate the light falloff using more lights you get multiple shadows or even soft shadows plus multiple specular highlights. None of such studio telltale signs is ever seen on the Apollo footage.
For me it’s the audio; throughput the missions, there is an unparalleled excitement and joy when the astronauts land on the moon. Buzz and Neil were certainly the most stoic having been the first to land on the moon, but their heart rates were 150 and 110 respectively. And on 12, Conrad and Alan L Bean were both stoked once they touched down. They were still navy men and test pilots, not actors, so everything they expressed was genuine
There is footage from one of the lunar missions -- I cannot remember which one -- which shows one of the astronauts 'hopping' right past the American flag. The flag DID NOT MOVE. {This may have happened on multiple Apollo missions, I just remember seeing it on this one.} He was so close to the flag as he passed it, if it had been filmed in a studio with an atmosphere, the flag WOULD HAVE MOVED. Proof.
@@DeusSalisDid Columbus travel to the New World or is America just a gigantic hoax? I don't think the USA exists. Imagine a country where so many deny their own greatest achievement and one of the people trying to become the next leader thinks immigrants are eating their neighbour's dogs and cats. Prove to me America exists. I reserve the right to ignore any "facts" that don't fit my predetermined world view
I wonder what all the people involved in that film think of it being seen as some sort of revelation about the "real space programme"? The movie was supposed to be a way for Hollywood to get in on the popularity of the US space programme.
@@deedubya286 Why are you getting queasy about obviously fake footage? Those were not real helicopters flying that close. It was made in post-production to look like that.
Bart was my neighbor in the mid 90s. None of us knew anything about his crazy conspiracy theories. He never once mentioned them. You can imagine my surprise when, years later, I saw Bart on youtube getting punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin! 😅
He was on an episode of Joe Rogan recently. Sibrel became a meme right after. Every time Joe asked him to explain or for proof he just directed everyone to his website. Like 29 times during the program
Yes and no. Nothing, will change the mind of die-heart flat earthers, NOTHING. The better target for this kind of videos and arguments, are the ones on the fence, that might be exploring, and think flat earth might seem appealing, but haven't quite decided yet
@@GummieI This is because a flerfer cannot imagine or comprehend something larger than the human scale or human experience. What they cannot comprehend they will simply ignore, finding theories that fit their own narrative while denying evidence to the contrary. Feel sorry for the flerfer because they are so closed minded that they lost imagination.
Saw a video of an interview of a flat earther in a radio studio, and the flat earther showed his cognitive dissonance by making the 3 following contradictory claims: 1) we have never been to the moon 2) we go to the moon all the time 3) the moon is just a projection
Ask them the unanswerable question - why can you see the North Star from South of the equator? On a flat Earth every latitude should see the same stars in the same places at the same time.
I still wait a simple answer for a person who can understand speed and velocity.... Explain how a rail gun works on a globe... A standard shell is fired by a trajectory because at a certain point it looses it's speed and starts to fall back down to earth... let's say it's start speed is 800 mph, it starts slowing down very quickly, this is why it falls back to the ground. But a rail gun fires at approximately mach 8 ... it hits a target at around 200 miles in seconds.. it is travelling so fast that it does not have time to fall to earth like a standard shell... its fired by direct line of sight.. it has no fins to correct its flight.. So explain how that works if the missile had to follow the curve of a ball.... its impossible. So who's going to explain something stunning first.. I'm not into flat or round. I'm into understanding facts, as told by science people. It can't work both ways...
The fake moon landing crap really pisses me off- such a lack of respect for all of the amazing engineers and scientists who made this incredible feat possible.
Regarding Rogan's idea that NASA would fake the footage if something happened to the camera: That did happen in Apollo 12. One of the astronauts pointed the (new) colour TV camera directly at the sun and fried the sensor. Why didn't NASA roll out their fake backup footage and pretend the screw-up didn't happen? Likewise, why was Apollo 13 not "successful" if they had a fake backup filmed (and had the intent to use it) for just such an occasion. Likewise, regarding having the fake mission be Apollo 10, instead of 11: Why not Apollo 8, even?
Apollo 12’s fake landing camera snafu was faked specifically so that no one would accuse them of faking the footage. Apollo 13’s accident was faked to boost ratings in order to get more funding for more fake landinngs because NASA operates by ouroboros logic. Finally, Apollo 8 wasn’t faked because the Reptoid Overlords who oversaw the fake missions to protect the location of their secret moon city and puppy farm consider numbers 1 to 9 to be unlucky. DUH.
Also, how can someone fake the launches of the Saturn itself? Whenever it launched, windows broke miles away, and 1,500 km away from the launch-site, seismometers in New York City registered tremors
Ah, but did you personally experience this yourself, or were you told this by a trusted individual that you know without any doubt that they weren't paid to support "the narrative?" :P That's the crux of their issue. They didn't experience it themselves, they don't understand how it happened, so it's easier for them to believe that it didn't and the entire world is lying to them. Pretty sure that's a form of diagnosable psychosis...
I love when actual visual effects experts all agree that there's no way to recreate the lighting without a CGI light source and that it would be literally impossible to fake the footage at that time
I brought that up in a comment on a moon landing deniers youtube video. His response: "That's the way it is, the more times you tell a lie to the public the easier it is for them to to believe it...." 😐
And even if they had been able to successfully fake them 50ish years ago, they would have been roundly debunked as fake once other countries started orbiting the moon.
Well you see, despite being at a cold war with other super powered nations. They where actually allies and did this because... globe sales... save the economy?
@@joeg5414....... in World War II America outsmarted some of the most brilliant military minds with simple inflatable tanks. Plus in the 1960s NASA could not have imagined that 30/40/50 years later every household would have a computer that could dissect photos, videos, and audio.
Look at the deal made about Antarctica everybody agree no one can claim it or claim territory and it was sign by both friendly and enemy nations why? See when there is bigger stake it will happened
My favorite part of the moon hoaxers "theory" is that it requires NASA to be simultaneously ludicrously competent so as to successfully simulate three different space programs (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo) wirh three different spacecraft and rockets, but then at the same time be so comically inept that they include things like flags waving in the breeze, obvious fake rocks, and shitty, cheap looking fake spacecraft in the videos.
If they faked Apollo 11 and got away with it, why risk getting found out on the following six missions? If you get away with the perfect murder, don't repeat it!
@@us3rG , robots were sent. Getting a human to set foot on the moon was a major PR prize. The Russians beat the Americans launching the first satellite and then the first human into space. In the days of the cold war, there was no way they were going to let 'those commies' beat them putting the first footprint on the moon
Dogs are smart. I watched a documentary yesterday about the first British expedition to moon when Wallace and his dog Grommit (who studies electronics for dogs) made the trip to Moon to gather cheese to their crackers.
@@DaveMcKeegan Dave, are you planning to continue your Brilliant streak while (whilst) performing your Antarctica 24 hr sun Final Experiment duties? Cheers!
The broadcast from the moon was continuous without cuts and live, viewed all over the world, and many hours long .... doing this without cuts from a prerecorded film or tape was simply not possible in 1969 ...
Well it could have been done if they were desperate enough... Huge film reels. Overlapping projectors to switch between. It would be possible, but just not easy. Or worth the hassle if you're putting someone on the moon for real.
@@tin2001 Theoretically possible though that would add to the conspiracy as Kodak (or whomever) would have to manufacture those crazy big reels and the equipment to record and play back the reels. As a practical matter, if they faked it, they would've just made the moonwalk 20 minutes long, "for safety purposes," which would seem very very reasonable at that time.
The most interesting proof I heard from an unrelated documentary about Jodrell Bank was that a couple of scientists that had Dish time booked for their project at the precise time that the Apollo 11 descent was about to take place, out of curiosity they pointed the dish at the moon and heard all the transmissions from the crew (they were unable to hear ground control) including the tense moments after the 60 seconds call before the “contact light” and engine stop, they then clapped and congratulated with each other before getting on with their proper work. While many radio telescopes where rented by NASA as relay stations for Houston Jodrell Bank wasn’t one of them, so this was very much a spur of the moment thing as the telescope was usually employed in some ground breaking scientific research.
Also why fake a failed mission in Apollo 13 if they faked two successful missions previously to cast suspicion on the first two missions. And then continue to fake more and more, not logical 👍🏾👍🏾
This is the most compelling reason. Every mission they faked, there would be more chance of being exposed, and for absolutely no benefit. People were bored of the missions by the end, only the Apollo 13 crisis got good ratings. I personally saw Apollo 17 take off. That mother was real. The ground shook miles away from the pad.
Because public interest in the space program was dwindling (the public was tired of paying for it). The Apollo 13 drama re-energized that interest. Apollo 13 would have been the last ... had it not been for that drama. The Apollo 13 drama show bought them 100s of millions of dollars that they would not otherwise have gotten.
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 Not nearly as much as can be made by engaging in a war and paying defense contractors gobs of money for weaponry, and there's no need to go to the effort of having to fake something as complicated as a moon landing.
Every claim moon landing deniers have ever made has been debunked, yes. They have zero evidence it was fake, vs. us with overwhelming proof that it's real. Case closed.
More than that, it only takes one piece of incontrovertible evidence that the landings did take place to render the entire "fake moon landing conspiracy" idea null and void. The pictures of the landing sites from other lunar orbiters are pretty darned close to providing that evidence...
That's not how it works... A failure to substantiate a "fact" does not automatically give the other side a win. It is the plethora of actual substantiated evidence proving that the moon landings are real is what shows that they actually happened!
Not a single director, gaffer, camera operator, editor, CG artist, set decorator, makeup artist, prop master, producer, costume designer, caterer, or best boy has ever stepped forward to claim they helped to fake the moon landings.
You can just tell it wasn’t faked by how one of the US’s greatest enemies even till this days didn’t and still hasn’t ever tried to dispute that the landings happened.
Another interesting point about Apollo 10, they DID discover a problem with the LM. When they descended to about 50000 ft and then separated from the descent stage, they had a problem and the ascent stage tumbled around for a few moments. It turned out to be some 'glitch' with switch alignment and the guidance system after seperation. So it was probably a good thing they were 50000 feet up when it happened. Imagine if the lander was taking off from the surface and started 'tumbling' around just a few feet from the surface.
They're all sworn to secrecy upon threat of (what, exactly?), but a relatively small handful of goobs on the internet can freely/openly discuss it at length, but no guys/gals in black suits, sunglasses, and 007-grade communication devices ever come to visit and "have a sit-down"??? Sure thang!
@@az8theist977 I looked it up, there where 400k people that worked on Apollo 11 alone. So not only did the US have to fool the russians and chineese during a cold war with spies everywhere. but all of these people as well. so either Nasa and the U.S. Government are so god tier with their coverup skills. or it actually happened.
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 So NASA photoshopped the lunar landing sites in the 1960s, but then snuck the lunar module, reflectors, moon rover, etc. onto the surface afterwards, because they knew India was going to fly over the landing site and photograph it?
@@Green_Tea_Coffee Yes, they faked putting stuff on the moon by putting stuff on the moon. It's about the level of argument I'd expect from someone who thinks we never landed on the moon.
@@Green_Tea_Coffee several countries claim to place reflector on the moon. So, stop using that as a reason already. moon rover? Nasa told you 1 pixel on the photo is a rover and you believe them?
