The cretins name was Bart Sibrel.He was a thoroughly nasty piece of work who deserved every single bit of effort that Buzz put into that punch,just a shame it didn't do more damage.
I always loved the "flag is waving because of a breeze" theory because everyone knows that every film studio just leaves windows open for no reason so a breeze can ruin their takes
Only NASAs budget allows for a studio that stays darkened while the windows are open. Elvis told me about it when I ran into him in Ecuador in the 90s.
That’s because it’s the most pathetic straw man argument that that’s like these use to ‘discredit’ anyone who dares question the original pack of lies.
@@warrenwakefield7353 And what the hell does that have to do with the price of steak in India? Nothing. Why you idiot #hoaxtards bring that up as some sort of possible line of reasoning is the most illogical, ill-concieved, ignorant twaddle ever. A fact doesn't have to be proven. It simply is. There is no claim that can be made, that hasn't already been debunked hundreds, if not thousands of times before the idiot making it, ever heard the claim to begin with. None. Not one. They landed. Six times. Deal with it. .
@@warrenwakefield7353 no one is asking you to believe everything. Just the ones that have overwhelming evidence. On a whole, it seems to me, moon landing conspiracy theorists failed basic science and math - that combined with an extreme cynicism of the human race - that we are incapable of doing things people like you can't imagine - let alone achieve - is the problem with people like you. Keep yapping on the internet that it was faked, you insignificant flea.
If people could do it themselves then they'd obviously have no problem in believing it can be done, it's quite a silly thing David said really, but they went to the moon anyway.
I heard on the skeptics guide to the universe podcast (they had a moonlanding expert on) that the soviet union were actually the first nation to congratulate the US on the landing. The official broadcast had a delay, but the soviet tracking of Armstrong and Aldrin’s pod were 100 % accurate and they could therefore issue their congratulations the second they hit the ground.
That's really interesting, because it doubles as an intimidation tactic. "Congrats on your achievement. Now best of luck figuring how we know exactly where you are and what you're doing at all times, even on the moon."
@@williambodin5359 What's creepy about it is that (except for Australia) the moon landing broadcast had a slight time delay. So, being so extremely punctual would imply genuinely scary intelligence capabilities. Or maybe not. It's also possible "the second of touchdown" is an exaggeration.
Ham radios wouldn't have heard anything. The signals transmitted by the spacecraft were weak enough that nasa had to build three giant (30 meters) dishes, the Deep Space Network, to be able to hear them.
@@UnshavenStatue While the Deep Space Network was involved, the primary communications system for Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury was the Manned Space Flight Network. The Deep Space Network served as a backup system, such as during Apollo 13 when limited power meant it could not transmit with sufficient power for the smaller dishes of the Manned Space Flight Network to pick up the transmissions.
My favorite thing about conspiracies like this is that people can simultaneously hold the idea that these people are masters of manipulation and falsehood capable of controlling anything, but they’re also extraordinarily incompetent and leave little clues
Don't forget how every single person at every single department of the entire agency (add the whole of the Soviet space program and every single person working there) has kept this earth-shattering secret and not once mentioned it even in passing to any friends, loved ones or acquaintances. That is some serious faith these superpowers were putting into a mind-boggling amount of people for no discernible reward. Most conspiracy theories collapse if you just follow this train of thought, I find. The sheer number of people who'd have to be involved in order to sustain a lie (far more than any agency or even government could ever hope to control) for no apparent reason demonstrates how ridiculous it is.
Disclaimer: This sounds ridiculous but I have come to believe it... Satanists have to let you know they are going to attack... They do so in code... If you crack the code, they will not attack... Its like they have to warn you first and trick you but if you catch them they give up... I know, I know... How silly right??? Thought you may like that...
I like the irony of sending people to the Moon being an out of reach possibility, but that would be exactly what it would take to convince the still duped, after all these decades, that they'd been duped. 'It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled,' and 'Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth,' and 'They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority,' and all that wisdom lost on a world overrun by imbeciles. Fuck!n' television. That's a big part of it, I'm certain.
@@FakeMoonRocks those quotes are being used so far away from what they're intended to be used as it almost hurts. Believing in something because there's an abundance of evidence that it's true isn't blind conformity, it's believing in evidence. That simple.
In fairness, Aldrin punched the guy not because he was a conspiracy theorist, but because he was up in Aldrin's face accusing him being a liar, a coward and a thief, so having exhausted diplomatic avenues ... yeah, Buzz clocked him one. I deplore violence, but I admit that prick had it coming. Just another service Buzz has done for humanity.
@@61lastchild The guy believed that the moon landings are a hoax, and that Buzz never went to the moon. That's an opinion, and one he's welcome to, but he didn't want to be content in his belief. Instead he wanted to get in Buzz's face and start insulting the guy. It all went from there.
Mike Henderson no, but I am incredibly surprised that somebody posting into a QI video on TH-cam apparently doesn’t understand humour or the relevance of asking the question which moon. I lived through the space race years. It is because of that why I became a engineer and why I have worked for the organisations and company’s I have worked for.
To be fair to Mike, the first part of Nigel's post was ambiguous. The OP could have been referring to either the moon landings, or to the conspiracy theories about the moon landings... :)
0:59 Buzz Aldrin did not randomly just punch a guy because he didn't believe him. The guy literally blocked his path to his car and his retreat back to his hotel. Even the guy who got punched admitted wrongdoing.
I'm fact, the guy tricked buzz into meeting somewhere under false pretenses, then ambushed him with accusations about it being fake. Buss left, and the guy followed him and continually bombarded him with questions and finally, as you said, blocked his way before being punched
Am I the only one who liked it better when I thought Buzz just punched him because he was just a denier? I personally met Neil Armstrong I wanna say around 2008 was it? It was surreal because I firmly believe that The Apollo 11 mission was the single greatest scientific achievement we have ever performed as a species and people who deny that are the problem with this world. It takes one person to think it's fake and then suddenly hes got a cult following so I don't feel bad at all about anyone who gets punched for that. I would pay good money to see Michael Collins Kick Eric Dubay in the nuts.
The guy had been haranguing Buzz who just tried to walk away. It was only when he said to his face, "You're a coward and a liar" that Buzz hit him. Not because he was denying the Apollo missions, and not just because he blocked his path, but because he used fighting words.
Nuj Renneth true. The knobhead in question was one Bart Sibrel and he did have a number of conspiracy videos on TH-cam at one time. If you consider though that there are morons who still think the earth is flat it’s inevitable that there will be landing deniers. I just wish I could punch all of them in the face quite frankly.
As a filmmaker who has worked in many studios, I can put everyone's mind at rest by saying there is NEVER wind strong enough to move a flag while filming. The sound operators would be furious is there was
@@Lamster66 3 point lighting is a dead system in the industry now m8. And if a crew did want to replicate a moon set, they would use one light in fairness
Charlie Hinde As a lighting engineer then, I’d love for you to explain the inverse square law to me. When you have, please explain how there is zero drop-off in shadow intensity in any of the Apollo photographs. Did they put the super powerful studio light a long way away? Well, yes, they did. It was 93 million miles away and called The Sun! 👍
Let's not get carried away. Alexander the Great was a legend. William Shakespeare was a legend. Sean Lock was a bloody good comedian but in 100 years he'll barely be remembered at all. He'll be an obscure 21st century footnote found under Entertainment.
I met the man who molded Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong's spacesuit gloves that were worn. He taught me the sign language for 'idiot', which for some reason I still know to this day
The funny bit about the moon landings is that getting there was relatively easy for the time. Getting back and coming through the atmosphere was the new nearly impossible bit. :o
Not unlike the taunted trip to Mars. The problem is not really getting there (we've sent complex spacecraft multiple times already) but doing so in a way that would allow the crew to get back - escaping the atmosphere of a big planet is hard, and safely getting there with enough fuel to do it is even harder.
@@supertoyg I feel we have to be real on this one, you go to live on Mars. Which might be a good thing as that’s more cargo space to take stuff needed rather than a return craft.
Not to mention the toxic deadly poisonous perchlorate micron sized dust particles that get in everywhere. Plus the two to three years exposure to unfiltered solar radiation. Mars landing is a pipe dream.😊@@supertoyg
The moon cameras are actually quite interesting. All of them were medium format 'system' cameras, and that style typically has you holding it at your waist and looking down into the camera to line up the shot, with a ground glass screen on top. The image would be reversed left and right, but that's easy enough to get used to. You can add a prism to get it fully corrected, but those are bulky, heavy, and limit you to only framing it up by your eye. The 'data' camera that went out onto the lunar surface was the coolest one. It was loosely based on the Hasselblad 500EL, with a battery and motor drive with a BIG shutter button for the gloves, and custom double perforated film at 70 mm wide. It had a Zeiss 60mm f5.6 planar lens, and a high capacity film back that held 70 frames (usual rolls have 12). And because of the thickness of the suit, the life support control on the chest, and the mounting, there was no way to stoop over the camera to line up a shot anyway. So it didn't even have a viewfinder at all. The shutter speed was a fixed 1/250th of a second, and they used zone focus plus a tighter aperture to get decent shots. But it was still a situation of 'eh, 30 feet?' set your aperture, point in the general direction and hope for the best. So they were often slightly tilted, including the infamous pic of Niel in Buzz's visor they put up in the background.
@@chloedevereaux1801 The ones that went outside the lunar module didn't (the 'data' cameras), but the ones that stayed inside were fairly standard 500 EL's with a viewfinder and extra large film back for double perf film. Some of them even had prisms for a fully corrected view.
Flat Earthers don't believe in the moon, so they _have_ to disbelieve in the moon landings. Don't ask that question of a flat Earther because they will say yes (and call you a sheep or a NASA shill).
@@John_Smith_60 What I don't get about 'Flat Earthers' is the idea that NASA created the notion of a globe when NASA has not even been in existence for 100 years. Ignorance is bliss, as they say!
One thing people have tried to claim about the picture at 3:33 is that the pattern is clearly a boot with large treads but Neil Armstrong's spacesuit at the Smithsonian (I think) has a flat-bottomed boot. This is dumb for 2 reasons: 1. That's the pattern of the overboot which is in multiple pictures and 2. It's Buzz Aldrin's footprint anyway.
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 Past people were ridiculously stupid and just didn't care about preserving stuff. The BBC deleted thousands of episodes of old shows because 'why not?'. It's shocking to us now but the idea of preserving history and information is a fairly modern concept that we have only fully embraced in the last 20-30 years. The earliest archaeologists of the 20th century did such unimaginable damage to relics and sites because of this attitude.
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 Again, people in the past were stupid and didn't value historical preservation like we do. They didn't value tapes and recordings and would often overwrite them for cost reasons, which seems insane to us now.
The point about the Soviet Union makes me think of how Holocaust deniers seem to miss that pretty much all the Nazi high command responsible for it admitted everything, were proud of it and gladly told people how they did it.
Just imagine some poor soul who suffered unspeakable agonies in a concentration camp and saw many horrible things only to have some arrogant nobody whose only experience of pain is their phone cracked to tell them that they're lying. You would have every right to despise them and possibly rip their jaw off
I love the skit on That Mitchell and Webb Look that is about conspiracy theories. It’s basically 3 people sitting in a shadowy room concocting outlandish conspiracies such as the moon landing and the death of Diana. The way the tear apart these ridiculous fantasies with biting sarcasm is brilliant. I especially like how they decide on killing Diana with “the slightly tipsy car crash” as people always die in car accidents and women that are pregnant to the man they only ever truly loved are notoriously slapdash about their personal safety and refuse to wear seatbelts.
The Russian argument is best. They had all the reason to lie and say it didn't happen but they didn't. The whole thing came from people who are under educated and easily swayed by poor logic on top of having no requisite knowledge of cameras or how space photography 'would look'
@Arsenal fc fan club & Man City supporter Well, CGI as in composite images. Most pictures of Earth are taken by craft too close to get a full view of the planet at once so images have to be stitched together. Some spacecraft, like the Japanese weather spacecraft at the L1 point that takes pictures of the Earth every few minutes to show developing weather and cloud formations to better understand how weather forms and moves, orbit at a distance where the whole Earth is visible and regularly take photos of the planet like the above
@Arsenal fc fan club & Man City supporter Well, they are seeing real photos. Just a bunch of real photos stitched together. If you're looking at Himawari 8's photos though, you are seeing real full photos and not just collages. Either way, you still have images taken from space
@Arsenal FC Supporter and Fan Club No, of course he doesn't expect you to provide proof that we haven't seen a real picture of Earth from space. Such an ask would be silly, as we have plenty of real pictures of Earth that have been taken from space. Only the truly gullible and ignorant believe that we do not.
@Arsenal FC Supporter and Fan Club I have been programming professionally for over 35 years and am aware that those lacking a technical understanding of digital media and data processing can find this subject confusing. Perhaps you simply lack the technical background to comprehend what NASA does in order to process the data collected from digital sensors into images. NASA generally uses sensors to pick up not only visible light, but also radiations that are both lower and higher frequency than the visible spectrum. The processing of the data collected yields images just as accurate and representative as film. When NASA explains this to some people such as yourself, ignorant of the processes involved, they may leap to the erroneous conclusion that the images are CGI. You may also not have any experience with how the process of taking pictures with old style film work. Both methods are ways to "trap" certain wavelengths of radiation that come in through their "lenses". In the case of film photosensitive material is exposed to light coming in through the lens, then processed in a chemical bath to yield final images. This usually targets only visible spectrum light. (There are plenty of photos that have been taken of the Earth from space using this older process as well.) You should take some time to study and comprehend the subject. I think you'd find it quite fascinating.
The problem when engaging with moon landing consipiracy theorists (or any conspiracy theorist for that matter) is you're told to never call them stupid. Because as soon as you do that, you're no longer on the moral high ground and the debate usually becomes futile very soon afterwards. Which I can see their point. My problem is I just find it virtually impossible to not call someone stupid when they genuinely are stupid!
