Jason Huang I was never a what people call a glober didn’t didn’t give a damn about round earth or flat until I started realising the lies of nasa and the indoctrination in schools from early childhood and the media even Hollywood then I started to critically think and truly examine what they call evidence, once you do it all falls into place. The scariest thing now is the technology we have now they can make anything look real but the truth is it’s all plastic and the last thing they want is critical thinkers. In truth they are saying shut up and believe what I’m saying shut up and just get into line.
Why are you guys calling flat earthers bad names? I am one and I never call a globe believer retard. Why this anger? You do realise most flat earthers did believe in the spinning ball theory before we opened our mind to reality. It's not a cult or psychological state of mind. It's just fact
I find it kind of touching seeing the tracks of the astronauts on the moon, left 50 years ago. Imagine going back to a beach you visited as a child and see your footprints in the sand still there.. we may be long gone but we left a mark on the universe. Touching
*@Conor M* There is a tiny, crude picture of a penis on the Moon, drawn by artist Andy Warhol. Apollo 12 took up a miniature "art museum" on a wafer. Famous artists were asked to contribute. Warhol drew a tiny cock-and-balls.
And then one day when we finally have space tourism to the moon, some fat guy wearing a Hawaiian shirt eating an icecream is going to trip over and ruin all the footprints for everyone.
@micah lynn Love the way no one got your point. Sure hope you did. i.e. sand, dust, collisions, 50 years and still footprints. Preserved. Perfectly. Just like your childhood beach would be... of course. ;)
bullshit..... with all the billions NASholes have burned through and continue to waste faster than the fed can print one would think you'd want to prove yourselves. The simple truth is its all one quintessential bunch of crap. I spent my youth idolizing nasa and the like I bought into all of the lies we were sold. I hope and pray that the truth with come out one of these days...when I think of all the ways that money could have been better spent and invested I get myself so worked up I get miserable and out of sorts. ain't that a bitch
craig carlson Get a job and it will ease your mind. NASA has made many advances in medicine and technology over the years. ..When you grow up you will see.
We older earthlings watched all of the Gemini, surveyor, Apollo missions along with many others not mentioned. Do you think for one minute the governments of Russia, China, the u k, France etc. And their populations weren't sitting in front of their t.v.s watching too ? Their scientists were tracking the Apollo spacecrafts. The Russians would have loved to call the Americans liars in that they did not land on the moon. They were our chief competitors. Funny thing, they didn't. They congratulated us for a job well done. But yet we have present day Americans who are busying themselves with this nonsense that there weren't any moon landings. So in ten , fifteen years, some country will land on Mars. And they will see it. And when they get old they will read on you tube how young people, who did not witness the first Mars landing, are calling it a hoax. And the joke will be on them. Brave men risked their lives to take us to the moon and advance space exploration and these deniers sit on their comfortable couch and give no credit to them. Ship of Fools.
Well said. I wasn't _quite_ old enough, although I apparently 'watched' Armstrong land, at the age of about 2 weeks. I'm hoping we'll witness it again, perhaps within 10 years. You might enjoy playing with this interactive site about Apollo 11 from the audio perspective; I did. www.firstmenonthemoon.com/
macc240038 I saw it on TV when I was 8 yrs old! But just because it was on TV does not confirm it was real, especially when the broadcast was provided by the agency claiming to have gone to the moon..... mankind did not go to the moon....NASA lies... research it!
Denis Boissonneault - your reducing all that I said simply seeing it on TV. That's just one line. A small percentage of what I said. Do you realize that the lunar orbiters are photographing the lunar landing sites right now ? The Chinese will soon duplicate the feat that Americans accomplished years ago ? Many be you'll live long enough to see astronaut walk on the moon again. And they will walk right up to the lunar Rover and send live video back. What will you conjure up then ?
Russia absolutely didn’t believe we went to the moon. Most Russians still don’t believe it. At this point, with all of the information that is available, you have to be willfully stupid to believe it. Look at the “craft” they used. Look at the fact we can’t do what they did then… today with modern tech. If you think we landed on the moon still, you’re willfully naive.
@@ElenaGeorge1 as opposed to you, someone who thinks we went to the moon in 1969 and played golf… but can’t come close now. 50 years of insane technical progress, just can’t match the comically dumb “craft” they used to do the impossible? Stop being so gullible sweetie.
@@zackattack635 You suffer from Dunning-Kruger. A doctor will not help you but finding more information and actually studying the subject instead of watching stupid videos about it might.
THX for all! It reminds me I was 20 and working in an hotel for the holydays (I was studen), and the night Apollo XI had landed (yes, it was early in the morning, in France), the whole crew wake up to see this historic exploit on a shitty small screen TV. Now, Im old and retired, but when i see all the conspiracy theorys, I'm between laughing or weeping. THX again !
That's FUNNY! Uncle Fester had a great smile & punch lines! I miss him! "THE ADAMS FAMILY" was great for the 60's..wait was it "THE MUNSTERS"??? I'm getting too old to remember anymore...