I have to disagree that The US was significantly "behind" the Soviets technologically. Even at the start they were at worst only a few months to maybe a year behind in most areas of development, and a lot of the Soviet "firsts" were pushed ahead before they were really ready specifically so that they could claim the title. The first "spacewalk", for example, consisted of little more than opening the airlock and stepping outside for a few minutes, and even that was almost a disaster, as Leonov's suit balooned up and made it almost impossible for him to get back inside. He had to deflate it to dangerous levels in order to get back in. Conversely, NASA followed a careful, step-by-step development process that meant they were slower at first, but as they gained experience they were able to later progress much faster, and with much better capability. The DKiS Aerospace History channel* has covered the space race in good detail, including an hour-long video on _The "Myth" of Soviet Space Superiority_ . (Note the quotes. He covered their accomplishments as fairly as he could. They did honestly achieve a lot, but there is a lot of exaggeration of their early capabilities as well.) *formerly Dead Kennedys in Space
Leonov and Tom Stafford did a lot of talking after the Kremlin funeral for the three cosmonauts that perished in the Soyuz 11 descent, Stafford being a pallbearer, that set up the Apollo-Soyuz Test mission.
bees don't waste time explain flies why honey is better than shit and we should not explain how things work to stupid people who refuse to think it's hard to win against smart people in an argument but it's impossible to win against stupid people next time you see an ignorant fool, you should as well ignore them
I'm reminded of the Mitchell & Webb sketch in conspirators are told that faking the event would still require them to design and build a 'massive rocket'. So they decide to go ahead with the hoax by building the rocket and sending astronauts to fake the footage on the Moon.
The applo conspiracy theory is scary I think it's growing in popularity I had 2 teachers in high school who thought it was faked... One was a science teacher the other a history teacher
@@NevadaMostWanted658 No, it's not. I literally don't know a single person that would admit they think the lunar landing was faked. My father's father was the only person I have ever known to have believed such.
@@fps079 yep. When Apollo 11 went behind the moon before orbital burn, they were going over 5000 mph, feet first in the dark, hoping that the engine will fire at the proper time and duration. So many unkowns at that point must have been exhilarating. Balls of steal.
I can’t remember where I heard it but there’s a saying that goes something like “for 2 ppl to keep a secret one has to be dead”. If you have tens or hundreds of thousands of ppl in on a conspiracy, there’s no way in hell you’d be able to keep them all quiet. Even if every single one of them was sworn to secrecy, some would let it slip to their significant other, family, or friends or when they’ve had a little too much to drink.
Especially in an age of social media. Some participants would still be alive and it would be extremely simple today to publish proof on the internet instantly without the need for a platform or book deal. And they'd become one of the most famous people in history.
@@CasaDelMesaCz_Zapomínáte na AI která komentáře které nesedí se zadáním smaže dříve než odkliknete příspěvek již několikrát jsem argumentoval neodpovídajícími foty a daty přímo z NASA a stalo se nejen že to nebylo publikováno ale foto a zvukové nahrávky se opravily podle mých připomínek, a takových důkazů jsou na stránkách NASA ještě desítky, ale již nechci aby se kdokoliv učil ještě lépe falšovat podvod století.
exactly. See the Lewinsky incident. 2 humans in a room, 1 had no way to talk right there right then. Still, it did not remain a secret. A gazillion people stfu for DECADES? Sure.
A lot flat earthers claim Christianity as their basis for many of their beliefs. As a Bible believing Christian, I can tell you I find their reasoning tiresome. Yes - if God wanted He could make it so there’s no way to reach the moon for various reasons. But He didn’t- and I find it far more interesting how we broke these bonds of earth the way we did it. You can still be in awe of creation if the sun is a ball of magnetic filaments, 8 light minutes away, and the moon is a hollow reflective rocky orb , perfectly caught in gravitational dance with our little beautiful ball, swirling through the vastness of space-rather than dismissing easily proven concepts as,” Anti God” because they conflict with your notions . Not everything is a conspiracy. Good job Dave. Wish I had half of your eloquence.
Christian here. What do you think of the verses that make it clear that the heavens are God's domain? I think it's quite clear we are supposed to remain on Earth. Even if the Van Allen Belts are possible to get past safely, space is so inhospitable that I doubt we're really intended to settle it.
@@SvanTowerMan Interestingly English uses two different words for that: heaven and sky. They are not the same. Heaven is something beyond what we can reach in our lifetime. Sky is something filled with over ten thousand artificial satellites and visited by a few hundred people we call astronauts.
Discussing with moon landing deniers is like playing pigeon chess Pigeon chess: Is the generic term for a discussion that is conducted by one of the participants only to get the feeling (or to convey to a possible audience) that they have won the discussion. No matter how well you play chess, the pigeon will eventually knock over all the pieces, poop on the board, and strut around like it's won.
I've been looking through the documentation and there is EXTENSIVE flight data: gimbal angles, accelerometer data, thrust vectors, etc. As well as extremely dense analysis of all the data. Like if they were faking this, what part of it were they faking? if you plotted this data, you'd most certainly see that all the numbers make sense. All the values and dynamics make sense. Hell, there's people that took an AGC and read the program off of it and proved it can fly.
Do you expect these loons to do that kind of research? Most of them think all documentation has been lost, because some conspiracy video told them so. If it was placed in their hands they would just call it fake (meaning, "I can't understand a word of it.").
Sitting in the MOCR in JSC that's been restored and watching the consoles during the landing, the sheer amount of details in the data is absolutely astounding. As Aldrin is reading off velocity vectors, you can see the actual rates coming off the AGS and PGNS that concur with his callouts (2 second delay.) One of the neatest details was during the Lunar EVA, I caught the LM cabin pressure: 0 psi. To be faked would require so much detail to continue to fake it down to the numbers on screens in a museum piece that nobody else but space nerds would care to look at.
@@wonko-the-often-sane That must be quite an experience; almost like having been there. I can't believe that there are people clueless enough to think that a handful of people could fake something like this, and fool everyone who was monitoring and acting on the data, in real time. Simpletons.
It's kinda like a kid not wanting to wash their hands, so the run the water for a bit, pump some soap down the drain so the level changes and just stand for the right amount of time before turning ghe water off. After all that, you might as well just wash your hands.
Best case scenario: The CCP sends one of their intelligence officers to pretend to be a CSA representative, who then has a sit down meeting with Sibrel to see how much BS they can feed him before he balks. More than likely, though, Sibrel is just lying. Again.
Chinese scientist share their accomplishments with the world. Some things are done to share with the world. No body hides their accomplishments. Science is shared and bragged about that is the whole point. Americans should be saying we should build a base on the moon before the Chinese do instead of thinking the Chinese are fake and would never tell anyone if they did it. That is why we failed with COVID. All the world's countries competing to see who had the fewest COVID deaths except Republicans totally disinterested in keeping score. When push came to shove with COVID Republicans just wanted a participation trophy!
40000 Employees working for NASA at the time All of them not snitching Where I work there's only 30 of us And we all know who my boss was banging in his office at lunch 😂
Neill deGrass Tyoson made that joke. They went to a movie company, who explained how difficult it would be, simulate low gravity, Earth as background etc. Shooting it on-site was the cheaper option :-)
A few questions you need to ask. 1) There were 5 more moon landings after Apollo 11. 2) There were multiple missions from orbit around the earth to orbit and testing docking and undocking in the moon's orbit. 3) The Soviets tried to upstage Apollo 11 with their own Luna program. Technically the Soviet Union was the first country to land on the moon. The rover crash landed and was destroyed a few days before Apollo 11. 4) The current theory that the moon was due to a collision event is based on the rocks brought back by the Soviet Luna and US Apollo missions. Studies of all the samples, from both countries showed the earth and the moon have the same chemical equation. The only way this could be possible if at one point both bodies collided. Fun fact: Current international moon missions, with rovers and satellites, now believe after the collision the moon formed a larger and smaller moon. Over time they collided. This is due to these newer missions coming back with data showing one side of the moon is much thicker in than the other side. 5) These latter moon missions from the US and other countries show the remains of the lander and lunar rover's tracks.
I know a lot of people who do not believe the moon landings were real (anyone who's ever actually looked into it will quickly stop believing in the moon landings) but I don't know anyone who believes that the Earth is flat. These two things are not related.
they use logic when they use their smartphone to post the shit. after all it has to use its computer brain to transmit what drivel they say, and since code uses a lot of logic itself.
There are a lot more problems with faking it. Like "if it is all just fake, WHY LM IS SO UGLY?!" Why not shiny intergalactic starship with crew of 100?
This is one of my favorite things to bring up. If we were going to fake the moon landing WHY do it with a ship that looks like it’s held together with thoughts and prayers and gum from under the bleachers and not a silvery sleek sci fi wonder ship, and then why have the astronauts bounce around like morons in all the footage rather than sending them up there looking like master chief.
The guy who did the special effects on Star Trek said that they couldn't fake it if they wanted too because special effects weren't advanced enough in the late 60s
I've always said this to everyone who claims the moon landings were fake. I absolutely cannot stand people that believe every single conspiracy theory that they hear simply because they are too unintelligent to understand science.
It’s kind of disrespectful to deny all of this happened because of all the people that put time of their lives on this mission and all their efforts are denied just because of a stupid conspiracy theory
Why would NASA fake the Apollo 13 near disaster which would bring closer congressional scrutiny and cause the public to ask are the risks to the astronauts and cost worth the effort?
And if they did fake the Apollo 13 failure, wouldn't that have been a perfect excuse to stop, claiming it was just too dangerous to continue, and reduce any risk of getting caught? They would already have faked 2 landings. But no, they decide 'fake it' 4 more times. That's absurd.
they did it so that you can ask this now. They put all your doubts to sleep long before you had those doubts. (I am kidding. But it would be a nice move in a spy game of some sort)
I recently broke down this exact question to someone who denies we went to the moon… and was called ignorant. Unfortunately the goal post moves with them, and despite countless facts and cited evidence they still won’t budge. Hopefully that changes here in a few years, when we get to see boots on the moon once again :)
The key point is that it was easier to send three people to the moon and bring them back than it was to fake the mission. Video technology was in its infancy and people today tend to not understand how primitive things were. My family had just got or were about to get our first colour TV. Second, trying to mimic 1/6 g would have been just about impossible as the best way to try and do this was to work underwater.
The fact we've never been back makes me believe we did go, if we didn't really go back then they'd want to have another stab with modern tech as the decades pass.
The reason they picked Armstrong is he was a super talented pilot, he certainty wasn't a great showman or even public relations guy. Much better guys there would be if that was the goal.
You missed another point about why the faking makes no sense. If landing wasn't possible and if they had successfully faked Apollo 11 and everyone bought it, why would they then go to all the trouble of faking not one but five more landings and a failed landing of Apollo 13? Each faked mission would increase the chances of being found out and the public had already started to lose interest. The goal would have already been achieved. It makes no sense at all. I think a lot of the faked landing conspiracy theorists aren't even aware that there were 6 landings. For me this is the most obvious reason that the faking theory is nonsense.