"the debate usually becomes futile very soon afterwards" The debate started out as futile to begin with. And after the first couple of statements, the conspiracy theorist will start calling you a sheep/shill/idiot/all-of-the-above anyway.
There is no more a moral high ground than there is a debate when it comes to the moon landing. You lose nothing by finishing the conversation as quickly as possible, if calling an idiot an idiot is what it takes, so be it. Sadly if you let them think you’ll engage in a debate, they’ve won.
@@lancefawcett1809 ok answer this why haven’t they gone back Why aren’t there any videos or pics zoomed in of earth Why aren’t billionaires travelling to space and recording it Why has the technology improved so much that they aren’t able to go again whilst spending billions on useless defence systems
There was a young Russian mathematician who proved by analysis of the perspectives in Apollo lunar photographs, that distances to far off objects determined them to be stage back drops.... His very interesting youtube videos seem to have become mysteriously difficult to find.
@Nunyo - How many Russians have you spoken to? Because an opinion survey conducted last May by state-backed pollster VTSiOM found that 57 percent of Russians believe there were no lunar landings, and that the U.S. government made a fake documentary in 1969 about the mission.
Funny how this is the one QI video where 8 of the top 10 comments aren't Brits going "hurr hurr Americans dumb" because they just were provided with the statistic that they are over 4 times dumber than Americans.
Yep. " *I* can't figure it out", "It doesn't make sense *to me* ", and therefore then no explanation will ever satisfy you. Or perhaps worse, then you'll conclude *ANY* explanation is equally valid.
@alexis p The term “Conspiracy Theory” is not problematic, it’s accurate; because you have zero evidence, for your supposed “Theories”, and to explain them, you suggest vast networks of conspiracies are at work, which, again, you have zero evidence to back up those ludicrous claims. If you don’t like to be called “Conspiracy Theorists”, try not believing in absolute nonsense; but if you don’t like that term, we could just rename, Conspiracy Theorists, “Fucking Morons”, as the two terms are pretty much synonymous anyway... All the best. 😀👍
He makes several mistakes on this. The module could not float down - moon still has gravity, so it just fell the last few feet - and dust was pushed away by the engines, but as there is rock under a small layer of dust (thinner than Nasa expected) no crater would have to be expected.
@@dogwalker666 Just in parts. There are tangents the elves researched, but Fry and Toksvig both bring along their own knowledge, or like in this case: half knowledge.
@@Schmidtelpunkt Just so happens to be a rock where they landed but everywhere else there is deep footprints 😆 .....plus even if the LM landed on a rock covered with a thin layer of dust you would see evidence of that in the photos - looks pretty dusty under the LM to me.
@@blaze1148 If you look at the detail shots from under that lander you see how the dust has been blown away and forms ridges. The surface looks pretty dusty the moment you have a few centimeters of dust on top. Not sure why you think this would allow any conclusion.
In fairness to Aldrin, the conspiracy nut got all up in his face and was calling him a coward, a liar, a traitor and so forth. There was provocation - insults flying - and Buzz did try to be diplomatic initially, but when the guy wouldn't shut up, accused him of the worst things and was getting in the way of him going about his day, he lost it and decided to give him a physical demonstration of how not-a-coward he actually was. He shouldn't have resorted to violence, but I can totally understand why he did. The insults and accusations - and he was actually blocking Buzz from getting to where he was going, as this guy was "mounting an ambush" on him - to a loyal patriot who'd taken a massive risk to further human progress. He couldn't be bothered to debate him and just smacked him one.
I'll never understand why everyone takes things to heart, often over things that have absolutely nothing to do Everyone is entitled to their opinion regardless of how insane it might be Bur, why go to the point of physical violence to get your point across? Don't these morons realise how utterly insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things?
I always loved the bit when Ali G interviewing Buzz Aldrin asks him “what do you say to all them conspiracy theorists that say the moon doesn’t exist” 😂😂 the look on Buzz’s face is priceless 😂😂😂
The shadows argument is actually my favorite because the debunk of that is itself actually proof that it couldn't have been faked. Some of the criticism is that it's too bright, but to get that level of brightness on set with studio lighting you'd need multiple lights. What would the shadows show if there were multiple light sources? Multiple shadows. Now, you could argue they just used one very bright spotlight. Perhaps, but by its very nature a spotlight doesn't cover a very wide area. So the "set" would have to be much smaller than it appears to be. Lastly, any studio lighting, spotlight etc, is close enough to the astronauts that you would see the shadows diverge, but the shadows in the video footage and the photos are perfectly parallel, just like with shadows cast by the Sun.
Mythbusters did an episode on this and they addressed the shadows conspiracy. There are, in fact, shadows in moon landing photos that are not parallel. But this is due to the fact that the topology of the moon is not perfectly flat (go figure) and with such topologies, you have different objects casting shadows at different angles.
@@ultimateman55 italian giournalist Massimo Mazzucco made a documentary "american moon" where he shows all the shadows not just the mythbusters ones. 3 hours of proof that it was a fake. No doubt about it mate.
"We are in trouble as a species if people refuse to believe in things they couldn't do themselves." This is exactly what the vast majority of conspiracy theorists, of various kinds, try to play. Argument from incredulity. "I can't understand or see how this could have happened, so it couldn't have."
Sure but that quote has a ton of potential to be used in an abusive way to push a deception. A Christian could say the same thing about religion afterall.
Well, you know, the moment a Christian shows me he can do it, I'll happily believe in it. I'll even believe it if the magical man in the sky shows that he can do it. Of course, after that, I'll punch the fuck out of him for the shit he puts families through, but you know...
@David McConville Likewise. I remember seeing an episode where they tried to contend that containers used for electroplating jewelry, were actually batteries... :( Hey, we may have been visited by aliens, but Giorgio ties to credit every myth, legend, or hard to explain archeological discovery, to aliens. They're almost smug about it.
"We are in trouble as a species if there are people who refuse to believe in things they couldn't actually do themselves. " is the phrase that keeps running through my head every time I read a stupid comment on Facebook regarding science.
Another point on having no “flame” under the Descent Module; it would have been much wider, dispersed, and more diffuse than a rocket flame on Earth, since those are squeezed into a narrow shape by atmospheric pressure. You can see them get wider as they ascend in fact. Also, because of the kind of hypergolic fuel used the flame was largely invisible. But you can certainly see dust being kicked-up by it in the last moments of landing. Again, I think a conspiracy would have ensured a nice colourful, but completely inaccurate flame in our pictures and a crater to go with it. But since we actually went to the Moon, all this weird shit happened instead of nice predictable shit, and it’s just really hard for some people to challenge their intuitions about weird shit, so they dismiss it.
@Ursacke For the ascent, yes. the hypergolic fuels used in the ascent engine do not leave flame in a vacuum. But the statement was, "why is there no blast crater under the LM?" The answer is, the exhaust pressure wasn't enough to cause a crater. There was significant disturbance, and all six crews commented on it. In fact, on Apollo 12, Both Pete Conrad and Alan Bean commented that parts of the Surveyor were pitted from dust thrown up by their engine on landing.
@@lancer525 I did the math one time. If the engine was running at 30% (which is about what it would have been) the pressure at the exit of the engine bell was just over 1 psi. That's about what a healthy adult male can generate by exhaling as hard as he possibly can. People who think the blast pressure was enough to cause a crater should be able to generate one by blowing as had as they can on bare ground.
I can just see a producer on a fake Moon landing production screaming at the director, "Why aren't there any flames coming out when they land?!" (But sir, the scientists have unanimously stated that there would be no flames if they were actually landing on the Moon.) "I don't care! People are expecting to see flames; they'll think it's fake if they don't see flames; put some flames in there!" (Okay, sir. *Puts in bright orange flames under the lunar module.*)
@@madaemon Exactly. If you were going to fake it, you'd make it look like people expect it to look based on what they've seen in movies and TV shows. Basically, the hoax loons say it must be fake because it doesn't look like things the fake things they've seen.
It's the complete opposite with the Soviets. Not only did they not dispute it, they claimed to pick up the broadcast with their own sattelites and admitted defeat. To me it seems rather likely that the Soviets were telling the truth
The Soviets had launched Luna 15 a lunar-orbiter that was intended to land on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission. If Apollo 11 failed, Luna 15 was expected to be seen as a great success. Unfortunately for the Soviets, Luna 15 failed to land as it smashed into a mountain while two Americans were walking around in the Sea of Tranquility 350 miles away.
My favourite part of the moon landing (or at the very least *A* moon landing) is when they were done they found out that they planted the flag too close to the shuttle and they blew the flag out the ground. I just like the idea of them being like "...Should... Should we go back?"
@@TheBlackDemon1996 In you're early twenties [1996] you're not likely to be expert in anything, but now at least you know a tiny bit more about "ROCKETS", Apollo 11, the number of manned lunar landings & the names of two NASA astronauts which is marginally QI don't you think? It's obvious how I know you went to college - you can figure it out. Incidentally I was struck by your use of "the shuttle", because NASA had six Space Shuttles, two of which were lost with full crews - one of them in your lifetime, but they were engineered to only reach Low Earth Orbit. Back on your head, tea break is over.
@@nightjarflying, a quick tip for you - if you are to have a pompous go at someone's use of the English language, make sure you don't make any silly mistakes yourself.
I once had the pleasure of meeting Patrick Moore, and I've never met someone with so much "presence", he literally filled the room, and in both senses of the phrase (as he was enormous).
Yes, but he could not explain how the 1100Kgs (crew and module) and the 850Kg extra payload of artefacts, and the moon buggy got off the moon surface with no fuel. Nor could he explain the arrival on earth of the astronauts with no payload.
@@jonsmith3945 The point is that they didn't, and all the things that moon landing conspiracy theorists always point to as "obviously fake" because they couldn't possibly occur on the moon were busted.
@@Andrea-xs4ny They didn't shoot anything down. They recreated shadows, boot imprint, etc, proving that all those things could be easily faked on Earth. The only thing any debunkers have shot down is the lowest hanging fruit...lack of stars, flag waving when someone touching it, etc. While there's no smoking gun proof the landings were faked, there's no proof the landings happened. Every 'evidence' cited by landing believers has been debunked.
@@jonsmith3945 No, what myth busters did was show that the conspiracy theory's "proofs" were nonsense. Everything they did was show that the conspiracy theory's claims that they didn't go to the Moon because of some lame conspiracy theory "reason" was wrong. And they did it using much better technology than was available when the Moon landings happened.
The dust being blown out radially in straight lines from directly underneath Eagle as it came down -- clearly visible in the video. Try replicating that in an atmosphere, sometime.
@@mattjacomos2795 "so they superimposed images of the rover INSIDE the chamber ON the lunar surface? Is that what you are saying? " No, that's not remotely close to what I said.
@@jonsmith3945 A bit hard to film the rover and its tracks as they drove it around to various locations some distances away and on video too, Try doing that in that vacuum chamber
The best argument against the conspiracies is from Mitchell and Webb look - you have to build a massive rocket that can get into space. That’s one of the hardest parts so you may as well just go the whole hog and fake some moon landing footage on the moon whilst you’re up there.
@@ImperativeGames I’d argue that if you had the technology to get a rocket into space it wouldn’t be beyond the grasp to then make it able to carry humans. They already had the U-2 spy plane
Yup, the bigger the project the easier it is to do the actual thing than an imitation of it. ICBMs and Sputnik, the first satellite in orbit, were already more than a decade old, there were plenty of civilians working on the problem and industries were developed around it, how a government needs to support them as the achievements are supposed to be false has never been explained, but the thing with these conspiracy theorists is that they equate some poorly made graphic with proof and the biggest thing they have ever faked is an orgasm.
1:57 In fact, they sewed a stiff wire into the top edge of the flag to keep it from flopping down. It's clearly visible in the video if you make it full-screen, or even go look at any of a gazillion photos of the event.
I liked how by the end of the segment it was just four guys sitting there going we know this stuff, because based on the percentages there was a chance at least one of them wouldn't and Steven came prepared.
The Soviets actually landed (crashed, really) a probe on the moon while Apollo 11 was on the moon. Luna 15. The reason the Soviets never denied it or claimed it didnt happen....they were actively there, trying to beat the US in the space race by returning a sample from the moon to earth first. This was their second attempt. Both failed. However, Luna 2 was the first successful contact with the moon's surface, Luna 3 took pictures of the dark side of the moon (both firsts and done by the Soviets). People always say "why didnt we go back then?" .....you mean, like Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 did? It wasn't a one and done type of thing. Those were just the manned mission.
I've visited Apache Point Observatory and watched the laser ranging equipment in action, and if it's a hoax, they've done an unbelievably sophisticated job at retrofitting what would otherwise be rather straightforward scientific equipment to behave exactly as if there are mirrors on the moon, even when the only people paying attention are a few random students (and the staff of scientists and technicians that they somehow continue to bribe/brainwash and pay salaries to for perpetrating this elaborate charade). In other words, the technological and psychological sophistication necessary to pull off and perpetuate the hoax is significantly greater than that needed to actually go to the moon in the first place.
@Carlos Maron Amazing what the infusion of billions of dollars in geopolitically motivated money and deadlines can accomplish, isn't it? And thank you for informing me that I'm a brainwashed tool. How could I possibly take offence at that?
@Carlos Maron I'm not saying anything about the benefit to humanity. I'm just asserting that the landings did in fact happen. Now go back to your subreddit, addlepate.
@Carlos Maron Sure, why don't you come over and my husband and I can spit roast you while he watches Apollo 13 and I rederive the equations for the Coriolis effect. Though I doubt you're yet of legal age...
I went to a highly entertaining, but actually totally flawed, talk by David S. Percy about his book 'DARK MOON: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers'. When he suggesting Neil Armstrong had never landed on the Moon a voice from the back shouted 'bollocks I was there'.
just getting the lighting for the alleged set to appear as though the light source were 93 million miles away, would've cost more than actually going to the moon
@@runethorsen8423 notice the lighting on the alleged set. the shadows are parallel. in order to replicate the light from 93 million miles away in a studio would require, at minimum, thousands of LEDs. having that many at that time would cost more than actually going to the moon itself
@@Art1_Sec8 Having thousands of LEDs would cost more than actually going to the moon? I wonder if that is something you actually calculated... (I suspect not).