"That's exactly what they wanted you to think!" is an all-purpose rebuttal to any argument that some detail would make no sense to include as part of a fake. The unfalsifiability of it is superb.
@idkhonesty-78 Apollo 12 landed in October 1969. Apollo 13 had the accident and never got to land. Apollo 14 landed in February 1971. Apollo 15 with the first rover, landed in July/August 1971. Apollo 16, also with a rover, April 1972. Finally Apollo 17 with a rover, December 1972. 12 different men walked on the moon.
@idkhonesty-78 A lot of people are unaware of this. Especially conspiracy theorists. The talk of "the" moon landing. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions
They are of the globull warming generations that believe CO2....used by plants and trees to create oxygen....is an evil gas. They will believe anything because they have been taught what to think...not how to think.
@@alantasman8273most people that believe in the moon landing believe in global warming. You are no better than a flat earther or moon landing deniers if you're saying shit like that
I was alive when it happened, and I asked who placed the camera outside lander. As if you study models and drawings, no camera was ever described, not only that, but the hatch and leg don't match up unless you had camera on some stupidly long pole... TV cameras were also rather big ? I asked, why do people believe what they are seeing on TV... as we should believe all movies we have ever seen going by that.
Moon landing deniers' arguments are always "here's something I don't fully understand, or doesn't make sense to me, therefore it's fake" and never "here's this actual, documentary evidence of fakery on the part of NASA and all the contractors."
Well, combined with, "Some random person I don't know personally said.... So it must all be fake." It's always curious how one person might tell them, "radiation levels would have killed them..." and they believe that person, but not do their own research, or trust any other 'random person' that disagrees.
Here's some of your requested "actual, documentary evidence of fakery on the part of NASA": Quote: "Four days after Powers' disappearance, NASA issued a very detailed press release noting that an aircraft had "gone missing" north of Turkey. The press release speculated that the pilot might have fallen unconscious while the autopilot was still engaged, even falsely claiming that "the pilot reported over the emergency frequency that he was experiencing oxygen difficulties". To bolster this, a U-2 was quickly painted in NASA colors and shown to the media. Under the impression that the pilot had died and that the plane had been destroyed, the Americans had decided to use the NASA cover-up plan." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident
There are so many "how did they do this . . .?" The crazy thing is the answers are out there and the answers are really really interesting. Some of my favorites are: How did the astronauts call the White House? How did the film not dry out in a vacuum? How did the rover batteries not over heat? All of these questions have answers. All of the answers are really interesting.
I think the killer argument is really simple. The Russians never said they didnt. In fact the Russians congratulated the US and the astronauts. No need to explain photos' or any other so called "anomaly" Nothing else to be said.
Deniers don't think like that. If you say that to the Deniers, they'll say something like the usa and ussr are working together to make the space race believable because "they" told em to do so
Well said. I personally love the argument about how only a few people at the top knew it was faked. Try doing that at the Grumman factory! Where the guys on the factory floor would've had degrees in advanced engineering. Grumman helped win the war in the pacific against the mighty Japanese navy, went on to produce the F14 tomcat then popped out the LEM....some of the brightest minds on the planet.
It would take literal magic to keep the wool over everyones eyes, from the enemies of the nation as well as the numerous highly skilled and intelligent people.
All those engineers were kept so much in the dark that they didn't know they weren't supposed to actually build the spacecraft and land men on the Moon. Oops.
@@John_Smith_60 A little thing called "professional pride". They wouldn't have handed over a spacecraft that couldn't do the job....in the end, it would've been easier to go to the moon than to fake it.
This is such a curious topic. Part of Australia's National pride is the sheep farming town of Parkes in western New South Wales. They operated radio dishes to the moon mission and handed coordinates to and from Houston as each went in and out of contact. Both sides needed to be able to calculate the coordinates of Apollo 11 on its route to the moon in order to point the radio dishes in the right direction. Millions of amateurs were also pointing their radios in the right direction to follow the ship.
There's no helping most of the deniers. They could be sent to the moon and they'd still tear off their spacesuits in a vacuum to prove themselves "right."
@@JK-wn3cc they got pretty famous cause of the mistake. But nobody can deny that Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are the most famous names in space flight. Even the 3rd astronauts of apollo 11 is not nearly as much of a house hold name as those 2. And thats because they were the first 2 guys to ever walk on the moon. If it was the apollo 10 guys, then 2 of those guys would have been the household names everyone remembers. Even if you know nothing about space, you know those 2 names.
@@ericmcmanus5179I think they were just happy to know their work contributed to getting the next crew onto the surface. It's not like the crew of 10 set off on a mission to land but had to change plans and turn back. Their mission was to get so close to the surface. You're right, buzz and neil are the most famous, but all the others knew of their contribution and to me, I probably have a slight bit more admiration for the ones that did all that, but knew they would never be the ones to take the actual first step.
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
I can't wait for the final experiment. I doubt it will be final but I have another idea that you could do a lot more cheaply and could involve numerous flerfs with P1000 cameras. Let me know!
Is this professor dave? 💁🏽
Free money from the government not a good enough reason? Also, they are hiding the existence of the firmament and that we live in a created realm, created by GOD
@DaveMcKeegan You forgot a very important argument:
Not just the Russians but most technologically advanced nations were able to directly receive the radio, TV and data signals sent from the spacecrafts!
Not only this, but with triangulation and with doppler calculations, they were able to pinpoint their location and speed!!
Meaning: Other nations were able to check if the signals, the spacecraft were leaving earth in a realistic path and speed. If the spacecraft lands on the moon.
Today we are even able to see in detail how the descent unit approaches the surface, slows down, touches down, only by looking at the radio signals!
Perhaps this is a topic for an other video?
@@Sonnell You also forget the Russians were joining top secret American space operations collaborating building docking hatches to the same dimensions within a few years of the Moon Landings. Other nations were not quick to tell tales on their Allies just to score quick Clickbait lines of the day. And even today they wage war with each other albeit in Proxy fashion but still some how all agree on Space exploration 🤔
My brother is a moon denier. When I asked him why Russia wouldn’t reveal it was faked. His answer “Russia ain’t no snitch” well, there it is. He’s got us. Let’s pack it up.
How about telling him that China Korea Japan and India have all photographed Apollo sites
"Russia ain't no snitch"
**Gary Powers has entered the chat**
My brother cannot get past the fact our Astronauts flew through part of the Van Allen radiation belt. When I tell him we put down laser reflector panels, moonquake seismic equipment and other devices on the moon that have been used for generations to provide telemetry to the Earth, he cannot account for that.
The other excuse is the Russians were "in on it".
Ask him why a totalitarian, secretive, state censored society that could execute or imprison dissidents to the gulag on a whim without any consequence, never invited the worlds press to tour their rocket factories and witness launches and was desperate to get one over the capitalists, didn't fake a landing of its own ?
That dude has a "source at the Chinese Space Station command center" as much as I have a source at Starfleet.
The good ol' uncle who works at Nintendo😂
I seriously doubt they'd give Bart Sibrel the time of day, let alone any sort of actual information.
It's especially notable that Sibrel must be lying, since the Chinese did release pictures that they took from orbit of the Apollo landing sites.
He's that kid in the school yard boasting about his girlfriend that lives in Canada
@@fostena "Yeah guys, she's totally a super model!"
Yeah, you gotta believe the Chinese these days.
My favorite theory is that NASA hired Kubrick to film the fake landing, but he insisted on filming on location.
😂
OK then, we'll increase the budget.
Yeah, that is a good one. Makes just the right amount of mockery of the lackwits who claim it was faked.
Actually the real reason they had to film on location is Neil and Buzz were infamous method actors who insisted on filming in a vacuum.
Since it was determined to be too expensive to build a moon set inside a vacuum chamber they decided to land on the real moon instead.
@@zephyr8072
Damn prima donnas.
Especially since they have chosen the wrong guy. Kubrick was the director, Douglas Trumball did the effects.
The problem with fakery is that not only do you need to know how to fake something, you also would need to somehow futureproof it against future discoveries and forensics. This is how many faked videogame speedruns are caught, for example, when some new way to spot cheating is found out. It's impossible to prepare for eventualities you don't know yet.
Ditto, pics of angels & ghosts from decades ago
@@johnglennmercury7To be fair if they only spotted the fake 50 years later and you died 15 years prior to that its not that important anymore. For the faker.
When countries sent their craft to orbit the moon if the moon landings were fake would they have found nothing?
Why did NASA say they Lost the tapes fron Apollo and "Forgot" how to get to the moon?
That's enough for me. It was bogus
Well they did leave lots of glaring issues behind which causes doubt and the grainy footage doesn't help
If we were faking them all in a studio, why would we stop "going"? And wouldn't we be "landing men on Mars" by now?
Ah but, they aren't competent enough to have thought of that. Or something.
Yep. Basically. Why stop if you can keep faking it?
I would assume they had prototype copies of the lander for design purposes, probably did some training sessions of the camera equipment, etc, and probably did it all inside a NASA hangar... And it might have looked like faking it in a studio to people passing by, especially if there was some fake moon landscape built (for training, or maybe just for shits and giggles because engineers get bored).
I would assume the reason the "rumours" of faking it simply won't go away is because some elements of the design and training processes LOOKED like they were faking it to people not involved.
You should go to NASA's website and watch some of the moon landing videos they have there.
Those may have been state-of-the-art special effects back then, but nobody would fall for them today. Go watch some and see for yourself. There's a reason why NASA conveniently "lost" all the original footage.
They found another thing that can rob taxpayer money more efficiently ..WAR..... i think they will attempt to fake mars in the near future, but now they already get 50 million budget per day so no need to rush anything
Reasons
You didn't even mention the amateur radio enthusiasts across the globe who followed the ascend of the Apollo 11 rocket. Since it was broadcasting, it was easy enough to triangulate its position. There you have it: independent, real-time verification from just hobbyists that had nothing to do with either the USA or the USSR.
this is the thing. there is SOOO much evidence that they went there that you cant list them all. LoL.
But you are missing the point. Since the deniers didn't actually do it themselves, the amateurs are just part of the NASA conspiracy.
They orbited the moon without landing.
@@dreamdiction Correct, that was Apollo 10. The subsequent missions they landed. Slow and careful steps because space travel is incredibly dangerous and incredibly expensive.
@@nickryan3417 They never landed, they were overwhelmed by the technical challenges of landing.
Amazing how some people think that everything about space is fake. . . except the Van Allen Belt!
@@daryllyew62 And ask them who Van Allen was and how he discovered the belt and they show their ignorance. He was working with NASA!
@@MartinWillett best question ever.. I will try with my fellow french consparicy theorists 😅😅😅😅
Lol. Yep
Spot on! 😂
You mix different subgroup of people together
My dad was one of THOUSANDS of engineers, designers, and craftspeople who worked on Apollo 11. Keeping all of those people silent? Faking the landing would be WAY harder than just going.
It must be awesome to have someone in your family with direct experience with Apollo.
400,000 employees in total. If it had been faked, there's no way that it wouldn't have got out.
Yes, and the hardest to keep quiet would have been the hard charging astronauts. These guys were achievers who had risen to the top of competitive programs more than once just to become astronauts.
Knowing that the most consequential achievement of their lives was a hoax would have badly affected all of them. Sooner or later, one or more would have just said, f this, I'm out, I cannot live like this, and spilled the beans. Yet none of them ever exhibited any signs of hiding anything. They were proud of what they'd accomplished, happy to discuss it, if perhaps some became a little tired of it eventually.
Most would have demanded to go back to active military flight status and served in Vietnam as soon as they learned Apollo was a hoax. Again, none tried leave the program.
Obviously it wasn't a hoax.
My father was a civil engineer doing structural stress testing on the first stage of the Saturn V and the Apollo 11 capsule. His stories were gold. If it was faked, they had half a million engineers fooled too. They accomplished it because no one told them they couldn’t.
First, I HIGHLY doubt the moon landings were faked, but I am familiar with conspiracies. Not everybody that is part of a conspiracy even knows they are part of a conspiracy. Operation Ajax and PBSuccess for example. Even those that do discover they were duped into a conspiracy and try to blow the whistle, they are typically disbelieved. Trust me of this as I have been duped into a conspiracy.
Ugh, it all comes down to "I don't understand it so it never happened." These are the people who use smart phones and computers every day, which basically none of us understand. They will never admit they're wrong, but that's OK because I always learn something new from your videos!
@@gl15col Do you understand how they got a camera there before any astronauts?
@@DeusSalis "Do you understand how they got a camera there before any astronauts?"
Why are you asking a question which people have already answered for you?
@@DeusSalisIf you’re referring to how they got video of Neil Armstrong stepping foot on the moon. The camera was attached to the outside of the LM.
@@TJ-W prove it
You seem pretty stuck up for someone who probably doesn't bother to actually critically think about these things.
So, we went to the moon to fake going to the moon? Well done flerfs!
It's like the old joke that they had Kubrick fake the moon landings, but he was such a stickler for authenticity that he insisted on shooting on location.
@@jhonbus He did shoot on location. As long as that location was in the UK.
@@Green_Tea_Coffee No, quite familiar with the joke, which is why I linked it too his hatred of flying, which is why most of his films were shot in the UK.
@@farmersboy Ah. Should have been more explicit about his hatred of flying.
- Americans never went to the Moon!
- But what's with all the stuff and traces that are left there and were filmed later by LRO and Chinese?
- They put it there on purpose!
- Who?
- Americans! Are you dumb or what?
Apart from the obvious Soviet argument, the two biggest arguments in favor of the genuineness of the moon landings are:
1. The details of the Apollo 11 mission are so coherent that if they didn't do it, they certainly had the theoretical and technological resources to do so. The mission was launched at the right time, with adequate means to get there, the moon was in the right position, it took the amount of time one could predict it would, and all the observations made by the astronauts correspond to verifiable conditions of the time. Faking a mission that you are capable of not faking just doesn't make sense.
2. Some of the observed data in the moon landings did not correspond to the scientific predictions of the time. It was expected that the moon would be covered in a thick and perhaps perilously deep layer of loose lunar dust, given the theorized age of the moon and the lack of wind. There was a potential risk that any craft would simply sink when it landed on the moon. This did not happen, and mainstream science was practically shocked at how shallow the moon dust was. If we had never made it to the moon, this sort of contrast between expectations and reality would not have happened.
Also, the retro reflectors left behind on the surface. You can shoot a laser towards them today and measure the exact distance.
@@germansnowman Arguably they could be left by a probe, so not a 100% sure thing there. Better to use the argument that at least 100K of the millions of people involved in both NASA and all the contracting agencies would have to be bought off because they would have information that would out some aspect of the program as being impossible. They would all have to be silent forever, and that just doesn't happen with that many people.
@@germansnowman 🤎 I live at only 10miles from the only Observatory in France.. where they can shoot the laser right to the moon. Its in Calern.. and btw.. some of the reflectors on the moon came from this observatory.. and they give it to Nasa before the Apollo Missions. (Sorry for my english)
@@Grafixart That’s amazing, and your English is great! (Non-native speaker here too)
I manage a team that is working on a lunar technology demonstrator for NASA. I also worked on a proposal for a module on Lunar Gateway. Both of these efforts rely on a ton of data from the Apollo missions. I'm curious if these moon landing deniers think if I'm in on it or if they think that in addition to filming things on a soundstage, that NASA also fabricated enormous amounts of data, telemetry, and analysis that is is remarkably self-consistent. For the former, what a fun accusation! For the latter, that many orders of magnitude more people to coordinate a cohesive story with and keep quiet.
The fact that all the moon footage (when they’re outside anyway) is filmed in a vacuum is undeniable. What is also undeniable is that believe it or not building a vacuum chamber big enough to fit a soundstage is a bigger engineering challenge than actually going to the friggin moon (and making it back).
And the impossibility of simulating 1/6 earth gravity.
Bloody this!! All it takes is a basic school level knowledge of physics and you watch the moon dust being thrown up by the wheels of the vehicle coming back down instantly in a perfect parabolic arc with no dispersal. That is not possible here on Earth, and there was no camera trickery back then that could have replicated this effect, while cgi didn't exist yet.
What IS deniable is that anyone ever returned from the moon. They transmitted the video and lived another hour or so, that was it
A colleague of mine claims Neil Armstrong himself said in an interview that it was all faked, but when I asked him to show me the interview, he can’t…
What we have here is evidence that making shit up is very easy. Fun fact, your brain makes many details up when you try to remember things. The more you try, the higher the portion of newly constructed conceptualization instead of contemporary memory.
Every conversation with moon deniers and flat Earthers involves them claiming a large amount of evidence that they can not then produce.
When tasked with providing evidence... they all say the same thing: "Why should I do your work for you?" or "Do your own research!"
Maybe it’s because if he attempted to show it to you, the armed Antarctic penguins would shoot him!!😅😅😅
It's called *Brandolini's Law,* but it's also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle.
A fake would've been ONE mission, and the astronauts would've unfortunately died from 'moon germs' while in quarantine so it would never be repeated.
Oh man, imagine the quatantine shutdowns they could enact.
"we have no idea what this outer-space disease is and we don't know how to stop it. Shut the world down, shut it all down!"
Exactly.
they did die... they faked the part of them returning. The footage of armstrong and aldrin, though real, is the last moments of their lives
There was a video that came out some time ago where a guy ran down the type of camera gear and filming methods that were used to capture the moon landing while also looking at the available movie special effects that were being used during that period. He proved that even with the best conditions, it was impossible to fake the floaty motion of the astronauts while they bounded about on the moon surface nor was it possible to fake the way the moon dust kicked up and settled.
In short, in 1969 we had the technology to go to the moon. But we didn't have the technology to fake it.
That is true.
But the excuse for the deniers is simply "NASA had secret more advanced technology than the rest of the world".
Of course they cannot prove this claim.
I love the ones that insist it's all CGI.
Computer graphics state of the art at the time being ASCII art via line printer.
Its available on the VideoFromSpace channel.
There was no video. You lie.
@@Bob-sk6xq OK, two people speak of the video. I've heard of it myself, but honestly never saw it.
So, if anyone is a liar, it'd be you, booby.
These people act like 1969 was the Stone Age. It’s so irritating. Technology wasn’t as perfected as now, but it still existed lmao
Exactly. These poor guys think that the 1960's were the technological dark ages.
The world has nuclear submarines, ICBMs and computers by then.
They think that computers weren't complex enough to handle orbital navigation, but were complex enough to generate photorealistic CGI in realtime for broadcast television and archival use.
The entire software that helped the moon landing are able to fit in your phone without taking any storage. Technology back then are still impresive
That's because they have Stone Age brains...
@ESPLTD322 Tell them the British Empire of the 19th Century was achieved by their Navy navigating the globe with precision of less than a mile using a sextant, ship's clock, and nautical charts. They had global economic trading routes without GPS.
It will blow their minds.
"why don't they ever go back?"
People who believe its fake don't understand we've been back 6 times.
That and NASA's budget got axed by fools who ended up fighting dead-end wars for no reason other than ego-boosting.
And sadly some of their once trusted contractors have decayed to the point of being pathetic, Boeing in particular, but it's nice to see new options pushing forward like SpaceX (Elon is an idiot but I still like SpaceX), Sierra Nevada Space (Dream Chaser deserves Boeing's wasted funding), and Rocketlab.
Certainly hope Canada's own space agency gets more funding to help support this or even launch our own missions, we have the engineers we just need to get parliament to stop blowing our tax money on themselves
Mention Artemis to them and they break down and say "they will fake that aswell". They wont change
@@UNSCPILOTisn’t nasa doing deep ocean research more or that’s what one of their bigger projects going to the deeps of the oceans
The space shuttle is the biggest reason NASA hasn't gone to the moon since the early 70s. That soaked up the manned space flight budget and couldn't leave Earth orbit.
@@therealuncleowen2588 We also have to consider that there isn't a real cost-effective reason to go back to the moon at large scale. Don't get me wrong - I've always been a big supporter of space exploration and colonization, but in recent months I've come to realize that it's not very practical. For example, there are dangerous environments here on Earth that are chock-full of resources, but only a handful of people go there - the ocean floors, for example, were once considered a prime location for human settlement many decades ago, but that never panned out. Space is far more dangerous, going there is for more difficult and the resources are far more scattered. I'd imagine that if we do eventually begin to exploit the resources in the solar system, it will be done by robots and a handful of hearty people.
I head a joke a while ago. NASA hired Stanley Kuebrich to fake the moon landing videos. But he was such a stickler for realism that he had the videos made on location.
Kubrick
This wasn’t clever the first 20 times it’s been said in these comments. Real knee-slappers….
You cant even spell his name
@@CashMullen-ng4sr A spelling flame. How childish.
@@colincampbell767 anyone who tells an asinine joke like this has no business calling anyone childish. Seriously, read the joke. If you think that’s clever… you’re just a dullard. Imagine a comic saying this… there’d be total silence except for 2 dimwits giving a courtesy fake chuckle.
My argument: If NASA is capable and willing to fake great achievements, they'd have another one by now 😂
And if NASA could fake it, other space-capable nations would have as well. The Soviet Union, for example, would have no reason what-so-ever to abandon going to the moon if they could have faked it. Or, if it could prove fakable, they also had no reason at all to not expose the fakery.
iswydt 😅
Mine is similar: If NASA faked the Moon landing, why stop? We could have had fake space stations in the late 70s, Lunar colonies in the early 80s, crewed missions to Mars in the late 80s, and surely Martian colonies by now.
Yeah. In fact, Challenger and Columbia come to mind for the extreme other side.
NASA doesn't even need to try and pretend this happened anymore, they have a whole army of brainwashed boomers to do it for them.
"The Moon landing was fake."
"Oh, you're one of those people that thinks the Moon is real?"
That'll twist 'em into knots.
They unironically think the Moon Isn't real tho.
The russians invited armstrong to russia in 1970 to do a lecture tour on the landings.
@@davehoward22 they also gave Hillary Clinton billions of dollars
Just goes to prove that both sides were run by the same people behind the scenes.
Detente. Gotta love it.
@@MattyEngland No. Fvck no. It means you are clueless if you believe that.
@@Johnboy33545 Sorry johnboy, the whole cold war was a psyop designed to keep both populations living in fear, well at the same time allowing the elite families to embezzle hundreds of billions of dollars from both sides.