At that time during the cold war, the USA and USSR had so much in the way of radio antennas and arrays pointed at each other to intercept signals. If the US broadcast the moon landing live from a sound stage in Nevada, the Soviets would have for sure been able to determine that and they would have been able to immediately discredit the US space program to devastating effect. But they didn't. Why? Maybe because the broadcast came from the surface of the moon?
The only way to fake those transmissions without them being tracked would be to go to the moon and transmit from there... which would go against the whole point of the forgery.
I suppose, you could bounce the signal off the moon. Amateur Radio enthusiasts sometimes do that to communicate with each other, pointing a dish at the moon so the signal reflects back. *disclaimer!* I'm not denying the moon landings! I totally believe in the success of the Apollo program. But I'm speculating that you could, I suppose, make a signal appear to come from the moon using signal reflection.
@@TheAmazingAdventuresOfMiles Of course, you could do that, but then there would be still the "tiny" problem of how to make dust behave like it was in a low-G environment with no atmosphere. Tying an estimated 20 billion micro fishing lines to them, to make them do the perfect arc, that is impossible in atmosphere and earth gravity maybe?
You definitely can't fake it though, you can bounce a signal off the moon ONLY if it is in your path of transmission, but as the studio needs to keep moving around so after the Earth has turned it can still reach stations in other places on the planet, the signal bouncing back from the moon, and keep it at a steady pace with refueling from other aircraft as you can't have such a big set on the air for too long. Relaying the transmissions through other stations doesn't work either as the time it takes for it to come back varies and you've introduced a delay that could be figured out by the Soviets and exposed to the world.
So you think, when you are dead, you get to do things you can't do when alive. Even as a joke that is a bizarre concept. If you think it also means you can wander around changing room I think you will find the ALPS will have something to say about that.
My favorite proof we landed on the moon is that we literally didn’t have the technology to fake it. There was no cgi, and the lighting just wasn't possible with the technology available to them.
Exactly this. The technology to make to to the moon existed. The tech to FAKE it did not. The later you're born, the more all-powerful movie magic seems, but that didn't exist in that timeperiod.
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 - A film full of so many errors in the moon scenes that are never seen in any Apollo footage, where Kubrick doesn't even bother to try to attempt 1/6 gravity for the scenes on the moon, instead he just gets the actors to walk slowly :-)
I wonder if people in the late 18th Century claimed that James Cook didn't sail to the South Pacific and map the transit of Venus across the Sun, then map the east coast of Australia on the ride home.
Many of these ignorance-prestige ideas like a flat earth, fake moon landings and such are dishearteningly recent things, and of course no one opposed Columbus' trip on the ground that the Earth wasn't spherical.
The camera used on the moon was a Hasselblad 'superwide C', 2 1/4 square format. The lens had a 90 degree field of view. Although heavily corrected for distortion some still existed and I believe this to be the genesis of many of the conspiracy theories.
One inside the module, yes. That one was fitted with a 38mm lens. The one carried on the surface was a modified 500el with a 60mm f5.6, with a more reasonable 68 degree field of view. Still a bit wide, but not to the point of having much distortion. Without a viewfinder it was a situation of 'eh, 30 feet?,' zone focusing, aim in the general direction and hope for the best.
Also, the dust doesn't form into clouds because there is no atmosphere - instead it behaves like jets of water any time they kick it up. You can actually see that it's a vacuum because Apollo 15, 16, and 17 brought video cameras.
Honestly Buzz was totally justified in defending himself in that situation. It's a miracle he managed to restrain himself for the amount of time he did.
@@josh2Sides2 Aldrin is a combat veteran. Buzz was lured by Sibrel to the hotel under false pretences, and then he called him "a coward, a liar, and a thief". He also aggressively poked Buzz with a Bible. So Buzz was both verbally and physically assaulted. I think that justifies his actions!
@@davidkeenan5642 that's your opinions and that's fine. That said, you should never meet violence with violence. Two wrongs don't make it right. Whether you considered a legend or not
@@josh2Sides2by that logic, if I stabbed you, you would have to simply forgive me and not defend yourself while I stab you a second time? 😂 You’re talking out of your arse mate!
I don't know if it was on this episode (or even on QI for that matter), but I love something I saw with Sean Lock in where he said he likes to try and "1-up" moon landing conspiracy nuts by calling them out for believing in the moon.
My favorite "moon landing was faked" claim was one by a guy who showed a video from the Moon's surface and claiming that, as the camera (according to him) panned from left to right, the astronauts' shadows changed directions, thus proving a moving light source. Apparently it never occurred to him that the camera was actually just *_turning._*
My favorite "proof" that men have been to the Moon is the laser reflectors allegedly put there by Apollo astronauts. Apparently it never occurred to these people that the Soviets also placed laser reflectors on the Moon via their Lunokhod program. So, I'd ask them, 'If laser reflectors on the Moon are proof that men were there to place them on the surface, then tell me the names of the Soviet cosmonauts that placed the Soviet laser reflectors there." It's also worth noting that an MIT team bounced lasers off the Moon, May 9th, 1962, long before any reflectors were said to have been placed on it. Another good so-called "proof" that men went to the Moon is when believers point out that people witnessed the rockets launch. To that, I'd say, "Oh yeah? Well, people witnessed the Saturn V rocket launches for the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project and Skylab. Were those manned missions to the Moon? How about all those Space Shuttle launches witnessed by so many people? Did they all go to the Moon?" LOL!
My favorite one was a guy who kept going to Apollo 11 recordings and grainy videos as supposedly the lower quality proved that they could've been faked without using high quality equipment. Then we got to later landings and more documented evidence and he exclaimed "well, of course we went after, but that first try was faked!"
@@FakeMoonRocks My favorite proof that men have been to the Moon is that people like you deny it. Anything that you claim to be true *must* be false, and anything you claim to be false *must* be true.
@@FakeMoonRocks You first. And using the scientific method is why I know that all of your claims are false. (I won't call them lies, because it's possible you are dumb enough to actually believe what you say, but what you say is still false.)
Another reason the footprint is so well defined is because the powder on the moon hasn't been worn smooth by the wind, so the jagged surfaces make the powder hold its shape more. Mythbusters.
kilroy987 well yeah, but it's a couple things. It's all dust from the millions of asteroid impacts. With the gravity being 1/6th you'd also expect it to be really fluffy.
Exactly, with no atmosphere there's no significant disturbance and because gravity is weaker it is easier to leave a nicely shaped mark. Think of it more or less as something between a human and an elf walking through the misty mountains.
The bit of the story I like is the boys at Kettering Grammar School, they were featured in TV coverage in the UK, and tracked Apollo 11 to the moon and back. The number of loose threads with doubtless many more untold, one is left with the simple observation: "If the Yanks were really clever enough and rich enough to mount a cover up of this size, they could have flown to the moon and back, no problem."
I was born on the day Armstrong stepped on the moon, so I've always maintained: "It was one....small step.....for Man.......one......giant push.......from Mum!!" 🤣👍
The Mythbusters did programmes where they de-bunked the conspiracies. Not by discussing them but building props and visiting vacuum chambers and showing how things react were they on the moon, such as the flag and boot prints, shadows on and around the lunar lander etc.
The Corridor Crew did a video in which they would discuss the CGI from the Moon landings, as an April Fools joke, but they could only get to the conclusion that there's no way it was faked. Even minor details like astronauts kicking up dust looks so different from kicking up dust in an atmosphere, that it's physically impossible to fake.
@@jonsmith3945 I've yet to see a magician fake kicking up dust and making it look like there's no atmosphere. If it was so easy to do, why have even no other nations ever repeated the fake? Magicians reuse the same tricks all the time. Yet the moon landing has only ever been done a few times, and always by the same organisation. NASA is not a magician.
@@Mr.Grimsdale Not sure, honestly (it would depend on what they said, when they said it, and if their story changed after the fall of the USSR), but the fact that they didn’t even TRY is what sells it for me.
The USSR were actually the very first to congratulate the US for landing on the moon. They had the scientific equipment necessary to track the spacecraft perfectly, so they sent the congratulations the moment they landed on the moon, and not when it happened on television
Didn't think Stephen's 'it hovered down' theory held much water.' Did it? What like an umberella? They Luner Module had retro rockets mate, and they were shitting themselves in the footage, because they were running out of fuel as Neil Armstrong was supposedly piloting it. 'Hovered down?' WTF? So why was the launch place with all its fine dust not disturbed exactly?
@Dell Wright "Conspiracy theorist" is the saddest, laziest term in the English language. Someone doesn't follow you blind faith fundamentalist point of view? Call them a "conspiracy theorist"! Infamous "conspiracy theorists" throughout history include Galileo, Charles Darwin, the Montgolfier Brothers, Michael Faraday, anyone who said Piltdown Man was fake, anyone who said Chamberlain's "Piece in our time" was nonsense, anyone who thought Jimmy Savile had engaged in illegal sexual activities, and anyone who said Saddam Hussein didn't have WMD.
I once wrote an informative article about the moon landing conspiracy and I'm so happy to see Stephen use almost the same words that I used in my article lol
1:00 No, Buzz Aldrin punched conspiracy theorist Bart Sibrel because Sibrel wouldn't get out of Aldrin's face after luring him to the Beverly Hills Hotel under a false pretext. Sibrel ambushed Aldrin with a film crew, poked Aldrin in the chest with a bible, demanded him to swear on that bible that he really went to the Moon, and called him a liar and a coward (Aldrin had been an active fighter pilot in the Korean War and won two Distinguished Flying Crosses and three Air Medals). Aldrin had his step-daughter with him at the time and this all happened right in front of her. So Aldrin did what any _real_ man would have done and biffed the intrusive son of a bitch in the face. Sibrel later admitted to wrongdoing. Sibrel is gutter scum and he had that smack in the mouth coming.
@Carlos Maron If kids are getting their educations from You Tube and letting conspiracy-theory crackpots influence their thinking, God help us all. Pardon me if I don't put much stock in the opinions of a 7-year-old no matter how sharp you think he is, but I prefer to accept the views of mature-age adults like myself who were alive at the time and who know a thing or two about it. Perhaps you could share your thoughts on why NASA would stage a phony near-disaster (Apollo 13) if the point of the exercise was to fake success. Why also would they fake not one but six successful landings, given that every time they do so, the risk of exposure gets exponentially higher? They only had to fake it once - beat the Russians, game over. Why do it again - and again - and again - and again - and again, especially when they knew after Apollo 11 that Russia was out of the race altogether? If nothing went to the moon, what was it that the Russians tracked all the way there and back? Because they did, you know. Surely you don't think America was the only country with spacecraft-tracking capability? If was fake, the Russians would have known immediately, and they would NOT have kept quiet about it. How did NASA fake telemetry coming from a quarter of a million miles away and which, as mentioned above, was also being received by the Russians? There's a thing called triangulation. Russia would know in an instant if the signal was coming from Earth or from near-Earth orbit and not from the Moon, and the jig would have been up. How did samples of lunar rock get here, which have since been examined by countless geologists? How did the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, consisting of three prismatic retroreflector arrays placed in different locations on the lunar surface by separate Apollo missions - and which are still in use today - get there? What was it that 400,000 American workers across the country were actually doing, if not building what they were contracted to build? And why would NASA bother contracting out to the biggest aerospace companies in the US to the tune of $billions for hardware which would never be used? What was the motivation of no less than 32 astronauts for agreeing to fake it - fighter pilots, test pilots, combat veterans, men who live and breathe achievement? Every single one of them, no dissenters? Were their families in on it too - their wives, their kids, their parents - or did all those men decide to keep up the charade in front of their loved ones for the remainder of their lives? I could go on, but hoaxers typically just ignore questions like these because they undermine their pet theories and they're scared to death of being proven wrong. They buy into this ignorance-driven hogwash because it makes them feel better about their own inadequacies, and gives them a misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
@Carlos Maron - You've bumped this old thread and yet you fail to mention you're a flat Earth believer who trolls space related topics. Why is that? :-)
@Carlos Maron ...Okay, I'll give you one more chance to redeem yourself. Address the questions I raised in my original reply to you, and I just might rethink my opinion of your character. You started this argument Carlos, and now the ball is in your court. Let's see if you can bat it back to me like a man, i.e. without infantile insults. You can either show me, and anybody who reads this, that you can debate like an adult, or you can demonstrate your childishness to everybody by insulting me like some snot-nosed little grommet in a schoolyard before running away. It's up to you. Frankly, I get sick of sparring with you naysayers, and once - just ONCE - I'd like to see a hoaxer go toe-to-toe with me and argue like an adult - but in my experience, all too often they resort to smarminess once they run out of feeble counter-arguments (if they even offer up any) before they turn tail and bolt when the questions get too tough. Prove to us all that you're not one of those gutless wonders, come on. Show me, and everybody else who looks at this, that you've got some cajones and aren't just another overgrown pre-adolescent nose-dripper like your sharp 7-year-old nephew. Show us what you've got. If you don't - well, then you will merely be demonstrating your lack of mettle and your fringe-dweller mentality. OR - you can admit that your declarations are uninformed and erroneous. If you don't believe you're wrong, PROVE IT HERE with reasoned arguments, like grown-ups do, without insults or snarkiness. Then I, and others, might afford you some credence. Are you up for it, or are you going to just hurl vitriol at me and run away? Tick tock.
@Carlos Maron Well, I respect you for sticking around and taking the time to reply, so I applaud you for that. As for the rest though, well... "Same backdrop used in 2 locations". Which locations would they be? "Objects appearing in front of the cross hairs". It's called over-exposure. Film doesn't behave quite the same way in extreme lighting conditions, such as on an airless Moon, as it does on Earth, where this planet's atmosphere diffuses the light and doesn't display such extreme contrasts between light and dark. The same principles are at work which preclude one from seeing stars in the lunar sky - which I'm surprised you didn't mention, since that seems to be a pet favourite of hoaxers. "Pressure of flight"? What "pressure" were Lunar Modules under? They only ever operated in vacuum. If you're talking about acceleration, it wasn't anywhere great enough to cause the Mylar to come away from the LM. There is also no atmospheric drag in space. "Waving flags". Oh I love this golden oldie! Do you really think NASA would be silly enough to simulate an airless environment, but then allow breezes powerful enough to make flags wave to blow right through the studio? Seriously? Why on Earth would there be wind on a sound stage? And what else did you notice about the flags? After the astronauts planted them, the flags stayed standing straight out from their poles and no longer moved. That's because there is a horizontal telescopic pole extending from the top of the main flag pole to which the top of the flag is attached. This was done to keep the flag upright because NASA realized that an ordinary flag in a vacuum would just hang limp down the pole, which wouldn't be a terribly good look. The flags appear to "wave" only when the astronauts were twisting and turning the pole to get it into the ground. After they walk away, the flag stays stock still and no longer "waves". You CAN see dust during the landings, being blown away from the LM by the expanding thrust gases from its engine. There isn't much dust because there is no atmosphere to conduct pressure waves - i.e., wind - and the thrust from the descent stage is relatively gentle, so it only kicks up dust when it gets close to the ground. During take-offs, the lower stage of the LM is mostly shielding the ground from the ascent-stage thrust, so you see very little dust, but it's still there. "The Russians put a dog and a woman in low orbit before the USA". I have absolutely no idea what the point of this argument is. Yes, of course they did. And, "Do you forget the cold war competition"? Of course I didn't. It was that very Cold War which gave rise to the "space race" in the first place. I don't get what you're trying to achieve with those comments. Body language and psychology experts. Who were these "experts"? Did you see any qualifications or credentials, or did you just take the word of the producers of a *conspiracy theory documentary* that those "experts" were who they said they were? And you say people like me are easily fooled... Also, selective editing is a thing. You can take snippets of dialogue, dispense with the context, then stitch them back together in a different sequence and context and give them whatever slant you like. Look into what the producers of The Apprentice had to go through to make Donald Trump appear coherent via this process. The ISS is not fake, you can see it pass overhead at night with the naked eye. I am a life-long amateur astronomer and I have seen the ISS pass over many, many, many times. You can also watch live video feeds from it at certain times. th-cam.com/video/EEIk7gwjgIM/w-d-xo.html Do you know how the "vomit comet" actually works, and are you aware that no more than 25 seconds of weightlessness is achievable at any one time? It can't go ballistic and then free-fall for minutes on end, or it hits the ground! Yet I have seen footage of weightless astronauts aboard the ISS lasting for more than ten minutes at a stretch. And by the way, the vomit comet isn't a 747, it's a 727-200F, which took over from the old KC-135A. "The Challenger 7 are still alive and can be traced". I've come across this claim before and sorry, but it is just so ludicrous as to border on insanity. So NASA faked *another* disaster, to achieve - what, exactly? What purpose could that have possibly served? How can the former crew be "traced"? This is one of the more lunatic-fringe ideas I've yet heard from hoaxers, and that is saying something. Sources, please. How has moon rock been "proven" to be petrified wood? Source, please. You keep bandying that figure of "0.08%" about like it's some kind of magical talisman. What about all the deep-space probes which have been launched over the decades? What about Pioneer, Voyager, the Mars rovers, and more lately probes like Cassini? Once again, NASA isn't the only agency tracking these things. Every space agency on Earth would have to be complicit if it's all fakery. Are the Chinese conspiring with the Americans to fool the world? I highly doubt it, especially given those two countries' current relationship. There was no CGI in the 60s and 70s, or even most of the 80s. I remember how we got all excited when the first pocket calculators appeared in the early 70s. That was the extent of anything like "graphics". There weren't even colour monitors then, they were all monochrome, and only organizations like NASA had such things. CGI didn't exist in any meaningful way until the 90s. Okay, I have addressed the points you made, other than all that overly-belaboured stuff about what poor gullible sods people like me are, and that totally irrelevant bit of dubious horn-blowing. I'm still waiting for you to address the questions I originally posed, which you haven't done except for the one about moon rocks (and I'd love to know where you dug up that nugget of silliness). All you have really done is what all hoaxers do - parrot the same tired old crackpot nonsense gleaned from whacko, self-serving documentaries and looney-tunes websites and trumpet it as "proof" while blithely ignoring the too-hard questions. Just like I said earlier.
I find it more depressing how many people don't realize how few times we went to the moon, and how long ago it was! Some people even think we've been to Mars already.
Two of my favourite moon landing hoax theories: 1. There should have been a flame from the lunar rocket's ascent stage - As though all rocket fuels must produce a flame (They don't) 2. Someone had to be there to take the pictures of Armstrong coming down the ladder - The TV footage broadcast worldwide was taken on a camera mounted on the lunar module, and the still photographs aren't of Armstrong, they are photos he took of Aldrin coming onto the surface
I've seen all the moon conspiracies and I've studied the science behind going to the moon. Why, because I wanted to know what was true. What I've found is enjoy the conspiracies for the entertainment value but trust the science.
Therein lies your weakness. You "trust the science" which is what they tell you. Not actual "science" which stands on its own merit. An easy mistake to fall in to.
@@joktanjoktanovich9448 thanks for your comment but you missed the point that I'd study the science behind space flight and it is possible to go to the moon. However you're right about being sceptical about what we are told that's why I studied. Always be a sceptic.
@@robertwright2668 I think a little logic wouldn't go amiss here "I studied" does not mean they went to the moon. Any more than "I heard" means it happened.
@@joktanjoktanovich9448 That is a fair point and to be fair logically you're right. I personally have got to ask why haven't they been back. Also you gotta ask why didn't the Soviets cry foul if they didn't go in the first place. The only thing I do know for a fact is I don't know either way. I can only come to a conclusion based on what I've looked into. That being said I could very well be wrong and if I am I look forward to finding out more.
When Buzz Aldrin punched that guy that was one small punch for man, one giant punch for mankind.
I heartily enjoyed watching Colonel Aldrin smash that cretin in the face.
Ye my wife called me a fat lazy good for nothing alcoholic,I punched her right in the face & guess what I am still a fat lazy alcoholic don't figure😫
The cretins name was Bart Sibrel.He was a thoroughly nasty piece of work who deserved every single bit of effort that Buzz put into that punch,just a shame it didn't do more damage.
Unfortunately, Neil Armstrong had already punched the same man a few minutes earlier; while Michael Collins just walked around them in a big circle.
BEST
I always loved the "flag is waving because of a breeze" theory because everyone knows that every film studio just leaves windows open for no reason so a breeze can ruin their takes
Nothing like a good stiff breeze through a sound stage to help you get that perfect shot, and nice, clean audio.
Only NASAs budget allows for a studio that stays darkened while the windows are open. Elvis told me about it when I ran into him in Ecuador in the 90s.
That’s because it’s the most pathetic straw man argument that that’s like these use to ‘discredit’ anyone who dares question the original pack of lies.
MI6 correct and with no air resistance it moves for ages
it swayed from movement
but also couldnt dust and the light atmosphere move the atoms of the flag
'We are in trouble as a species if people refuse to believe things they can't do themselves.' Thank you, David Mitchell. Exactly.
Were in even more trouble if we believe everything the American government tell us without questioning everything
@@warrenwakefield7353 It's not just the American government. Brits still have to see a feasible Brexit deal.
@@warrenwakefield7353 And what the hell does that have to do with the price of steak in India? Nothing. Why you idiot #hoaxtards bring that up as some sort of possible line of reasoning is the most illogical, ill-concieved, ignorant twaddle ever. A fact doesn't have to be proven. It simply is.
There is no claim that can be made, that hasn't already been debunked hundreds, if not thousands of times before the idiot making it, ever heard the claim to begin with. None. Not one.
They landed.
Six times.
Deal with it.
.
@@warrenwakefield7353 no one is asking you to believe everything. Just the ones that have overwhelming evidence. On a whole, it seems to me, moon landing conspiracy theorists failed basic science and math - that combined with an extreme cynicism of the human race - that we are incapable of doing things people like you can't imagine - let alone achieve - is the problem with people like you. Keep yapping on the internet that it was faked, you insignificant flea.
If people could do it themselves then they'd obviously have no problem in believing it can be done, it's quite a silly thing David said really, but they went to the moon anyway.
I heard on the skeptics guide to the universe podcast (they had a moonlanding expert on) that the soviet union were actually the first nation to congratulate the US on the landing. The official broadcast had a delay, but the soviet tracking of Armstrong and Aldrin’s pod were 100 % accurate and they could therefore issue their congratulations the second they hit the ground.
Jodrell Bank also tracked the Moon landing and so did hundreds of ham radio enthusiasts around the world who listened in to the voice broadcasts
That's really interesting, because it doubles as an intimidation tactic. "Congrats on your achievement. Now best of luck figuring how we know exactly where you are and what you're doing at all times, even on the moon."
@@williambodin5359 What's creepy about it is that (except for Australia) the moon landing broadcast had a slight time delay. So, being so extremely punctual would imply genuinely scary intelligence capabilities.
Or maybe not. It's also possible "the second of touchdown" is an exaggeration.
Ham radios wouldn't have heard anything. The signals transmitted by the spacecraft were weak enough that nasa had to build three giant (30 meters) dishes, the Deep Space Network, to be able to hear them.
@@UnshavenStatue While the Deep Space Network was involved, the primary communications system for Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury was the Manned Space Flight Network. The Deep Space Network served as a backup system, such as during Apollo 13 when limited power meant it could not transmit with sufficient power for the smaller dishes of the Manned Space Flight Network to pick up the transmissions.
My favorite thing about conspiracies like this is that people can simultaneously hold the idea that these people are masters of manipulation and falsehood capable of controlling anything, but they’re also extraordinarily incompetent and leave little clues
But yet somehow be so competent than no one has ever came forward from the project showing that it was faked.
Oliver Lane it’s like the best kept and worst kept secret of all time, all at once
Don't forget how every single person at every single department of the entire agency (add the whole of the Soviet space program and every single person working there) has kept this earth-shattering secret and not once mentioned it even in passing to any friends, loved ones or acquaintances. That is some serious faith these superpowers were putting into a mind-boggling amount of people for no discernible reward.
Most conspiracy theories collapse if you just follow this train of thought, I find. The sheer number of people who'd have to be involved in order to sustain a lie (far more than any agency or even government could ever hope to control) for no apparent reason demonstrates how ridiculous it is.
Disclaimer: This sounds ridiculous but I have come to believe it...
Satanists have to let you know they are going to attack... They do so in code... If you crack the code, they will not attack...
Its like they have to warn you first and trick you but if you catch them they give up...
I know, I know... How silly right???
Thought you may like that...
20Proff that sounds exactly right, I mean I think most human evils play out like an escape room so it makes sense
David came *this close* to saying _"So we're stupider than Americans?!"_
And indeed many Russians think the moon landings were fake...but that's probably just their habit of trolling people...
MrStig691 source?
@MrStig691 true
@@FredByDawn
Well, kinda.
von Braun was the Head of development of the Saturn V.
@@FredByDawn common knowledge. Werner Von Braun. Helped blow up half of Europe and got a nice well paid job with NASA as punishment.
My favorite argument has always been, "if NASA was willing to fake achievements, dont you think they'd have a few more?"
Good point, maybe Trump will put them on Mars after all :)
Anything to bring up Trump eh?
They have look it up
I like the irony of sending people to the Moon being an out of reach possibility, but that would be exactly what it would take to convince the still duped, after all these decades, that they'd been duped.
'It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled,' and 'Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth,' and 'They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority,' and all that wisdom lost on a world overrun by imbeciles.
Fuck!n' television. That's a big part of it, I'm certain.
@@FakeMoonRocks those quotes are being used so far away from what they're intended to be used as it almost hurts. Believing in something because there's an abundance of evidence that it's true isn't blind conformity, it's believing in evidence. That simple.
In fairness, Aldrin punched the guy not because he was a conspiracy theorist, but because he was up in Aldrin's face accusing him being a liar, a coward and a thief, so having exhausted diplomatic avenues ... yeah, Buzz clocked him one.
I deplore violence, but I admit that prick had it coming. Just another service Buzz has done for humanity.
Yep.
He cornered Aldrin, giving him no other choice but to defend himself.
His case popularized the term "fighting words" in the modern legal lexicon.
@Kevin L and the case provided a reference point that contributed to the term being used more frequently
Them's fightin' words@Kevin L!!!!! ;-)
Over what was he accusing Aldrin of being a coward, liar...?
@@61lastchild The guy believed that the moon landings are a hoax, and that Buzz never went to the moon. That's an opinion, and one he's welcome to, but he didn't want to be content in his belief. Instead he wanted to get in Buzz's face and start insulting the guy. It all went from there.
Frankly I'm amazed anybodys taken in by this and gutted that Alan didn't ask 'but Which moon Stephen?
You're amazed that people are taken in by verified historical events?
Events that were captured on video.
Mike Henderson no, but I am incredibly surprised that somebody posting into a QI video on TH-cam apparently doesn’t understand humour or the relevance of asking the question which moon.
I lived through the space race years. It is because of that why I became a engineer and why I have worked for the organisations and company’s I have worked for.
@@mikehenderson7907 QI have had numerous questions around the moon and how many moons Earth has. You know QI is based around comedy, right?
@@mikehenderson7907 whooosh
To be fair to Mike, the first part of Nigel's post was ambiguous. The OP could have been referring to either the moon landings, or to the conspiracy theories about the moon landings... :)
0:59 Buzz Aldrin did not randomly just punch a guy because he didn't believe him. The guy literally blocked his path to his car and his retreat back to his hotel. Even the guy who got punched admitted wrongdoing.