We're living in times where more and more people think that because I don't understand something, then it has to be fake. Yet those people usually have absolutely no idea how anything around them actually work - despite being able to operate them.
The sad fact is that the internet is making a lot of people more retarded. They believe click baiters instead of basic science.
Exactly, I don't understand how some people just refuse to believe what's on the tv. Some people did not believe in the "safe and effective" narrative. Crazy conspiracy theorysts.
Which is a good thing. If you claim something is true, say, for example "Russia hacked out election", then you provide NO DETAILS as to how it was hacked, what you mean by "hacked", what specifically was done, I'll dismiss your claim. People without detailed technical knowledge (I'm an engineer), SHOULD dismiss claims when there's nobody out there that will explain and challenge their questions. The problem our society has is that we blindly trust authority WAY too much.
Barely able operate them, you mean!! vis-a-vi video cassette recorders. Setting the clock was an insurmountable hurdel
I know exactly how natural immunity works, and I saw a bunch of people pretend it didn't exist. People who don't have confidence in their own ability to understand are pathetic.
You forgot a very important argument:
Not just the Russians but most technologically advanced nations were able to directly receive the radio, TV and data signals sent from the spacecrafts!
Not only this, but with triangulation and with doppler calculations, they were able to pinpoint their location and speed!!
Meaning: Other nations were able to check if the signals, the spacecraft were leaving earth in a realistic path and speed. If the spacecraft lands on the moon.
Today we are even able to see in detail how the descent unit approaches the surface, slows down, touches down, only by looking at the radio signals!
Perhaps this is a topic for an other video?
I remember seeing something on television {or maybe here on TH-cam} about the radio telescope at Jodrell Bank in the UK picking up transmissions from the astronauts descending towards the lunar surface.
Their equipment was so sensitive -- which I found amazing, although it seems perfectly logical -- that they could measure the rate of descent of the Lunar Module by the Doppler shift in the radio frequency of the transmissions.
@@Allan_aka_RocKITEman exactly
Also, some had contracts from NASA to do it. The MSFN needed large dishes around the world so as to maintain contact with the various spacecraft when the US had the earth in the way of their own stations. It is beyond belief that every one of these foreign sub-contractors were so corrupt as to cooperate with a conspiracy or so technically incompetent to understand that the signals they were relaying could only be from a point-source on the Sea of Tranquillity:)
Lol, all former British empire and NATO countries are run by the same people behind the scenes. Hardly a surprise they tried to back up the nonsense claimed by the CIA
Radio and satellite can work without the need to even leave earth low orbit
Faking is in fact way more difficult than actually going to the Moon.
No its not
@finnz7786 maybe it is easy now but not in 1969
Bart Sibrel: The Chinese are blackmailing NASA to get their technology
Also Bart Sibrel: NASA cant get to the moon because they dont have good technology
UMMM honestly the nutter conspiracy theorist who was a film director ! 🤣🤣😜😜
Bart Sibrel is a complete idiot.
@@gowdsake7103........ you did not refute with evidence what Merrell Smith said. All you did was make a joke. Ummm...ummm ?
The U.S. has superior Velcro and Tang technology.
I'm a little late to the party, but that stood out to me right away. NASA couldn't get to the moon, so the USSR blackmailed NASA for tech that didn't work. RIiiiiiight. That makes sense /s
10:55 - man, when you can't even get **Joe Rogan** on board with your conspiracy theory, it's time to give up.
I'm pretty sure Rogan is a moon landing denier. He just actually followed up on a question/claim there, which is so rare it makes him look rational for once.
@@bobbyellis5006 I think he has said he once believed it was a hoax but has now changed his mind.
@@davidmurphree6020he's said both. He does argue for both sides. He usually is pretty strong on things he believes. But that seems to be one he's not denying, he's just arguing both sides.
@@NintenDub yeah literally the day I posted that I listened to him and he was back on the "didn't happen because radiation" thing.
Guy is a grade A moron who can be convinced of almost anything.
someone told me that the moon landing was staged, and I told them that is how rockets work and they shut up real quick
I convinced one denier with this quick retort- “why haven’t we gone back? Because there’s no money to be made there.”
His mistrust of greedy government made more sense to him.
If that’s the case, then there is also no reason to even send rovers to mars
@@michaelthomas9020 I’m not saying it makes sense, I was just playing into his own prejudices and paranoia.
We havent gone back because we have lost the technology to do it 🤣🤣Statement by NASA
@@SMB96 because rockets are disposable. If you want to go back you need to build another rocket
@@planetmaker3472 smartest Moon landing believer right there
i love how faking the moon landing convincingly is harder than actually landing on the moons in the first place
At the time yes, now with the over abundance of CGI we can get that.
🤨. The thrust in atmosphere vs gas mass ejection in a vacuum is millions of lbs of thrust vs hundreds of grams thrust .
Anything that leaves earth at escape velocity doesnt have the gas mass ejection fuel onboard to ever slow down from escape velocity . The ship would scale up to big to leave earth if it carries the necessary fuel to scrub off 11km a sec velocity .
To reach escape velocity the craft needed extra tanks they discard , in space they have a puny gas mass ejection thruster + limited fuel to undo that ^^^ enormous reaction that was pushing off thick soupy atmosphere.
every trip is 1 way . Every trip is a high speed crash unless people at your destination meet you in space + slow you down.
The host + all earths engineers cant argue with this ^^^^ its a fact a ten year old could work out .
Well I heard that they got Stanley Kurbirk to fake the moon landing but for authenticity he insisted on filming on location
@TheCraigy83 as you get higher, the atmosphere gets thinner thus the thrust required becomes less.
Rockets do not propel by pushing off off a "solid" surface, they propel by the fact that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, the exhaust being ejected from the rocket nozzle pushes the rocket forward regardless of air or lack thereof.
The command module also used the moons gravity to help it slow down for lunar orbital injection, and they used the earth's gravity to help get them back home.
@@brucethen the crafts earth rockets are optimised to push off atmosphere its necessary to reach escape velocity low down while they still have a ''back stop '' to push off because as you say thrust becomes less as the ''back stop '' / air gets thinner .
The moons pull is puny / 1/6th earth. the craft is going too fast and it will be further accelerated slighty by the moon on approach lol.
they'll simply fly right past it and cant add ANY turn values at 11km a second without suffering horrendous G lock injuries..
Its pull will have almost no effect at slowing the craft ,it will just undo what velocity it added on approach ! and they'll be out of its reach long before it has any real effect .
the crew **already added the velocity to comfortably escaped a bigger pull /earths 6x times more pull so the moons 1/6th is irrelevant** ... They cant begin an orbiting turn at 11km a sec without dying.. Moon doesn't have the pull to force orbit the craft..
*You need magic to happen for something from earth to land safely on the moon* .
The biggest photographic evidence of the veracity of the lunar missions, at least to my mind, was the shots of one astronaut skipping and jumping under lunar gravity - something that would have been impossible to replicate on earth under 1g. Their other movements would have also been significantly different when trying to film in the same shots.
Because of the movement of the lunar dust and not the astronauts. We could fake the actual movements of the astronauts, it would probably look a little too consistent, but until relatively recently we would have had no way to fake the movement of the dust.
@@davidlewis5929 Even now that requires cutting edge technology and might not look like it did in reality. And it would be fairly questionable to why then make multiple missions. Because if you fake only one moon landing you wouldn't risk any inconsistencies. Given that we had multiple moon landings this also means that the faking had to be done consistently. That is really hard to do without having actual knowledge how lunar regolith behaves. And obviously you would have to prepare samples of fake material that would believably be from the moon and has properties that would make your footage believeable.
Faking a moonlanding would have been really hard without being on the moon. Because we did now send multiple probes to the moon and they did took actual samples and stuff (Non-flat earth deniers mostly deny manned missions, not unmanned ones). So the US would have to know how the moon behaves and how the material on the moon behaves without being there to make it consistent with material and data retrieved in the future.
So the only way to fake a moonlanding would be by performing a moonlanding first to know the exact properties of its surface and the conditions on the moon.
Yep, having the moon dust fly off in strictly ballistic arches under vacuu and reduced gravity was definitely impossible to fake at that time and would have posed a much bigger challenge than “adding in the stars” - and there you go, that shows exactly the naivety of the moon landing deniers thinking.
Truth is consistent in other aspects too if one has enough expertise. For example the lighting on the moon gives it away: it’s not hard to recognize that parallel, hard shadows in combination with an evenly lit area foreground to background is impossible to pull off using one or more local studio lightsources.
Local lightsources will give you diverging shadows and a noticeable light falloff.
If one would try to compensate the light falloff using more lights you get multiple shadows or even soft shadows plus multiple specular highlights. None of such studio telltale signs is ever seen on the Apollo footage.
For me it’s the audio; throughput the missions, there is an unparalleled excitement and joy when the astronauts land on the moon. Buzz and Neil were certainly the most stoic having been the first to land on the moon, but their heart rates were 150 and 110 respectively. And on 12, Conrad and Alan L Bean were both stoked once they touched down. They were still navy men and test pilots, not actors, so everything they expressed was genuine
There is footage from one of the lunar missions -- I cannot remember which one -- which shows one of the astronauts 'hopping' right past the American flag. The flag DID NOT MOVE. {This may have happened on multiple Apollo missions, I just remember seeing it on this one.}
He was so close to the flag as he passed it, if it had been filmed in a studio with an atmosphere, the flag WOULD HAVE MOVED.
Proof.
watch, flat earthers are gonna take a clip from 9:08 out of context and go "look, astronauts said the LM couldn't land on the moon!"
I guarantee it.
@nipcoyote1140 Listen furry, you don't have to be a flat earther to question 55 year old Moon landings
Flerfs sure do like to chop up quotes to suit their needs.
@@nipcoyote1140 similar to NAFO celebrating taking a village when UKR just lost 5 cities
@@DeusSalisof course, but there's definitely a common denominator (it's stupidity)
@@DeusSalisDid Columbus travel to the New World or is America just a gigantic hoax? I don't think the USA exists.
Imagine a country where so many deny their own greatest achievement and one of the people trying to become the next leader thinks immigrants are eating their neighbour's dogs and cats.
Prove to me America exists. I reserve the right to ignore any "facts" that don't fit my predetermined world view
2:18 sponsor skip button
Thanks
❤
Thank you man
The Moon Landing Deniers watched the film Capricorn One and thought it was a documentary.
I wonder what all the people involved in that film think of it being seen as some sort of revelation about the "real space programme"? The movie was supposed to be a way for Hollywood to get in on the popularity of the US space programme.
It was a good movie though. I still get a queasy feeling whenever I see two helicopters flying close together.
Great flick!
@@deedubya286 Why are you getting queasy about obviously fake footage? Those were not real helicopters flying that close. It was made in post-production to look like that.
anteshell For the same reason that people cry when Sam picks up Frodo to carry him up the mountain, even though hobbits aren't real.
Two of the funniest things I've ever seen were Bart Sibrel getting decked by Buzz Aldrin and kicked in the ass by Edgar Mitchell.
Bart was my neighbor in the mid 90s. None of us knew anything about his crazy conspiracy theories. He never once mentioned them. You can imagine my surprise when, years later, I saw Bart on youtube getting punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin! 😅
I wouldn't normally condone violence, but I'm definitely with Buzz on this one.
He was on an episode of Joe Rogan recently. Sibrel became a meme right after. Every time Joe asked him to explain or for proof he just directed everyone to his website. Like 29 times during the program
@DavidSmith-vr1nb The courts were with Buzz too when Sibrel tried to sue Buzz over it.
The question about the Flat Earth narrative "making sense" is a wrong one per se.
Yes and no. Nothing, will change the mind of die-heart flat earthers, NOTHING. The better target for this kind of videos and arguments, are the ones on the fence, that might be exploring, and think flat earth might seem appealing, but haven't quite decided yet
@@GummieI This is because a flerfer cannot imagine or comprehend something larger than the human scale or human experience. What they cannot comprehend they will simply ignore, finding theories that fit their own narrative while denying evidence to the contrary. Feel sorry for the flerfer because they are so closed minded that they lost imagination.
Saw a video of an interview of a flat earther in a radio studio, and the flat earther showed his cognitive dissonance by making the 3 following contradictory claims:
1) we have never been to the moon
2) we go to the moon all the time
3) the moon is just a projection
Ask them the unanswerable question - why can you see the North Star from South of the equator? On a flat Earth every latitude should see the same stars in the same places at the same time.
I still wait a simple answer for a person who can understand speed and velocity....
Explain how a rail gun works on a globe...
A standard shell is fired by a trajectory because at a certain point it looses it's speed and starts to fall back down to earth... let's say it's start speed is 800 mph, it starts slowing down very quickly, this is why it falls back to the ground.
But a rail gun fires at approximately mach 8 ... it hits a target at around 200 miles in seconds.. it is travelling so fast that it does not have time to fall to earth like a standard shell... its fired by direct line of sight.. it has no fins to correct its flight..
So explain how that works if the missile had to follow the curve of a ball.... its impossible.
So who's going to explain something stunning first..
I'm not into flat or round. I'm into understanding facts, as told by science people. It can't work both ways...
The reason why they don't go back to the moon is because the cost is astronomical.
The fake moon landing crap really pisses me off- such a lack of respect for all of the amazing engineers and scientists who made this incredible feat possible.
To disrespect all those special effects and all the effort they put into faking that mess is completely inexcusable.
@@Lord_Volknergood one good one. They always mistakenly think that they are scientists just becuase they believe in moon landing
@@Lord_Volkner Please go back and try again at kindergarten. Flunking elementary schooling is not a badge of honor.
@@nickryan3417says the one who failed math
Edit; wrong person.
@@Lord_Volknerand yet you can't demonstrate what special effects are needed...
Regarding Rogan's idea that NASA would fake the footage if something happened to the camera: That did happen in Apollo 12. One of the astronauts pointed the (new) colour TV camera directly at the sun and fried the sensor. Why didn't NASA roll out their fake backup footage and pretend the screw-up didn't happen?
Likewise, why was Apollo 13 not "successful" if they had a fake backup filmed (and had the intent to use it) for just such an occasion.
Likewise, regarding having the fake mission be Apollo 10, instead of 11: Why not Apollo 8, even?
is it bEcAuSe they wAZ dOUbLe-bLufFinG?
Apollo 12’s fake landing camera snafu was faked specifically so that no one would accuse them of faking the footage.
Apollo 13’s accident was faked to boost ratings in order to get more funding for more fake landinngs because NASA operates by ouroboros logic.
Finally, Apollo 8 wasn’t faked because the Reptoid Overlords who oversaw the fake missions to protect the location of their secret moon city and puppy farm consider numbers 1 to 9 to be unlucky. DUH.
Also, how can someone fake the launches of the Saturn itself? Whenever it launched, windows broke miles away, and 1,500 km away from the launch-site, seismometers in New York City registered tremors
Ah, but did you personally experience this yourself, or were you told this by a trusted individual that you know without any doubt that they weren't paid to support "the narrative?" :P
That's the crux of their issue. They didn't experience it themselves, they don't understand how it happened, so it's easier for them to believe that it didn't and the entire world is lying to them. Pretty sure that's a form of diagnosable psychosis...
The launches were real, the rockets just fell into the ocean after they did their job faking people.
~ conspiracy logic
@@khandimahn9687 technically, the rockets did fall into the ocean, just not all at once
(Stages 1 & 2 falling to earth after their separation)
My parents took me to see Apollo 16 launch {we lived in St. Petersburg, Florida}.
I REMEMBER SEEING IT.
"The moon landings were fake and never happened, because I'm to stupid and willfully ignorant to do even the most perfunctory research." 😂
I love when actual visual effects experts all agree that there's no way to recreate the lighting without a CGI light source and that it would be literally impossible to fake the footage at that time
Faking it that first time went sooo well they thought "what the hell lets fake it five more times"...... Right?
You make it sound like a porn movie.
Fake it five times *and* fake a disaster that needs to abort!
I brought that up in a comment on a moon landing deniers youtube video.
His response: "That's the way it is, the more times you tell a lie to the public the easier it is for them to to believe it...." 😐
@alfinpogform4774 And the irony of that response escaped him.
@doomsdayrabbit4398 seriously, why fake Apollo 13??
Utterly impossible to fake 6 moon landings when a space-capable rival nation could easily detect the deception.
And even if they had been able to successfully fake them 50ish years ago, they would have been roundly debunked as fake once other countries started orbiting the moon.
Well you see, despite being at a cold war with other super powered nations. They where actually allies and did this because... globe sales... save the economy?
yeah they'd have known and would not have kept it a secret
@@joeg5414....... in World War II America outsmarted some of the most brilliant military minds with simple inflatable tanks. Plus in the 1960s NASA could not have imagined that 30/40/50 years later every household would have a computer that could dissect photos, videos, and audio.
Look at the deal made about Antarctica everybody agree no one can claim it or claim territory and it was sign by both friendly and enemy nations why? See when there is bigger stake it will happened
My favorite part of the moon hoaxers "theory" is that it requires NASA to be simultaneously ludicrously competent so as to successfully simulate three different space programs (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo) wirh three different spacecraft and rockets, but then at the same time be so comically inept that they include things like flags waving in the breeze, obvious fake rocks, and shitty, cheap looking fake spacecraft in the videos.
And amazingly, only a few random scientifically illiterate guys on YT are smart enough to see this "obvious fakery". 😂
If they faked Apollo 11 and got away with it, why risk getting found out on the following six missions?
If you get away with the perfect murder, don't repeat it!
Robots can be sent, people don't think humans made it there
@@us3rG , robots were sent. Getting a human to set foot on the moon was a major PR prize. The Russians beat the Americans launching the first satellite and then the first human into space. In the days of the cold war, there was no way they were going to let 'those commies' beat them putting the first footprint on the moon
@@us3rGdid you watch the video?
@@us3rG Elon Musk's robot? The guy in the catsuit?
Same for religion, people are stupid. You can repeat as many times as you want.
Youd think by now the dog would be an astrophysics genius😀
Perhaps he was even beforehand 😉
Dave has learned everything from rusty actually. He is just a translator
Dogs are smart. I watched a documentary yesterday about the first British expedition to moon when Wallace and his dog Grommit (who studies electronics for dogs) made the trip to Moon to gather cheese to their crackers.
@@K_End
This actually makes sense. Explains how a failed photographer can become some “expert” Physicist and Rocket Scientist overnight.
@@DaveMcKeegan
Dave, are you planning to continue your Brilliant streak while (whilst) performing your Antarctica 24 hr sun Final Experiment duties? Cheers!
The broadcast from the moon was continuous without cuts and live, viewed all over the world, and many hours long .... doing this without cuts from a prerecorded film or tape was simply not possible in 1969 ...
Film and other recording media was not long enough.
Well it could have been done if they were desperate enough... Huge film reels. Overlapping projectors to switch between. It would be possible, but just not easy. Or worth the hassle if you're putting someone on the moon for real.
I was lucky enough to be sitting in front of the TV during those live broadcasts - man I feel old!
@@tin2001 Theoretically possible though that would add to the conspiracy as Kodak (or whomever) would have to manufacture those crazy big reels and the equipment to record and play back the reels.
As a practical matter, if they faked it, they would've just made the moonwalk 20 minutes long, "for safety purposes," which would seem very very reasonable at that time.
False
“The Soviets first sent a dog into space, and here on my lap I have a dog… all other arguments are thusly invalid.”
The most interesting proof I heard from an unrelated documentary about Jodrell Bank was that a couple of scientists that had Dish time booked for their project at the precise time that the Apollo 11 descent was about to take place, out of curiosity they pointed the dish at the moon and heard all the transmissions from the crew (they were unable to hear ground control) including the tense moments after the 60 seconds call before the “contact light” and engine stop, they then clapped and congratulated with each other before getting on with their proper work.
While many radio telescopes where rented by NASA as relay stations for Houston Jodrell Bank wasn’t one of them, so this was very much a spur of the moment thing as the telescope was usually employed in some ground breaking scientific research.
There were also a number of amateur ham radio operators that were able to listen in on the Apollo transmissions as well.
Nonsense. More hearsay and no evidence. Fairytale.
@@MattyEngland
Grow up!
Easily fakable by sending signal to one of satillite and it repeat the signal.
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266
LOL!
Also why fake a failed mission in Apollo 13 if they faked two successful missions previously to cast suspicion on the first two missions.
And then continue to fake more and more, not logical 👍🏾👍🏾
This is the most compelling reason. Every mission they faked, there would be more chance of being exposed, and for absolutely no benefit. People were bored of the missions by the end, only the Apollo 13 crisis got good ratings.
I personally saw Apollo 17 take off. That mother was real. The ground shook miles away from the pad.
Because public interest in the space program was dwindling (the public was tired of paying for it). The Apollo 13 drama re-energized that interest. Apollo 13 would have been the last ... had it not been for that drama. The Apollo 13 drama show bought them 100s of millions of dollars that they would not otherwise have gotten.
Do u have idea how much taxpayer money they can siphon into their pocket every single time they fake more mission
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 Not nearly as much as can be made by engaging in a war and paying defense contractors gobs of money for weaponry, and there's no need to go to the effort of having to fake something as complicated as a moon landing.
12 dimensional chess, man
So, not one alleged hoax fact has EVER been substantiated. That alone means it's almost certain that it did happen.
Every claim moon landing deniers have ever made has been debunked, yes. They have zero evidence it was fake, vs. us with overwhelming proof that it's real.
Case closed.
More than that, it only takes one piece of incontrovertible evidence that the landings did take place to render the entire "fake moon landing conspiracy" idea null and void. The pictures of the landing sites from other lunar orbiters are pretty darned close to providing that evidence...
That's not how it works... A failure to substantiate a "fact" does not automatically give the other side a win. It is the plethora of actual substantiated evidence proving that the moon landings are real is what shows that they actually happened!
Not a single director, gaffer, camera operator, editor, CG artist, set decorator, makeup artist, prop master, producer, costume designer, caterer, or best boy has ever stepped forward to claim they helped to fake the moon landings.
@user-ky5dy5hl4d [citation needed]
As Apollo was leaving the Earth, other countries were following the space craft LIVE.