That guy would never have approached young Buzz with that bull, 30\50 year old Buzz woulda layed him out flat with that little jab 😁
I'm fact, the guy tricked buzz into meeting somewhere under false pretenses, then ambushed him with accusations about it being fake. Buss left, and the guy followed him and continually bombarded him with questions and finally, as you said, blocked his way before being punched
Am I the only one who liked it better when I thought Buzz just punched him because he was just a denier? I personally met Neil Armstrong I wanna say around 2008 was it? It was surreal because I firmly believe that The Apollo 11 mission was the single greatest scientific achievement we have ever performed as a species and people who deny that are the problem with this world. It takes one person to think it's fake and then suddenly hes got a cult following so I don't feel bad at all about anyone who gets punched for that. I would pay good money to see Michael Collins Kick Eric Dubay in the nuts.
The guy had been haranguing Buzz who just tried to walk away. It was only when he said to his face, "You're a coward and a liar" that Buzz hit him. Not because he was denying the Apollo missions, and not just because he blocked his path, but because he used fighting words.
Nuj Renneth true. The knobhead in question was one Bart Sibrel and he did have a number of conspiracy videos on TH-cam at one time.
If you consider though that there are morons who still think the earth is flat it’s inevitable that there will be landing deniers. I just wish I could punch all of them in the face quite frankly.
As a filmmaker who has worked in many studios, I can put everyone's mind at rest by saying there is NEVER wind strong enough to move a flag while filming.
The sound operators would be furious is there was
@@Lamster66 3 point lighting is a dead system in the industry now m8. And if a crew did want to replicate a moon set, they would use one light in fairness
Charlie Hinde As a lighting engineer then, I’d love for you to explain the inverse square law to me. When you have, please explain how there is zero drop-off in shadow intensity in any of the Apollo photographs. Did they put the super powerful studio light a long way away? Well, yes, they did. It was 93 million miles away and called The Sun! 👍
Lamster66 Sorry dude! 😘☺️ Check the vid on my channel if you’re interested in some novel evidence 👍
@@mesonparticle mate I specialised in production sound mixing xD. Lighting is your area.
And you've lost me, are you saying it was or wasn't staged?
Charlie Hinde Most definitely not staged. Only nobsockets think it was staged 😘
RIP Sean Lock (April 22, 1963 - August 16, 2021), age 58
You will be remembered as a legend
shut up thats not what this is about.
Let's not get carried away. Alexander the Great was a legend. William Shakespeare was a legend. Sean Lock was a bloody good comedian but in 100 years he'll barely be remembered at all. He'll be an obscure 21st century footnote found under Entertainment.
He never got to go on the moon 😔
@@thecolourrose9022 Neither did anyone else.
And for those who ask why they didn't drown in the Sea of Tranquility, the answer is simply that they landed whilst the tide was out.
And we all know what affects the tides...................................................The Russians.
@@Telstar62a those damn commies
i'd love to go sailing on the Sea of Tranquillity, it sounds just lovely... or is it one of those ironic things and its nothing but storms...
@@nighttimedaytime1192 have you ever been to the Pacific Ocean
Hahaha
I met the man who molded Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong's spacesuit gloves that were worn. He taught me the sign language for 'idiot', which for some reason I still know to this day
That's cos it's gonna come in really useful.....in this crazy troubled, we are all living in the matrix world......have a nice day 😎
The funny bit about the moon landings is that getting there was relatively easy for the time. Getting back and coming through the atmosphere was the new nearly impossible bit. :o
Not unlike the taunted trip to Mars. The problem is not really getting there (we've sent complex spacecraft multiple times already) but doing so in a way that would allow the crew to get back - escaping the atmosphere of a big planet is hard, and safely getting there with enough fuel to do it is even harder.
@@supertoyg I feel we have to be real on this one, you go to live on Mars. Which might be a good thing as that’s more cargo space to take stuff needed rather than a return craft.
@@teamidris If Matt Damon has taught me anything, all you need is potatoes
@@9Kualalumpur I saw the movie recap and I was all for watching it until that point :o)
Not to mention the toxic deadly poisonous perchlorate micron sized dust particles that get in everywhere. Plus the two to three years exposure to unfiltered solar radiation. Mars landing is a pipe dream.😊@@supertoyg
I cant stop laughing at 'if you ever speak to me again im gonna be sick in your eyes', im gonna use that one 😆
Me too! Just brilliant 🤣
Same as "Don't look at the votes" today - only someone with something to hide, would no want it proven......
@@CONEHEADDK ... what
The moon cameras are actually quite interesting. All of them were medium format 'system' cameras, and that style typically has you holding it at your waist and looking down into the camera to line up the shot, with a ground glass screen on top. The image would be reversed left and right, but that's easy enough to get used to. You can add a prism to get it fully corrected, but those are bulky, heavy, and limit you to only framing it up by your eye.
The 'data' camera that went out onto the lunar surface was the coolest one. It was loosely based on the Hasselblad 500EL, with a battery and motor drive with a BIG shutter button for the gloves, and custom double perforated film at 70 mm wide. It had a Zeiss 60mm f5.6 planar lens, and a high capacity film back that held 70 frames (usual rolls have 12).
And because of the thickness of the suit, the life support control on the chest, and the mounting, there was no way to stoop over the camera to line up a shot anyway. So it didn't even have a viewfinder at all. The shutter speed was a fixed 1/250th of a second, and they used zone focus plus a tighter aperture to get decent shots. But it was still a situation of 'eh, 30 feet?' set your aperture, point in the general direction and hope for the best. So they were often slightly tilted, including the infamous pic of Niel in Buzz's visor they put up in the background.
This is all so interesting. Thank you!
I think the black and white cassettes had 200 frames.
Proving yet again that gullibility isn't exlcusive to Disney fans.
no, there are no view finders on them at all.......
@@chloedevereaux1801 The ones that went outside the lunar module didn't (the 'data' cameras), but the ones that stayed inside were fairly standard 500 EL's with a viewfinder and extra large film back for double perf film. Some of them even had prisms for a fully corrected view.
the best counter to a moon landing conspiracy is to ask "oh, so are you one of those people who believe there is a moon?"
Actually there is a concept now that the Moon actually could be considered a dwarf planet. Interesting.
Yeah that response is definitely a pro gamer move!
Flat Earthers don't believe in the moon, so they _have_ to disbelieve in the moon landings. Don't ask that question of a flat Earther because they will say yes (and call you a sheep or a NASA shill).
@@John_Smith_60 What I don't get about 'Flat Earthers' is the idea that NASA created the notion of a globe when NASA has not even been in existence for 100 years. Ignorance is bliss, as they say!
@@JaneAustenAteMyCat Flat-Earther "theories" are a bunch of self-contradictory nonsense. No-one has ever considered them to be intelligent.
One thing people have tried to claim about the picture at 3:33 is that the pattern is clearly a boot with large treads but Neil Armstrong's spacesuit at the Smithsonian (I think) has a flat-bottomed boot. This is dumb for 2 reasons: 1. That's the pattern of the overboot which is in multiple pictures and 2. It's Buzz Aldrin's footprint anyway.
Not to mention as to how NASA could be so dimwitted as to put the wrong boot on display.
Ivor Biggun
Mind you they managed to lose/tape over the original mission tapes, who does that?
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 Past people were ridiculously stupid and just didn't care about preserving stuff. The BBC deleted thousands of episodes of old shows because 'why not?'. It's shocking to us now but the idea of preserving history and information is a fairly modern concept that we have only fully embraced in the last 20-30 years. The earliest archaeologists of the 20th century did such unimaginable damage to relics and sites because of this attitude.
Random Ashe
We're talking moon landing here, I would consider that quite a significant event.
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 Again, people in the past were stupid and didn't value historical preservation like we do. They didn't value tapes and recordings and would often overwrite them for cost reasons, which seems insane to us now.
The point about the Soviet Union makes me think of how Holocaust deniers seem to miss that pretty much all the Nazi high command responsible for it admitted everything, were proud of it and gladly told people how they did it.
Just imagine some poor soul who suffered unspeakable agonies in a concentration camp and saw many horrible things only to have some arrogant nobody whose only experience of pain is their phone cracked to tell them that they're lying. You would have every right to despise them and possibly rip their jaw off
They also recorded a lot of it on film.
Eisenhower ordered as much material to be preserved as possible, because, as he put it, "Someday some SOB is going to say it never happened."
Although they never told anyone about robo-Hitler with chainguns for arms.
lol where did you get that information from? they never admitted to anything, tried to cover it up or killed themselves.
I was surprised the panel didn't say "Which moon?"
LMAO 😂 good one
That's Rich Hall's job and his alone
I love the skit on That Mitchell and Webb Look that is about conspiracy theories. It’s basically 3 people sitting in a shadowy room concocting outlandish conspiracies such as the moon landing and the death of Diana. The way the tear apart these ridiculous fantasies with biting sarcasm is brilliant. I especially like how they decide on killing Diana with “the slightly tipsy car crash” as people always die in car accidents and women that are pregnant to the man they only ever truly loved are notoriously slapdash about their personal safety and refuse to wear seatbelts.
"Well... to be honest, the major cost *is* the big rocket."
@@stevesmith9447 Actually it'll be more expensive because of all the catering.
@@dandominare lol love that sketch
Forgetting of course, who are Mitchell and Webb.
@@joktanjoktanovich9448 David Mitchell, Robert Webb.
The Russian argument is best. They had all the reason to lie and say it didn't happen but they didn't. The whole thing came from people who are under educated and easily swayed by poor logic on top of having no requisite knowledge of cameras or how space photography 'would look'
The Russians in fact, congratulated the USA and NASA on this monumental achievement. I remember them doing so, publicly.
@Arsenal fc fan club & Man City supporter Well, CGI as in composite images. Most pictures of Earth are taken by craft too close to get a full view of the planet at once so images have to be stitched together. Some spacecraft, like the Japanese weather spacecraft at the L1 point that takes pictures of the Earth every few minutes to show developing weather and cloud formations to better understand how weather forms and moves, orbit at a distance where the whole Earth is visible and regularly take photos of the planet like the above
@Arsenal fc fan club & Man City supporter Well, they are seeing real photos. Just a bunch of real photos stitched together. If you're looking at Himawari 8's photos though, you are seeing real full photos and not just collages. Either way, you still have images taken from space
@Arsenal FC Supporter and Fan Club No, of course he doesn't expect you to provide proof that we haven't seen a real picture of Earth from space. Such an ask would be silly, as we have plenty of real pictures of Earth that have been taken from space. Only the truly gullible and ignorant believe that we do not.
@Arsenal FC Supporter and Fan Club I have been programming professionally for over 35 years and am aware that those lacking a technical understanding of digital media and data processing can find this subject confusing. Perhaps you simply lack the technical background to comprehend what NASA does in order to process the data collected from digital sensors into images.
NASA generally uses sensors to pick up not only visible light, but also radiations that are both lower and higher frequency than the visible spectrum. The processing of the data collected yields images just as accurate and representative as film. When NASA explains this to some people such as yourself, ignorant of the processes involved, they may leap to the erroneous conclusion that the images are CGI.
You may also not have any experience with how the process of taking pictures with old style film work. Both methods are ways to "trap" certain wavelengths of radiation that come in through their "lenses". In the case of film photosensitive material is exposed to light coming in through the lens, then processed in a chemical bath to yield final images. This usually targets only visible spectrum light. (There are plenty of photos that have been taken of the Earth from space using this older process as well.)
You should take some time to study and comprehend the subject. I think you'd find it quite fascinating.
The problem when engaging with moon landing consipiracy theorists (or any conspiracy theorist for that matter) is you're told to never call them stupid. Because as soon as you do that, you're no longer on the moral high ground and the debate usually becomes futile very soon afterwards. Which I can see their point.
My problem is I just find it virtually impossible to not call someone stupid when they genuinely are stupid!
You won't find any dumber people than moon landing deniers and flat Earthers.
"the debate usually becomes futile very soon afterwards"
The debate started out as futile to begin with.
And after the first couple of statements, the conspiracy theorist will start calling you a sheep/shill/idiot/all-of-the-above anyway.
There is no more a moral high ground than there is a debate when it comes to the moon landing. You lose nothing by finishing the conversation as quickly as possible, if calling an idiot an idiot is what it takes, so be it. Sadly if you let them think you’ll engage in a debate, they’ve won.
Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring it down to his level and beat you with experience.
@@lancefawcett1809 ok answer this why haven’t they gone back
Why aren’t there any videos or pics zoomed in of earth
Why aren’t billionaires travelling to space and recording it
Why has the technology improved so much that they aren’t able to go again whilst spending billions on useless defence systems
To think anyone would ever buy into this conspiracy that that moon exists...
When you least expect it the moon is having an existential crisis ...
It honestly blows my mind that I've never even heard of a Russian who doesn't believe we landed on the moon, but so many Americans do believe that.
They do it to wind people like you up
It's ironic really, but Americans are quite thick, something like 40% think the earth is less than 10000 years old.
@@colinjava8447 40%? No way is it that high. More likely around 4-8%
There was a young Russian mathematician who proved by analysis of the perspectives in Apollo lunar photographs, that distances to far off objects determined them to be stage back drops.... His very interesting youtube videos seem to have become mysteriously difficult to find.
@Nunyo - How many Russians have you spoken to? Because an opinion survey conducted last May by state-backed pollster VTSiOM found that 57 percent of Russians believe there were no lunar landings, and that the U.S. government made a fake documentary in 1969 about the mission.
1:28 David managed to stop himself saying "We're stupider than the Americans."
Well, they're literally watching a video of Americans putting a flag on the moon. Kind of hard to fancy yourself smarter.
Funny how this is the one QI video where 8 of the top 10 comments aren't Brits going "hurr hurr Americans dumb" because they just were provided with the statistic that they are over 4 times dumber than Americans.
A E - yeah but everyone knows that 96.3% of statistics are made up on the spot!
@@cpt.shmitt7387 ah but the Brits have Johnson don't they
@@RevolutionibusOrbiumCoelestium Nice one.
“we are in trouble, as a species, if people refuse to believe in things that they couldn’t actually do themselves”
Yep. " *I* can't figure it out", "It doesn't make sense *to me* ", and therefore then no explanation will ever satisfy you. Or perhaps worse, then you'll conclude *ANY* explanation is equally valid.
David Mitchell is incredibly articulate.
sounds like covid vaccine conspiracies. hmmm
Just as we are in trouble if people believe everything they're told without questioning anything.
We are in trouble, as a species, if people trust the American government, or blindly believe whatever they're told without scrutiny
*sigh* Back in the day when only 6% of Americans were conspiracy theorists.
the number of people are the same, now and then. it's just that they've come out of their closet more:)
tenerife sea Unfortunately.
RIGHT?!?!
@alexis p
The term “Conspiracy Theory” is not problematic, it’s accurate; because you have zero evidence, for your supposed “Theories”, and to explain them, you suggest vast networks of conspiracies are at work, which, again, you have zero evidence to back up those ludicrous claims.
If you don’t like to be called “Conspiracy Theorists”, try not believing in absolute nonsense; but if you don’t like that term, we could just rename, Conspiracy Theorists, “Fucking Morons”, as the two terms are pretty much synonymous anyway...
All the best. 😀👍
@@ThisCharmingMan1984 I love this
Stephen Fry has a beautiful way of explaining everything quickly and clearly!
He makes several mistakes on this. The module could not float down - moon still has gravity, so it just fell the last few feet - and dust was pushed away by the engines, but as there is rock under a small layer of dust (thinner than Nasa expected) no crater would have to be expected.
@@Schmidtelpunkt you do realise he is reading a script.
@@dogwalker666 Just in parts. There are tangents the elves researched, but Fry and Toksvig both bring along their own knowledge, or like in this case: half knowledge.
@@Schmidtelpunkt Just so happens to be a rock where they landed but everywhere else there is deep footprints 😆
.....plus even if the LM landed on a rock covered with a thin layer of dust you would see evidence of that in the photos - looks pretty dusty under the LM to me.
@@blaze1148 If you look at the detail shots from under that lander you see how the dust has been blown away and forms ridges.
The surface looks pretty dusty the moment you have a few centimeters of dust on top. Not sure why you think this would allow any conclusion.
In fairness to Aldrin, the conspiracy nut got all up in his face and was calling him a coward, a liar, a traitor and so forth.
There was provocation - insults flying - and Buzz did try to be diplomatic initially, but when the guy wouldn't shut up, accused him of the worst things and was getting in the way of him going about his day, he lost it and decided to give him a physical demonstration of how not-a-coward he actually was.
He shouldn't have resorted to violence, but I can totally understand why he did. The insults and accusations - and he was actually blocking Buzz from getting to where he was going, as this guy was "mounting an ambush" on him - to a loyal patriot who'd taken a massive risk to further human progress. He couldn't be bothered to debate him and just smacked him one.
I'll never understand why everyone takes things to heart, often over things that have absolutely nothing to do
Everyone is entitled to their opinion regardless of how insane it might be
Bur, why go to the point of physical violence to get your point across?
Don't these morons realise how utterly insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things?
@@SamuelBlack84 The guy offered Aldrin $10,000 to swear on the bible (he provided the bible) that he had been on the Moon. Aldrin refused.
@@rachelhunter9122 Well, there you go
He puts more faith in a book if lies than the word of a trained professional
I always loved the bit when Ali G interviewing Buzz Aldrin asks him “what do you say to all them conspiracy theorists that say the moon doesn’t exist” 😂😂 the look on Buzz’s face is priceless 😂😂😂
It is not advisable to mess with Dr. Buzz Aldrin. Two MiG-15 pilots tried to do that in the Korea War and look what happened to them.
The shadows argument is actually my favorite because the debunk of that is itself actually proof that it couldn't have been faked.
Some of the criticism is that it's too bright, but to get that level of brightness on set with studio lighting you'd need multiple lights. What would the shadows show if there were multiple light sources? Multiple shadows.
Now, you could argue they just used one very bright spotlight. Perhaps, but by its very nature a spotlight doesn't cover a very wide area. So the "set" would have to be much smaller than it appears to be.
Lastly, any studio lighting, spotlight etc, is close enough to the astronauts that you would see the shadows diverge, but the shadows in the video footage and the photos are perfectly parallel, just like with shadows cast by the Sun.
Also, at the time the technology of the lighting meant that had they actually replicated the sun's brightness, it would've made everything Bright red.
Mythbusters did an episode on this and they addressed the shadows conspiracy. There are, in fact, shadows in moon landing photos that are not parallel. But this is due to the fact that the topology of the moon is not perfectly flat (go figure) and with such topologies, you have different objects casting shadows at different angles.
@@ultimateman55 italian giournalist Massimo Mazzucco made a documentary "american moon" where he shows all the shadows not just the mythbusters ones. 3 hours of proof that it was a fake. No doubt about it mate.
"We are in trouble as a species if people refuse to believe in things they couldn't do themselves."
This is exactly what the vast majority of conspiracy theorists, of various kinds, try to play. Argument from incredulity. "I can't understand or see how this could have happened, so it couldn't have."
Sure but that quote has a ton of potential to be used in an abusive way to push a deception. A Christian could say the same thing about religion afterall.
Well, you know, the moment a Christian shows me he can do it, I'll happily believe in it. I'll even believe it if the magical man in the sky shows that he can do it. Of course, after that, I'll punch the fuck out of him for the shit he puts families through, but you know...
Ancient astronaut theorists seem to suffer from the same mind set.
@David McConville Likewise. I remember seeing an episode where they tried to contend that containers used for electroplating jewelry, were actually batteries... :( Hey, we may have been visited by aliens, but Giorgio ties to credit every myth, legend, or hard to explain archeological discovery, to aliens. They're almost smug about it.
Your belief a man walked on the moon is as ridiculous as someone believing jesus walked on water
I love the Regeneration effect when Fry became Toksvig at 4.17. When do the Daleks turn up?
When you least expect it.
@@hb6x8 no, no, no. that's the spanish inquisition. the daleks show up thursday.
Ah,so that's who's behind the proliferation of conspiracy theories. Softening us up for an invasion,no doubt.
Punder statement. 4:17
"We are in trouble as a species if there are people who refuse to believe in things they couldn't actually do themselves. " is the phrase that keeps running through my head every time I read a stupid comment on Facebook regarding science.
Another point on having no “flame” under the Descent Module; it would have been much wider, dispersed, and more diffuse than a rocket flame on Earth, since those are squeezed into a narrow shape by atmospheric pressure. You can see them get wider as they ascend in fact.
Also, because of the kind of hypergolic fuel used the flame was largely invisible. But you can certainly see dust being kicked-up by it in the last moments of landing.
Again, I think a conspiracy would have ensured a nice colourful, but completely inaccurate flame in our pictures and a crater to go with it. But since we actually went to the Moon, all this weird shit happened instead of nice predictable shit, and it’s just really hard for some people to challenge their intuitions about weird shit, so they dismiss it.
@Ursacke For the ascent, yes. the hypergolic fuels used in the ascent engine do not leave flame in a vacuum. But the statement was, "why is there no blast crater under the LM?" The answer is, the exhaust pressure wasn't enough to cause a crater. There was significant disturbance, and all six crews commented on it. In fact, on Apollo 12, Both Pete Conrad and Alan Bean commented that parts of the Surveyor were pitted from dust thrown up by their engine on landing.
@@lancer525 I did the math one time. If the engine was running at 30% (which is about what it would have been) the pressure at the exit of the engine bell was just over 1 psi. That's about what a healthy adult male can generate by exhaling as hard as he possibly can. People who think the blast pressure was enough to cause a crater should be able to generate one by blowing as had as they can on bare ground.
I can just see a producer on a fake Moon landing production screaming at the director, "Why aren't there any flames coming out when they land?!" (But sir, the scientists have unanimously stated that there would be no flames if they were actually landing on the Moon.) "I don't care! People are expecting to see flames; they'll think it's fake if they don't see flames; put some flames in there!" (Okay, sir. *Puts in bright orange flames under the lunar module.*)
@@madaemon Exactly. If you were going to fake it, you'd make it look like people expect it to look based on what they've seen in movies and TV shows. Basically, the hoax loons say it must be fake because it doesn't look like things the fake things they've seen.
How fast was the eagle moving when it made its ascent back up towards the lunar orbiter?
Mitchell and Webb do a great sketch on the moon landing hoax theory.
"I hate to be a wet blanket, but... *why* are we doing this?"
It's the complete opposite with the Soviets. Not only did they not dispute it, they claimed to pick up the broadcast with their own sattelites and admitted defeat. To me it seems rather likely that the Soviets were telling the truth
The Soviets had launched Luna 15 a lunar-orbiter that was intended to land on the moon during the Apollo 11 mission. If Apollo 11 failed, Luna 15 was expected to be seen as a great success. Unfortunately for the Soviets, Luna 15 failed to land as it smashed into a mountain while two Americans were walking around in the Sea of Tranquility 350 miles away.
My favourite part of the moon landing (or at the very least *A* moon landing) is when they were done they found out that they planted the flag too close to the shuttle and they blew the flag out the ground. I just like the idea of them being like "...Should... Should we go back?"
..."them being like" - and you have a college education. P.S. It's the Lunar Module [or "lem" in conversation] not "the shuttle". Kids eh.
@@nightjarflying Well excuse me for not being a ROCKETS expert. ...And how do you know I went to college?
@@TheBlackDemon1996 In you're early twenties [1996] you're not likely to be expert in anything, but now at least you know a tiny bit more about "ROCKETS", Apollo 11, the number of manned lunar landings & the names of two NASA astronauts which is marginally QI don't you think? It's obvious how I know you went to college - you can figure it out. Incidentally I was struck by your use of "the shuttle", because NASA had six Space Shuttles, two of which were lost with full crews - one of them in your lifetime, but they were engineered to only reach Low Earth Orbit. Back on your head, tea break is over.
nightjarflying Never heard of the “quotative like”? Bloody prescriptivist.
@@nightjarflying, a quick tip for you - if you are to have a pompous go at someone's use of the English language, make sure you don't make any silly mistakes yourself.
I once had the pleasure of meeting Patrick Moore, and I've never met someone with so much "presence", he literally filled the room, and in both senses of the phrase (as he was enormous).
It's a shame that his name sake is a climate change conspiracy nut.
This comment section, overall, has me slightly more optimistic for the human race
Just QI viewers, sadly, not representative of human race overall.
Because it’s monitored and tampered
@@eddyecko94 by whom
@@eddyecko94 Then why haven't they removed your stupid comment?
Yes, expecting the worst, somewhat relieved.
I once met a person who didn't believe in the moon landings, but he also thought sheep and lamb were different animals so there we go.
Moon landing deniers aren't the brightest.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson said, “It’s easier to land on the moon than to successfully fake landing on the moon”
Well, they didn't successfully fake it.
It looks like a 1960s Doctor Who serial.
How would you know which is easier unless you've tried both?!
Yes, but he could not explain how the 1100Kgs (crew and module) and the 850Kg extra payload of artefacts, and the moon buggy got off the moon surface with no fuel. Nor could he explain the arrival on earth of the astronauts with no payload.
"As Neil deGrasse Tyson said..." Have a think about that. Well, try anyway.
Then why hasn't any other country done it?
Mythbusters made an episode about the moon landing conspiracy and shot down every "clue" magnificently.
Nope - not even close....
What Mythbusters did was show how easy it was to fake the landings right here on Earth.
@@jonsmith3945 The point is that they didn't, and all the things that moon landing conspiracy theorists always point to as "obviously fake" because they couldn't possibly occur on the moon were busted.
@@Andrea-xs4ny They didn't shoot anything down. They recreated shadows, boot imprint, etc, proving that all those things could be easily faked on Earth.
The only thing any debunkers have shot down is the lowest hanging fruit...lack of stars, flag waving when someone touching it, etc.
While there's no smoking gun proof the landings were faked, there's no proof the landings happened. Every 'evidence' cited by landing believers has been debunked.
@@jonsmith3945 No, what myth busters did was show that the conspiracy theory's "proofs" were nonsense. Everything they did was show that the conspiracy theory's claims that they didn't go to the Moon because of some lame conspiracy theory "reason" was wrong. And they did it using much better technology than was available when the Moon landings happened.
I can watch this show for hours,......
The dust being blown out radially in straight lines from directly underneath Eagle as it came down -- clearly visible in the video. Try replicating that in an atmosphere, sometime.
and the dust from the rover in the later missions... was the sound stage in a giant vacuume chamber?
@@mattjacomos2795 "was the sound stage in a giant vacuume chamber? NASA had a vacuum chamber that was about 100 ft across and 112 ft high.
@@jonsmith3945 so they superimposed images of the rover INSIDE the chamber ON the lunar surface? Is that what you are saying? In 1970 something?
@@mattjacomos2795 "so they superimposed images of the rover INSIDE the chamber ON the lunar surface? Is that what you are saying? "
No, that's not remotely close to what I said.
@@jonsmith3945 A bit hard to film the rover and its tracks as they drove it around to various locations some distances away and on video too, Try doing that in that vacuum chamber
Theirs many more believe a man walked on water. And that wasn't even filmed
The footage must have been destroyed. Weird 🤔. 😂
Underrated comment sir!
Wish I had thought of that ,definitely using it in the future...👍
YEP.♡♡♡
Seems a lot easier to me
The best argument against the conspiracies is from Mitchell and Webb look - you have to build a massive rocket that can get into space. That’s one of the hardest parts so you may as well just go the whole hog and fake some moon landing footage on the moon whilst you’re up there.
Rocket without people is 10 times easier then with people (to the Moon and back).