You can just tell it wasn’t faked by how one of the US’s greatest enemies even till this days didn’t and still hasn’t ever tried to dispute that the landings happened.
Another interesting point about Apollo 10, they DID discover a problem with the LM. When they descended to about 50000 ft and then separated from the descent stage, they had a problem and the ascent stage tumbled around for a few moments. It turned out to be some 'glitch' with switch alignment and the guidance system after seperation. So it was probably a good thing they were 50000 feet up when it happened. Imagine if the lander was taking off from the surface and started 'tumbling' around just a few feet from the surface.
I didn't know that. Thanks!
The fact that tens of thousands of people would have to keep a secret for 60-odd years, beggars belief, but here we are.
They're all sworn to secrecy upon threat of (what, exactly?), but a relatively small handful of goobs on the internet can freely/openly discuss it at length, but no guys/gals in black suits, sunglasses, and 007-grade communication devices ever come to visit and "have a sit-down"??? Sure thang!
More like HUNDREDS of thousands of people....
@@az8theist977 I looked it up, there where 400k people that worked on Apollo 11 alone. So not only did the US have to fool the russians and chineese during a cold war with spies everywhere. but all of these people as well. so either Nasa and the U.S. Government are so god tier with their coverup skills. or it actually happened.
They want to believe such BS out of some egotistical need to have an "edge" over others. Seriously. They're that delusional.
I commented to correct you on “beggars belief” but then double checked and it checks out. Was not familiar with that phrase.
Faking it back then was almost impossible with the equipment to do so of that time
Indian lunar probe Chandrayaan photographed the apollo 11 and 12 area in good detail. They are there.
Take a careful look at it and you will find that it is different than the photoshpped nasa version,
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 Take a good look in the mirror. Recognise that you are a failure and go back and try not to flunk kindergarten this time.
@@theeraphatsunthornwit6266 So NASA photoshopped the lunar landing sites in the 1960s, but then snuck the lunar module, reflectors, moon rover, etc. onto the surface afterwards, because they knew India was going to fly over the landing site and photograph it?
@@Green_Tea_Coffee Yes, they faked putting stuff on the moon by putting stuff on the moon. It's about the level of argument I'd expect from someone who thinks we never landed on the moon.
@@Green_Tea_Coffee several countries claim to place reflector on the moon. So, stop using that as a reason already.
moon rover? Nasa told you 1 pixel on the photo is a rover and you believe them?
I have to disagree that The US was significantly "behind" the Soviets technologically. Even at the start they were at worst only a few months to maybe a year behind in most areas of development, and a lot of the Soviet "firsts" were pushed ahead before they were really ready specifically so that they could claim the title.
The first "spacewalk", for example, consisted of little more than opening the airlock and stepping outside for a few minutes, and even that was almost a disaster, as Leonov's suit balooned up and made it almost impossible for him to get back inside. He had to deflate it to dangerous levels in order to get back in.
Conversely, NASA followed a careful, step-by-step development process that meant they were slower at first, but as they gained experience they were able to later progress much faster, and with much better capability.
The DKiS Aerospace History channel* has covered the space race in good detail, including an hour-long video on _The "Myth" of Soviet Space Superiority_ .
(Note the quotes. He covered their accomplishments as fairly as he could. They did honestly achieve a lot, but there is a lot of exaggeration of their early capabilities as well.)
*formerly Dead Kennedys in Space
Leonov and Tom Stafford did a lot of talking after the Kremlin funeral for the three cosmonauts that perished in the Soyuz 11 descent, Stafford being a pallbearer, that set up the Apollo-Soyuz Test mission.
_But .. but ... but ... but ..._
_I still believe it's fake !_
Asking someone irrational to think rationally is, in most case, a waste of time.
bees don't waste time explain flies why honey is better than shit
and we should not explain how things work to stupid people who refuse to think
it's hard to win against smart people in an argument but it's impossible to win against stupid people
next time you see an ignorant fool, you should as well ignore them
I'm reminded of the Mitchell & Webb sketch in conspirators are told that faking the event would still require them to design and build a 'massive rocket'. So they decide to go ahead with the hoax by building the rocket and sending astronauts to fake the footage on the Moon.
The applo conspiracy theory is scary I think it's growing in popularity
I had 2 teachers in high school who thought it was faked... One was a science teacher the other a history teacher
It's honestly rare to see people who actually acknowledge it was real
@@NevadaMostWanted658 No, it's not. I literally don't know a single person that would admit they think the lunar landing was faked. My father's father was the only person I have ever known to have believed such.
@@Vykk_Draygo ikr but moon landing conspiracy is growing a lot
@@Vykk_Draygo who put the camera on the moon?
@@DeusSalis
Please show this imaginary camera
Dave, your dog is much brighter than those saying we never landed on the Moon. What a chill dog.
Shame on those that deny. Some of the bravest souls on earth went to the moon.
@@fps079 yep. When Apollo 11 went behind the moon before orbital burn, they were going over 5000 mph, feet first in the dark, hoping that the engine will fire at the proper time and duration.
So many unkowns at that point must have been exhilarating.
Balls of steal.
Not just Earth!
Putting a man on the moon with 1960's technology... difficult. Faking putting a man on the moon with 1960's technology..... impossible.
Clever 😂
I can’t remember where I heard it but there’s a saying that goes something like “for 2 ppl to keep a secret one has to be dead”. If you have tens or hundreds of thousands of ppl in on a conspiracy, there’s no way in hell you’d be able to keep them all quiet. Even if every single one of them was sworn to secrecy, some would let it slip to their significant other, family, or friends or when they’ve had a little too much to drink.
Especially in an age of social media. Some participants would still be alive and it would be extremely simple today to publish proof on the internet instantly without the need for a platform or book deal. And they'd become one of the most famous people in history.
@@CasaDelMesaCz_Zapomínáte na AI která komentáře které nesedí se zadáním smaže dříve než odkliknete příspěvek již několikrát jsem argumentoval neodpovídajícími foty a daty přímo z NASA a stalo se nejen že to nebylo publikováno ale foto a zvukové nahrávky se opravily podle mých připomínek, a takových důkazů jsou na stránkách NASA ještě desítky, ale již nechci aby se kdokoliv učil ještě lépe falšovat podvod století.
Zkouška AI kvůli vymazání.
exactly. See the Lewinsky incident. 2 humans in a room, 1 had no way to talk right there right then. Still, it did not remain a secret.
A gazillion people stfu for DECADES? Sure.
There is also the fact that the technology did exist at the time to land on the moon but the technology did NOT exist to fake the video feed.
A lot flat earthers claim Christianity as their basis for many of their beliefs. As a Bible believing Christian, I can tell you I find their reasoning tiresome. Yes - if God wanted He could make it so there’s no way to reach the moon for various reasons. But He didn’t- and I find it far more interesting how we broke these bonds of earth the way we did it. You can still be in awe of creation if the sun is a ball of magnetic filaments, 8 light minutes away, and the moon is a hollow reflective rocky orb , perfectly caught in gravitational dance with our little beautiful ball, swirling through the vastness of space-rather than dismissing easily proven concepts as,” Anti God” because they conflict with your notions . Not everything is a conspiracy. Good job Dave. Wish I had half of your eloquence.
It's also worth pointing out that Apollo 16 astronaut Charlie Duke is now a pastor.
Amen!!
Christian here. What do you think of the verses that make it clear that the heavens are God's domain? I think it's quite clear we are supposed to remain on Earth.
Even if the Van Allen Belts are possible to get past safely, space is so inhospitable that I doubt we're really intended to settle it.
@@SvanTowerMan Interestingly English uses two different words for that: heaven and sky. They are not the same. Heaven is something beyond what we can reach in our lifetime. Sky is something filled with over ten thousand artificial satellites and visited by a few hundred people we call astronauts.
@@KonradTheWizzard Makes sense, but I think we're still supposed to remain on Earth, given how inhospitable space is.
Discussing with moon landing deniers is like playing pigeon chess
Pigeon chess: Is the generic term for a discussion that is conducted by one of the participants only to get the feeling (or to convey to a possible audience) that they have won the discussion. No matter how well you play chess, the pigeon will eventually knock over all the pieces, poop on the board, and strut around like it's won.
I've been looking through the documentation and there is EXTENSIVE flight data: gimbal angles, accelerometer data, thrust vectors, etc. As well as extremely dense analysis of all the data. Like if they were faking this, what part of it were they faking? if you plotted this data, you'd most certainly see that all the numbers make sense. All the values and dynamics make sense.
Hell, there's people that took an AGC and read the program off of it and proved it can fly.
Do you expect these loons to do that kind of research? Most of them think all documentation has been lost, because some conspiracy video told them so. If it was placed in their hands they would just call it fake (meaning, "I can't understand a word of it.").
Sitting in the MOCR in JSC that's been restored and watching the consoles during the landing, the sheer amount of details in the data is absolutely astounding. As Aldrin is reading off velocity vectors, you can see the actual rates coming off the AGS and PGNS that concur with his callouts (2 second delay.) One of the neatest details was during the Lunar EVA, I caught the LM cabin pressure: 0 psi. To be faked would require so much detail to continue to fake it down to the numbers on screens in a museum piece that nobody else but space nerds would care to look at.
@@wonko-the-often-sane That must be quite an experience; almost like having been there. I can't believe that there are people clueless enough to think that a handful of people could fake something like this, and fool everyone who was monitoring and acting on the data, in real time. Simpletons.
It's kinda like a kid not wanting to wash their hands, so the run the water for a bit, pump some soap down the drain so the level changes and just stand for the right amount of time before turning ghe water off.
After all that, you might as well just wash your hands.
“Nuh uh”
“Tf you mean, nuh uh??”
Also, if the landings were faked, why didn’t we keep faking them? Why haven’t we fake landed on Mars?
The moon landing was a distraction from the fact we found a cybertronian vehicle on the moon
Trusting anyone who claims to have contacts in the Chinese Space Agency command structure seems like a brainlet move.
Best case scenario: The CCP sends one of their intelligence officers to pretend to be a CSA representative, who then has a sit down meeting with Sibrel to see how much BS they can feed him before he balks.
More than likely, though, Sibrel is just lying.
Again.
Chinese scientist share their accomplishments with the world. Some things are done to share with the world. No body hides their accomplishments. Science is shared and bragged about that is the whole point. Americans should be saying we should build a base on the moon before the Chinese do instead of thinking the Chinese are fake and would never tell anyone if they did it. That is why we failed with COVID. All the world's countries competing to see who had the fewest COVID deaths except Republicans totally disinterested in keeping score. When push came to shove with COVID Republicans just wanted a participation trophy!
40000 Employees working for NASA at the time
All of them not snitching
Where I work there's only 30 of us
And we all know who my boss was banging in his office at lunch 😂
The Soviet newspaper Pravda had a large article about the Moon landing.
Well, in that case, it must have been faked. /s
Neill deGrass Tyoson made that joke. They went to a movie company, who explained how difficult it would be, simulate low gravity, Earth as background etc. Shooting it on-site was the cheaper option :-)
A few questions you need to ask.
1) There were 5 more moon landings after Apollo 11.
2) There were multiple missions from orbit around the earth to orbit and testing docking and undocking in the moon's orbit.