@@ImperativeGames I’d argue that if you had the technology to get a rocket into space it wouldn’t be beyond the grasp to then make it able to carry humans. They already had the U-2 spy plane
I saw that skit and it never made sense to me. I thought that the conspiracy included the idea that the rocket was fake too!
@@MerkhVision I’m not sure about that. People watched it take off so it definitely had to happen
Yup, the bigger the project the easier it is to do the actual thing than an imitation of it. ICBMs and Sputnik, the first satellite in orbit, were already more than a decade old, there were plenty of civilians working on the problem and industries were developed around it, how a government needs to support them as the achievements are supposed to be false has never been explained, but the thing with these conspiracy theorists is that they equate some poorly made graphic with proof and the biggest thing they have ever faked is an orgasm.
1:57 In fact, they sewed a stiff wire into the top edge of the flag to keep it from flopping down. It's clearly visible in the video if you make it full-screen, or even go look at any of a gazillion photos of the event.
I liked how by the end of the segment it was just four guys sitting there going we know this stuff, because based on the percentages there was a chance at least one of them wouldn't and Steven came prepared.
The Soviets actually landed (crashed, really) a probe on the moon while Apollo 11 was on the moon. Luna 15.
The reason the Soviets never denied it or claimed it didnt happen....they were actively there, trying to beat the US in the space race by returning a sample from the moon to earth first. This was their second attempt. Both failed. However, Luna 2 was the first successful contact with the moon's surface, Luna 3 took pictures of the dark side of the moon (both firsts and done by the Soviets).
People always say "why didnt we go back then?" .....you mean, like Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 did? It wasn't a one and done type of thing. Those were just the manned mission.
I've visited Apache Point Observatory and watched the laser ranging equipment in action, and if it's a hoax, they've done an unbelievably sophisticated job at retrofitting what would otherwise be rather straightforward scientific equipment to behave exactly as if there are mirrors on the moon, even when the only people paying attention are a few random students (and the staff of scientists and technicians that they somehow continue to bribe/brainwash and pay salaries to for perpetrating this elaborate charade). In other words, the technological and psychological sophistication necessary to pull off and perpetuate the hoax is significantly greater than that needed to actually go to the moon in the first place.
@Carlos Maron Amazing what the infusion of billions of dollars in geopolitically motivated money and deadlines can accomplish, isn't it? And thank you for informing me that I'm a brainwashed tool. How could I possibly take offence at that?
@Carlos Maron I'm not saying anything about the benefit to humanity. I'm just asserting that the landings did in fact happen. Now go back to your subreddit, addlepate.
@@astrotter - He's a flat Earth believer Adam (he proved it in another thread), hence that says it all :-)
@Carlos Maron Sure, why don't you come over and my husband and I can spit roast you while he watches Apollo 13 and I rederive the equations for the Coriolis effect. Though I doubt you're yet of legal age...
Carlos Maron Bless your heart, sweetie 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I went to a highly entertaining, but actually totally flawed, talk by David S. Percy about his book 'DARK MOON: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers'. When he suggesting Neil Armstrong had never landed on the Moon a voice from the back shouted 'bollocks I was there'.
just getting the lighting for the alleged set to appear as though the light source were 93 million miles away, would've cost more than actually going to the moon
Prove it.
No. Obviously it would not. It would be a lot cheaper.
@@runethorsen8423 notice the lighting on the alleged set. the shadows are parallel. in order to replicate the light from 93 million miles away in a studio would require, at minimum, thousands of LEDs. having that many at that time would cost more than actually going to the moon itself
@@Art1_Sec8 Having thousands of LEDs would cost more than actually going to the moon? I wonder if that is something you actually calculated... (I suspect not).
I may also mention that the types of cameras they used for space mostly had waist level viewfinders. You simply couldn't put them up to eye level.
There is another pole horizontally holding up the flag off the vertical pole.
You know the caterers would have written a book by now
I love the thought of Patrick Moore being sick in your eye. 😂🤣😃
At that time during the cold war, the USA and USSR had so much in the way of radio antennas and arrays pointed at each other to intercept signals. If the US broadcast the moon landing live from a sound stage in Nevada, the Soviets would have for sure been able to determine that and they would have been able to immediately discredit the US space program to devastating effect. But they didn't. Why? Maybe because the broadcast came from the surface of the moon?
The only way to fake those transmissions without them being tracked would be to go to the moon and transmit from there... which would go against the whole point of the forgery.
I suppose, you could bounce the signal off the moon. Amateur Radio enthusiasts sometimes do that to communicate with each other, pointing a dish at the moon so the signal reflects back. *disclaimer!* I'm not denying the moon landings! I totally believe in the success of the Apollo program. But I'm speculating that you could, I suppose, make a signal appear to come from the moon using signal reflection.
@@TheAmazingAdventuresOfMiles Of course, you could do that, but then there would be still the "tiny" problem of how to make dust behave like it was in a low-G environment with no atmosphere. Tying an estimated 20 billion micro fishing lines to them, to make them do the perfect arc, that is impossible in atmosphere and earth gravity maybe?
You definitely can't fake it though, you can bounce a signal off the moon ONLY if it is in your path of transmission, but as the studio needs to keep moving around so after the Earth has turned it can still reach stations in other places on the planet, the signal bouncing back from the moon, and keep it at a steady pace with refueling from other aircraft as you can't have such a big set on the air for too long. Relaying the transmissions through other stations doesn't work either as the time it takes for it to come back varies and you've introduced a delay that could be figured out by the Soviets and exposed to the world.
The Soviets were gonna keep their mouths shut, too much to lose
Sean, I hope you're on the moon now having a blast
RIP Sean Lock, you can finally take that well deserved trip to the moon now.
award for the most cheesy sickly sentimental comment goes to whoever you are
So you think, when you are dead, you get to do things you can't do when alive. Even as a joke that is a bizarre concept. If you think it also means you can wander around changing room I think you will find the ALPS will have something to say about that.
This program is excellent.
2:43 now I'm sad because Sean Lock never got to go to the moon
But he might have now.
My favorite proof we landed on the moon is that we literally didn’t have the technology to fake it. There was no cgi, and the lighting just wasn't possible with the technology available to them.
Exactly this. The technology to make to to the moon existed. The tech to FAKE it did not. The later you're born, the more all-powerful movie magic seems, but that didn't exist in that timeperiod.
Both of you need to check out the film 2001 A Space Odyssey, made in 1968 🤣
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 - A film full of so many errors in the moon scenes that are never seen in any Apollo footage, where Kubrick doesn't even bother to try to attempt 1/6 gravity for the scenes on the moon, instead he just gets the actors to walk slowly :-)
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 Why?
Jesus christ that outro transition is so jarring so suddenly switch away from Fry.
I wonder if people in the late 18th Century claimed that James Cook didn't sail to the South Pacific and map the transit of Venus across the Sun, then map the east coast of Australia on the ride home.
Many of these ignorance-prestige ideas like a flat earth, fake moon landings and such are dishearteningly recent things, and of course no one opposed Columbus' trip on the ground that the Earth wasn't spherical.
No, because they didn't have a lot of faked photos and video to analyze.
@@jonsmith3945 What color are the skies on the planet you think you live on?
I can’t run for a mile therefore I don’t believe anyone can do it.
I can't negotiate Brexit, therefore I don't believe... nah, best leave that one alone 😄
Funny how nobody can get past low earth orbit today isn't it 😉
101sshhh what’s even funnier is how full of shit you are.
That falls apart when the people who "did it", can't do it anymore and publicly say so.
Corky DeLarge ahh another one that eats from the great conspiracy shit pile
Stephen Fry has the right outlook on this one.
Oh no Sandi is back to scold me again.
I liked the Sandi bit at the end.
The camera used on the moon was a Hasselblad 'superwide C', 2 1/4 square format. The lens had a 90 degree field of view. Although heavily corrected for distortion some still existed and I believe this to be the genesis of many of the conspiracy theories.
One inside the module, yes. That one was fitted with a 38mm lens. The one carried on the surface was a modified 500el with a 60mm f5.6, with a more reasonable 68 degree field of view. Still a bit wide, but not to the point of having much distortion. Without a viewfinder it was a situation of 'eh, 30 feet?,' zone focusing, aim in the general direction and hope for the best.
Also, the dust doesn't form into clouds because there is no atmosphere - instead it behaves like jets of water any time they kick it up. You can actually see that it's a vacuum because Apollo 15, 16, and 17 brought video cameras.
....look up the definition of a _Space Vacuum_ in Wiki and with a straight face tell me Space is a vacuum....
Anyone else scanning the comments for any flat earthers? 👀
Honestly Buzz was totally justified in defending himself in that situation. It's a miracle he managed to restrain himself for the amount of time he did.
It's never an excuse to do what he did. Doesn't justify his actions
@@josh2Sides2
Aldrin is a combat veteran. Buzz was lured by Sibrel to the hotel under false pretences, and then he called him "a coward, a liar, and a thief".
He also aggressively poked Buzz with a Bible. So Buzz was both verbally and physically assaulted. I think that justifies his actions!
@@davidkeenan5642 that's your opinions and that's fine. That said, you should never meet violence with violence. Two wrongs don't make it right. Whether you considered a legend or not
@@josh2Sides2by that logic, if I stabbed you, you would have to simply forgive me and not defend yourself while I stab you a second time? 😂
You’re talking out of your arse mate!
I don't know if it was on this episode (or even on QI for that matter), but I love something I saw with Sean Lock in where he said he likes to try and "1-up" moon landing conspiracy nuts by calling them out for believing in the moon.
My favorite "moon landing was faked" claim was one by a guy who showed a video from the Moon's surface and claiming that, as the camera (according to him) panned from left to right, the astronauts' shadows changed directions, thus proving a moving light source.
Apparently it never occurred to him that the camera was actually just *_turning._*
My favorite "proof" that men have been to the Moon is the laser reflectors allegedly put there by Apollo astronauts. Apparently it never occurred to these people that the Soviets also placed laser reflectors on the Moon via their Lunokhod program.
So, I'd ask them, 'If laser reflectors on the Moon are proof that men were there to place them on the surface, then tell me the names of the Soviet cosmonauts that placed the Soviet laser reflectors there."
It's also worth noting that an MIT team bounced lasers off the Moon, May 9th, 1962, long before any reflectors were said to have been placed on it.
Another good so-called "proof" that men went to the Moon is when believers point out that people witnessed the rockets launch.
To that, I'd say, "Oh yeah? Well, people witnessed the Saturn V rocket launches for the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project and Skylab. Were those manned missions to the Moon? How about all those Space Shuttle launches witnessed by so many people? Did they all go to the Moon?" LOL!
My favorite one was a guy who kept going to Apollo 11 recordings and grainy videos as supposedly the lower quality proved that they could've been faked without using high quality equipment. Then we got to later landings and more documented evidence and he exclaimed "well, of course we went after, but that first try was faked!"
@@FakeMoonRocks My favorite proof that men have been to the Moon is that people like you deny it.
Anything that you claim to be true *must* be false, and anything you claim to be false *must* be true.
@@John_Smith_60 Well, that's some rather lame reasoning now, isn't it?
It's outright logical fallacy.
Try using the scientific method.
@@FakeMoonRocks You first.
And using the scientific method is why I know that all of your claims are false. (I won't call them lies, because it's possible you are dumb enough to actually believe what you say, but what you say is still false.)
Another reason the footprint is so well defined is because the powder on the moon hasn't been worn smooth by the wind, so the jagged surfaces make the powder hold its shape more. Mythbusters.
kilroy987 well yeah, but it's a couple things. It's all dust from the millions of asteroid impacts. With the gravity being 1/6th you'd also expect it to be really fluffy.
Mythbusters science and methodology is a bad joke. More idiocy by the masonic entertainment industry.
All Mythbusters did is prove it can be faked on earth.
Exactly, with no atmosphere there's no significant disturbance and because gravity is weaker it is easier to leave a nicely shaped mark. Think of it more or less as something between a human and an elf walking through the misty mountains.
You can reproduce the exact same footprint by using charcoal that has burned completely to ash.
Stephen: "Would you believe they put a man on the moon?"
Me: "If you believe, there's nothing up there to see, nothing that's cool~"
That's why he did it...
Come on
The bit of the story I like is the boys at Kettering Grammar School, they were featured in TV coverage in the UK, and tracked Apollo 11 to the moon and back.
The number of loose threads with doubtless many more untold, one is left with the simple observation: "If the Yanks were really clever enough and rich enough to mount a cover up of this size, they could have flown to the moon and back, no problem."
That Russian accent at 4:10 was gold lol
I was born on the day Armstrong stepped on the moon, so I've always maintained: "It was one....small step.....for Man.......one......giant push.......from Mum!!" 🤣👍
I'm a sceptic. If they really went to the moon, why didn't they bring back any cheese?
Because it was so delicious that they ate all of it on the trip back to earth.
@@Schmidtelpunkt damn Galapagos tortoise scenario all over again
Because 4 billion year old cheese is too mouldy.
Love British humour. So funny but also a lot of class and wit.....
The Mythbusters did programmes where they de-bunked the conspiracies. Not by discussing them but building props and visiting vacuum chambers and showing how things react were they on the moon, such as the flag and boot prints, shadows on and around the lunar lander etc.
The Corridor Crew did a video in which they would discuss the CGI from the Moon landings, as an April Fools joke, but they could only get to the conclusion that there's no way it was faked. Even minor details like astronauts kicking up dust looks so different from kicking up dust in an atmosphere, that it's physically impossible to fake.
@@DaedalusYoung Magicians fake the physically impossible all the time.
@@jonsmith3945 I've yet to see a magician fake kicking up dust and making it look like there's no atmosphere. If it was so easy to do, why have even no other nations ever repeated the fake? Magicians reuse the same tricks all the time. Yet the moon landing has only ever been done a few times, and always by the same organisation. NASA is not a magician.
@@DaedalusYoung "why have even no other nations ever repeated the fake? "
You have to ask them.
@@DaedalusYoung "I've yet to see a magician fake kicking up dust "
Actually, you did see it in the Apollo footage.
I think the best evidence that we landed on the moon is that if we hadn’t, Russia would have immediately gone “no you f***ing didn’t!”
Would you have believed the Russians if they had said it ?
@@Mr.Grimsdale Not sure, honestly (it would depend on what they said, when they said it, and if their story changed after the fall of the USSR), but the fact that they didn’t even TRY is what sells it for me.
The USSR were actually the very first to congratulate the US for landing on the moon. They had the scientific equipment necessary to track the spacecraft perfectly, so they sent the congratulations the moment they landed on the moon, and not when it happened on television
Unless the US were in cahoots with the Soviet’s and the Cold War is fake😂
Also the flag's held up by a horizontal bar that goes across the top
also there in a spot light in a lot of the shots that just how the sun behaves with no atmosphere :S :S :S
Didn't think Stephen's 'it hovered down' theory held much water.' Did it? What like an umberella? They Luner Module had retro rockets mate, and they were shitting themselves in the footage, because they were running out of fuel as Neil Armstrong was supposedly piloting it. 'Hovered down?' WTF? So why was the launch place with all its fine dust not disturbed exactly?
It’s kinda sad hearing Sean Lock say “I’d like to go to the moon” and knowing he died without doing this
@Dell Wright ever...
@Dell Wright "Conspiracy theorist" is the saddest, laziest term in the English language.
Someone doesn't follow you blind faith fundamentalist point of view? Call them a "conspiracy theorist"!
Infamous "conspiracy theorists" throughout history include Galileo, Charles Darwin, the Montgolfier Brothers, Michael Faraday, anyone who said Piltdown Man was fake, anyone who said Chamberlain's "Piece in our time" was nonsense, anyone who thought Jimmy Savile had engaged in illegal sexual activities, and anyone who said Saddam Hussein didn't have WMD.
And also: if it was faked, why would they then fake it another 5, almost 6, times?
Why not? The TV ratings bumped for a bit.
The surface was actually disturbed under the lander. Armstrong made specific note of it ;)
Yes. He said it was just a small amount of disturbance. Which is what we see.
Let's remember, clearly these guys aren't authorities on the subject.
I once wrote an informative article about the moon landing conspiracy and I'm so happy to see Stephen use almost the same words that I used in my article lol
What we saw on the NASA footage and what we saw on Wallace and Gromit did not look the same at all. One on them had to be faked 8^D
4:16 He regenerated!
1:00 No, Buzz Aldrin punched conspiracy theorist Bart Sibrel because Sibrel wouldn't get out of Aldrin's face after luring him to the Beverly Hills Hotel under a false pretext. Sibrel ambushed Aldrin with a film crew, poked Aldrin in the chest with a bible, demanded him to swear on that bible that he really went to the Moon, and called him a liar and a coward (Aldrin had been an active fighter pilot in the Korean War and won two Distinguished Flying Crosses and three Air Medals). Aldrin had his step-daughter with him at the time and this all happened right in front of her. So Aldrin did what any _real_ man would have done and biffed the intrusive son of a bitch in the face. Sibrel later admitted to wrongdoing. Sibrel is gutter scum and he had that smack in the mouth coming.
Agreed 100%. Well said my friend, very well said :-)
@Carlos Maron If kids are getting their educations from You Tube and letting conspiracy-theory crackpots influence their thinking, God help us all. Pardon me if I don't put much stock in the opinions of a 7-year-old no matter how sharp you think he is, but I prefer to accept the views of mature-age adults like myself who were alive at the time and who know a thing or two about it.
Perhaps you could share your thoughts on why NASA would stage a phony near-disaster (Apollo 13) if the point of the exercise was to fake success. Why also would they fake not one but six successful landings, given that every time they do so, the risk of exposure gets exponentially higher? They only had to fake it once - beat the Russians, game over. Why do it again - and again - and again - and again - and again, especially when they knew after Apollo 11 that Russia was out of the race altogether?
If nothing went to the moon, what was it that the Russians tracked all the way there and back? Because they did, you know. Surely you don't think America was the only country with spacecraft-tracking capability? If was fake, the Russians would have known immediately, and they would NOT have kept quiet about it.
How did NASA fake telemetry coming from a quarter of a million miles away and which, as mentioned above, was also being received by the Russians? There's a thing called triangulation. Russia would know in an instant if the signal was coming from Earth or from near-Earth orbit and not from the Moon, and the jig would have been up.
How did samples of lunar rock get here, which have since been examined by countless geologists? How did the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, consisting of three prismatic retroreflector arrays placed in different locations on the lunar surface by separate Apollo missions - and which are still in use today - get there?
What was it that 400,000 American workers across the country were actually doing, if not building what they were contracted to build? And why would NASA bother contracting out to the biggest aerospace companies in the US to the tune of $billions for hardware which would never be used?
What was the motivation of no less than 32 astronauts for agreeing to fake it - fighter pilots, test pilots, combat veterans, men who live and breathe achievement? Every single one of them, no dissenters? Were their families in on it too - their wives, their kids, their parents - or did all those men decide to keep up the charade in front of their loved ones for the remainder of their lives?
I could go on, but hoaxers typically just ignore questions like these because they undermine their pet theories and they're scared to death of being proven wrong. They buy into this ignorance-driven hogwash because it makes them feel better about their own inadequacies, and gives them a misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
@Carlos Maron - You've bumped this old thread and yet you fail to mention you're a flat Earth believer who trolls space related topics. Why is that? :-)
@Carlos Maron ...Okay, I'll give you one more chance to redeem yourself. Address the questions I raised in my original reply to you, and I just might rethink my opinion of your character. You started this argument Carlos, and now the ball is in your court. Let's see if you can bat it back to me like a man, i.e. without infantile insults. You can either show me, and anybody who reads this, that you can debate like an adult, or you can demonstrate your childishness to everybody by insulting me like some snot-nosed little grommet in a schoolyard before running away. It's up to you. Frankly, I get sick of sparring with you naysayers, and once - just ONCE - I'd like to see a hoaxer go toe-to-toe with me and argue like an adult - but in my experience, all too often they resort to smarminess once they run out of feeble counter-arguments (if they even offer up any) before they turn tail and bolt when the questions get too tough. Prove to us all that you're not one of those gutless wonders, come on. Show me, and everybody else who looks at this, that you've got some cajones and aren't just another overgrown pre-adolescent nose-dripper like your sharp 7-year-old nephew. Show us what you've got.
If you don't - well, then you will merely be demonstrating your lack of mettle and your fringe-dweller mentality. OR - you can admit that your declarations are uninformed and erroneous. If you don't believe you're wrong, PROVE IT HERE with reasoned arguments, like grown-ups do, without insults or snarkiness. Then I, and others, might afford you some credence.
Are you up for it, or are you going to just hurl vitriol at me and run away? Tick tock.
@Carlos Maron Well, I respect you for sticking around and taking the time to reply, so I applaud you for that. As for the rest though, well...
"Same backdrop used in 2 locations". Which locations would they be?
"Objects appearing in front of the cross hairs". It's called over-exposure. Film doesn't behave quite the same way in extreme lighting conditions, such as on an airless Moon, as it does on Earth, where this planet's atmosphere diffuses the light and doesn't display such extreme contrasts between light and dark. The same principles are at work which preclude one from seeing stars in the lunar sky - which I'm surprised you didn't mention, since that seems to be a pet favourite of hoaxers.
"Pressure of flight"? What "pressure" were Lunar Modules under? They only ever operated in vacuum. If you're talking about acceleration, it wasn't anywhere great enough to cause the Mylar to come away from the LM. There is also no atmospheric drag in space.
"Waving flags". Oh I love this golden oldie! Do you really think NASA would be silly enough to simulate an airless environment, but then allow breezes powerful enough to make flags wave to blow right through the studio? Seriously? Why on Earth would there be wind on a sound stage? And what else did you notice about the flags? After the astronauts planted them, the flags stayed standing straight out from their poles and no longer moved. That's because there is a horizontal telescopic pole extending from the top of the main flag pole to which the top of the flag is attached. This was done to keep the flag upright because NASA realized that an ordinary flag in a vacuum would just hang limp down the pole, which wouldn't be a terribly good look. The flags appear to "wave" only when the astronauts were twisting and turning the pole to get it into the ground. After they walk away, the flag stays stock still and no longer "waves".
You CAN see dust during the landings, being blown away from the LM by the expanding thrust gases from its engine. There isn't much dust because there is no atmosphere to conduct pressure waves - i.e., wind - and the thrust from the descent stage is relatively gentle, so it only kicks up dust when it gets close to the ground. During take-offs, the lower stage of the LM is mostly shielding the ground from the ascent-stage thrust, so you see very little dust, but it's still there.
"The Russians put a dog and a woman in low orbit before the USA". I have absolutely no idea what the point of this argument is. Yes, of course they did. And, "Do you forget the cold war competition"? Of course I didn't. It was that very Cold War which gave rise to the "space race" in the first place. I don't get what you're trying to achieve with those comments.
Body language and psychology experts. Who were these "experts"? Did you see any qualifications or credentials, or did you just take the word of the producers of a *conspiracy theory documentary* that those "experts" were who they said they were? And you say people like me are easily fooled... Also, selective editing is a thing. You can take snippets of dialogue, dispense with the context, then stitch them back together in a different sequence and context and give them whatever slant you like. Look into what the producers of The Apprentice had to go through to make Donald Trump appear coherent via this process.
The ISS is not fake, you can see it pass overhead at night with the naked eye. I am a life-long amateur astronomer and I have seen the ISS pass over many, many, many times. You can also watch live video feeds from it at certain times. th-cam.com/video/EEIk7gwjgIM/w-d-xo.html
Do you know how the "vomit comet" actually works, and are you aware that no more than 25 seconds of weightlessness is achievable at any one time? It can't go ballistic and then free-fall for minutes on end, or it hits the ground! Yet I have seen footage of weightless astronauts aboard the ISS lasting for more than ten minutes at a stretch. And by the way, the vomit comet isn't a 747, it's a 727-200F, which took over from the old KC-135A.
"The Challenger 7 are still alive and can be traced". I've come across this claim before and sorry, but it is just so ludicrous as to border on insanity. So NASA faked *another* disaster, to achieve - what, exactly? What purpose could that have possibly served? How can the former crew be "traced"? This is one of the more lunatic-fringe ideas I've yet heard from hoaxers, and that is saying something. Sources, please.
How has moon rock been "proven" to be petrified wood? Source, please.
You keep bandying that figure of "0.08%" about like it's some kind of magical talisman. What about all the deep-space probes which have been launched over the decades? What about Pioneer, Voyager, the Mars rovers, and more lately probes like Cassini? Once again, NASA isn't the only agency tracking these things. Every space agency on Earth would have to be complicit if it's all fakery. Are the Chinese conspiring with the Americans to fool the world? I highly doubt it, especially given those two countries' current relationship.
There was no CGI in the 60s and 70s, or even most of the 80s. I remember how we got all excited when the first pocket calculators appeared in the early 70s. That was the extent of anything like "graphics". There weren't even colour monitors then, they were all monochrome, and only organizations like NASA had such things. CGI didn't exist in any meaningful way until the 90s.
Okay, I have addressed the points you made, other than all that overly-belaboured stuff about what poor gullible sods people like me are, and that totally irrelevant bit of dubious horn-blowing. I'm still waiting for you to address the questions I originally posed, which you haven't done except for the one about moon rocks (and I'd love to know where you dug up that nugget of silliness). All you have really done is what all hoaxers do - parrot the same tired old crackpot nonsense gleaned from whacko, self-serving documentaries and looney-tunes websites and trumpet it as "proof" while blithely ignoring the too-hard questions. Just like I said earlier.
I find it more depressing how many people don't realize how few times we went to the moon, and how long ago it was! Some people even think we've been to Mars already.
Two of my favourite moon landing hoax theories:
1. There should have been a flame from the lunar rocket's ascent stage
- As though all rocket fuels must produce a flame (They don't)
2. Someone had to be there to take the pictures of Armstrong coming down the ladder
- The TV footage broadcast worldwide was taken on a camera mounted on the lunar module, and the still photographs aren't of Armstrong, they are photos he took of Aldrin coming onto the surface
J - that’s because they can use their brain unlike flat earthers! 🤣
Those ''evidences' are only espoused by Kindergarten level 'theorists'.
@@jonsmith3945 Ain't that most theorists anyway? I get your point but all of it is brain-dead, so you might as well laugh at the noticeably stupid.
@@jonsmith3945 You are *_ALL_* kindergarten level theorists.
I've seen all the moon conspiracies and I've studied the science behind going to the moon. Why, because I wanted to know what was true. What I've found is enjoy the conspiracies for the entertainment value but trust the science.
Therein lies your weakness. You "trust the science" which is what they tell you. Not actual "science" which stands on its own merit. An easy mistake to fall in to.
@@joktanjoktanovich9448 thanks for your comment but you missed the point that I'd study the science behind space flight and it is possible to go to the moon. However you're right about being sceptical about what we are told that's why I studied. Always be a sceptic.
@@robertwright2668 I think a little logic wouldn't go amiss here "I studied" does not mean they went to the moon. Any more than "I heard" means it happened.
@@joktanjoktanovich9448 That is a fair point and to be fair logically you're right. I personally have got to ask why haven't they been back. Also you gotta ask why didn't the Soviets cry foul if they didn't go in the first place. The only thing I do know for a fact is I don't know either way. I can only come to a conclusion based on what I've looked into. That being said I could very well be wrong and if I am I look forward to finding out more.
@@robertwright2668 Unfortunately getting to the moon is the easy part.
I can't be on panel shows, so they are probably a hoax. How could they possibly exist if I'm not witty enough to be on them?
Expecting to meet the *Soup Dragon* 2:10 _Sean you genius_