3) The Soviets tried to upstage Apollo 11 with their own Luna program. Technically the Soviet Union was the first country to land on the moon. The rover crash landed and was destroyed a few days before Apollo 11.
4) The current theory that the moon was due to a collision event is based on the rocks brought back by the Soviet Luna and US Apollo missions. Studies of all the samples, from both countries showed the earth and the moon have the same chemical equation. The only way this could be possible if at one point both bodies collided. Fun fact: Current international moon missions, with rovers and satellites, now believe after the collision the moon formed a larger and smaller moon. Over time they collided. This is due to these newer missions coming back with data showing one side of the moon is much thicker in than the other side.
5) These latter moon missions from the US and other countries show the remains of the lander and lunar rover's tracks.
Since Kennedy was dead, it would have been easier to just say he was too ambitious and it is harder than we thought and delay it all
oh come on now, we all know that flerths NEVER use logic for anything
Now that's not 100% true
They do use logic
A misuse is still a use
I know a lot of people who do not believe the moon landings were real (anyone who's ever actually looked into it will quickly stop believing in the moon landings) but I don't know anyone who believes that the Earth is flat.
These two things are not related.
@@Lord_Volkner Two unrelated ideas can both be stupid. Although flat Earth is definitely more stupid I think.
they use logic when they use their smartphone to post the shit. after all it has to use its computer brain to transmit what drivel they say, and since code uses a lot of logic itself.
This is very unrelated but your dog is so adorable
There are a lot more problems with faking it. Like "if it is all just fake, WHY LM IS SO UGLY?!"
Why not shiny intergalactic starship with crew of 100?
This is one of my favorite things to bring up. If we were going to fake the moon landing WHY do it with a ship that looks like it’s held together with thoughts and prayers and gum from under the bleachers and not a silvery sleek sci fi wonder ship, and then why have the astronauts bounce around like morons in all the footage rather than sending them up there looking like master chief.
@@alarictheredboi276yearsago4 and that too, yes. Also, flerfes has no idea of PLANETARIUMS
get real for the time eh
The guy who did the special effects on Star Trek said that they couldn't fake it if they wanted too because special effects weren't advanced enough in the late 60s
Ya maybe not for the general public but nasa had magic bc of Crowley and Parsons.
Read a book bro.
@@dougr8646 So are you saying they faked?
@@Josep_Hernandez_Lujanhe's joking.
But advance enough to land on the moon. 😊
I've always said this to everyone who claims the moon landings were fake. I absolutely cannot stand people that believe every single conspiracy theory that they hear simply because they are too unintelligent to understand science.
It’s kind of disrespectful to deny all of this happened because of all the people that put time of their lives on this mission and all their efforts are denied just because of a stupid conspiracy theory
Why would NASA fake the Apollo 13 near disaster which would bring closer congressional scrutiny and cause the public to ask are the risks to the astronauts and cost worth the effort?
And if they did fake the Apollo 13 failure, wouldn't that have been a perfect excuse to stop, claiming it was just too dangerous to continue, and reduce any risk of getting caught? They would already have faked 2 landings. But no, they decide 'fake it' 4 more times. That's absurd.
@@franknorthcuttmusic In fact, there were people in NASA management who wanted to cancel Apollo after Apollo 11.
@@maxfan1591 I didn't know that.
they did it so that you can ask this now. They put all your doubts to sleep long before you had those doubts.
(I am kidding. But it would be a nice move in a spy game of some sort)
For the argument of "Why dont we go back?" We did, six times. Also, going to space isn't like a road trip where you say, "We're going here today."
I recently broke down this exact question to someone who denies we went to the moon… and was called ignorant. Unfortunately the goal post moves with them, and despite countless facts and cited evidence they still won’t budge. Hopefully that changes here in a few years, when we get to see boots on the moon once again :)
If you're making a movie, and you want it to be as realistic as possible. You need to film it on location
The key point is that it was easier to send three people to the moon and bring them back than it was to fake the mission. Video technology was in its infancy and people today tend to not understand how primitive things were. My family had just got or were about to get our first colour TV. Second, trying to mimic 1/6 g would have been just about impossible as the best way to try and do this was to work underwater.
The fact we've never been back makes me believe we did go, if we didn't really go back then they'd want to have another stab with modern tech as the decades pass.
We went to the moon six times. The reason we haven’t been more is due to cost.
The reason they picked Armstrong is he was a super talented pilot, he certainty wasn't a great showman or even public relations guy. Much better guys there would be if that was the goal.
You missed another point about why the faking makes no sense.
If landing wasn't possible and if they had successfully faked Apollo 11 and everyone bought it, why would they then go to all the trouble of faking not one but five more landings and a failed landing of Apollo 13? Each faked mission would increase the chances of being found out and the public had already started to lose interest. The goal would have already been achieved.
It makes no sense at all.
I think a lot of the faked landing conspiracy theorists aren't even aware that there were 6 landings.
For me this is the most obvious reason that the faking theory is nonsense.
"That's exactly what they wanted you to think!" is an all-purpose rebuttal to any argument that some detail would make no sense to include as part of a fake. The unfalsifiability of it is superb.
i believe in the moon landing but i didn’t know we did 5 more times after apollo 11 or wtv one it was
@idkhonesty-78 Apollo 12 landed in October 1969.
Apollo 13 had the accident and never got to land.
Apollo 14 landed in February 1971.
Apollo 15 with the first rover, landed in July/August 1971.
Apollo 16, also with a rover, April 1972.
Finally Apollo 17 with a rover, December 1972.
12 different men walked on the moon.
@idkhonesty-78 A lot of people are unaware of this. Especially conspiracy theorists. The talk of "the" moon landing.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions
@ ohhhh awesome. my dad was born one year before the moon landing actually
Just wondering....
How is it by far most moonlanding deniers weren't even born yet or even old enough to have rememberd as the events unfolded on TV?
they are from the generation that was told not to believe everything they see on TV.
They are of the globull warming generations that believe CO2....used by plants and trees to create oxygen....is an evil gas. They will believe anything because they have been taught what to think...not how to think.
@@alantasman8273most people that believe in the moon landing believe in global warming. You are no better than a flat earther or moon landing deniers if you're saying shit like that
People denied it happened soon after it happened.
I was alive when it happened, and I asked who placed the camera outside lander. As if you study models and drawings, no camera was ever described, not only that, but the hatch and leg don't match up unless you had camera on some stupidly long pole...
TV cameras were also rather big ?
I asked, why do people believe what they are seeing on TV... as we should believe all movies we have ever seen going by that.
Moon landing deniers' arguments are always "here's something I don't fully understand, or doesn't make sense to me, therefore it's fake" and never "here's this actual, documentary evidence of fakery on the part of NASA and all the contractors."
Well, combined with, "Some random person I don't know personally said.... So it must all be fake." It's always curious how one person might tell them, "radiation levels would have killed them..." and they believe that person, but not do their own research, or trust any other 'random person' that disagrees.
@@mikefochtman7164 Good points!
@@mikefochtman7164 Acutally, radiation turns them into super soldiers, which is the secret NASA doesn't want you to know.
Here's some of your requested "actual, documentary evidence of fakery on the part of NASA":
Quote: "Four days after Powers' disappearance, NASA issued a very detailed press release noting that an aircraft had "gone missing" north of Turkey. The press release speculated that the pilot might have fallen unconscious while the autopilot was still engaged, even falsely claiming that "the pilot reported over the emergency frequency that he was experiencing oxygen difficulties". To bolster this, a U-2 was quickly painted in NASA colors and shown to the media. Under the impression that the pilot had died and that the plane had been destroyed, the Americans had decided to use the NASA cover-up plan."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident
There are so many "how did they do this . . .?"
The crazy thing is the answers are out there and the answers are really really interesting.
Some of my favorites are:
How did the astronauts call the White House?
How did the film not dry out in a vacuum?
How did the rover batteries not over heat?
All of these questions have answers. All of the answers are really interesting.
I think the killer argument is really simple. The Russians never said they didnt.
In fact the Russians congratulated the US and the astronauts. No need to explain photos' or any other so called "anomaly"
Nothing else to be said.
Deniers don't think like that. If you say that to the Deniers, they'll say something like the usa and ussr are working together to make the space race believable because "they" told em to do so
Well said. I personally love the argument about how only a few people at the top knew it was faked. Try doing that at the Grumman factory! Where the guys on the factory floor would've had degrees in advanced engineering. Grumman helped win the war in the pacific against the mighty Japanese navy, went on to produce the F14 tomcat then popped out the LEM....some of the brightest minds on the planet.
It would take literal magic to keep the wool over everyones eyes, from the enemies of the nation as well as the numerous highly skilled and intelligent people.
All those engineers were kept so much in the dark that they didn't know they weren't supposed to actually build the spacecraft and land men on the Moon.
Oops.
@@John_Smith_60 A little thing called "professional pride". They wouldn't have handed over a spacecraft that couldn't do the job....in the end, it would've been easier to go to the moon than to fake it.
This is such a curious topic. Part of Australia's National pride is the sheep farming town of Parkes in western New South Wales.
They operated radio dishes to the moon mission and handed coordinates to and from Houston as each went in and out of contact. Both sides needed to be able to calculate the coordinates of Apollo 11 on its route to the moon in order to point the radio dishes in the right direction.
Millions of amateurs were also pointing their radios in the right direction to follow the ship.
There's no helping most of the deniers. They could be sent to the moon and they'd still tear off their spacesuits in a vacuum to prove themselves "right."
Kinda makes you wish they would...
Why would you want to help people who never asked for your help? Not everyone has to agree on everything.
uhm... how much would it cost? I mean, maybe we have a plan here.
Even more puzzling why they would have faked six subsequent missions, with one being a total failure.
Apollo 11 landed pretty close to the landing site of Surveyor 5. Surveyor 5 sent back over 19,000 images back to Earth.
Almost right. It was Apollo 12 that landed close to Surveyor 3.
@@ApolloKid1961 Apollo 11 landed near Surveyor 5, something like 25km away
That Mitchell and Webb Look, when faking the moon landings turned out to more expensive than actually going to the moon.
It's always the catering bill.
The apollo 10 astronauts must have been so depressed knowing they were so close to being the ones to land on the moon. That sucks.
Not really. Also, John Young and Gene Cernan got to take part in future Apollo missions and both landed on the surface of the Moon.
@@cbnewham5633 well that's good. I feel really bad for that 1 guy who got so close, but never got there.
@ericmcmanus5179 what about the crew of 13?
@@JK-wn3cc they got pretty famous cause of the mistake. But nobody can deny that Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are the most famous names in space flight. Even the 3rd astronauts of apollo 11 is not nearly as much of a house hold name as those 2. And thats because they were the first 2 guys to ever walk on the moon. If it was the apollo 10 guys, then 2 of those guys would have been the household names everyone remembers. Even if you know nothing about space, you know those 2 names.
@@ericmcmanus5179I think they were just happy to know their work contributed to getting the next crew onto the surface. It's not like the crew of 10 set off on a mission to land but had to change plans and turn back. Their mission was to get so close to the surface. You're right, buzz and neil are the most famous, but all the others knew of their contribution and to me, I probably have a slight bit more admiration for the ones that did all that, but knew they would never be the ones to take the actual first step.