For years I have wondered that very question. And the answer was so perfect! Thank you sir for illuminating that one pixel in my brain that had been in the dark all that time.
Photos of the Apollo landings sites have been available online for over 10 years. They were taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which is still at work mapping the Moon. "The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is an orbiting spacecraft that has studied the Moon in unprecedented detail since 2009, including the ways in which its surface has been altered in recent geologic times. Completing its fourth extended mission on September 30, 2022, the has accomplished all its original science goals and will continue to perform science investigations as well as inform future Artemis missions as it begins its 5th extended mission in October 2022."
Must of been weird parking the Lunar Buggy, knowing that it will be their virtually for ever. In the future, there will be glass around it, and tourists to the moon will visit it, like attractions on earth. 🤒
But it won't be there even virtually for ever. It 'could' be hit by a meteor at any time, after a billion years those odds get better than nill. 3-6 billion years from now the Moon will be enveloped by the Sun, along with Earth and all our terrestrial and lunar creations will be reduced to atomic plasma.
Who were the globalists from 622 - 750 AD? Islam has its own agenda, fully independent from outside influence, a singular goal to make the planet islamic by any means necessary.
"But my iPhone takes great pictures, why won't it show me those landers?" Facepalm....people who don't understand how telescopes work but want to say we didn't go to to the moon because science. Oy!
And it comes mostly from people wo have not the faintest idea how photography works in the fist place. All that because the technicians that programmed the "Automode" actually know what they are doing...
Here's a good way to show just how hard the lunar landers would be to see from earth: Think of that iconic Apollo image of the earth rising over the moon. Now imagine how much you would need to zoom in to see a CAR on that image!
Edmund Earle, another way is to also consider what would be necessary to spot your backyard garden shed or camper/caravan from the Moon, or for some of the doubters, their quarter acre marijuana crop.
+Woty: A 1/2 inch newspaper letter read from100 miles away, is proportional to "reading" an object on the moon 100 feet in size. The moonlander was what, about 10 to 15 feet in size? There is currently no scope on earth or around earth that has the resolution to photograph moon landing artifacts. (Whether or not there is actually any artifacts there). Begin your research by looking up the resolution of some major earth scopes. Or perhaps it would be more easy and entertaining to watch another silly utube conspiracy vid.....
Operation Northwoods... Operation Mockingbird... The Gulf of Tonkin attack... If the CIA planned on assassinating thousands of its own people: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods then the step to faking moon landings was quite small. All the landings happened under the most fraudulent administration in history (Nixon administration) in a 3 year period (69-72) and stopped when Watergate broke. Since then, not a human beyond orbit in any of the world’s space programs. To not consider the circumstances surrounding a claim is no different than blind religious idiocy. I’m not a conspiracy guy in any way but lived in the 1960s. I wouldn’t trust a word out of a 1960s US government mouth if it had been peer reviewed and tested to an infallible shine. For many of us in the 1960s, Nixon’s first moon landing 6 months after he was sworn into office at the height of Vietnam (Tet offensive) was like if Trump’s _Space_ _Force_ put men on Mars only 6 months after being sworn into office in the middle of a Russian collusion investigation while in the middle of a major war with say N. Korea. This isn’t a claim of a flat earth. This isn’t a claim of big foot. This isn’t a claim of aliens in Roswell. This is the refutation of a claim by an unscrupulous government. *Occam’s* *Razor:* _The_ _simplest_ _solution_ _tends_ _to_ _be_ _the_ _correct_ _one._ _When_ _presented_ _with_ _competing_ _hypotheses_ _to_ _solve_ _a_ _problem,_ _one_ _should_ _select_ _the_ _one_ _with_ _the_ _fewest_ _assumptions._ So with that in mind, why is it that in almost 50 years no human has been beyond orbit in any space program in the world regardless of _Moore’s_ _Law,_ globalization and extraordinary technological advancements? Because we never went to begin with. Why can’t we see the moon landers? There never were any. Why so many questions about the moon landings with absurdly complex answers? Because we never went.
Before the lunar mapping mission there was another way people checked on the locations of the landings. Some missions had mirrors designed to bounce lasers back to Earth.
Society has profited from Apollo. You, however, are keeping us in the dark ages by denying science. It's your fault we've not returned in 50 years. If it was supported better, we'd have been back decades ago. You're discrediting the memory of heroes who died to get us there, and spitting in the face of millions who dedicate their life to the science behind space technology.
There is a wiki article on the Event Horizon telescope showing in pictures what was the level of magnification it had to achieve to photograph M87's black hole. It is equivalent to seeing a tennis ball on the moon. Sufficient to say you need at least a continent size telescope to see something that small clearly on the moon's surface.
In microwaves wavelength, right. But in optic, a smaller telescope would do (a 100m wide should see Apollo remains, a 1km wide one should see a tennis ball - but for atmospheric effects and such). Still way more that what we have now.
@@amentco8445 You can cluster radio-telescopes as the wavelength is large enough to allow sampling of the wave itself (several data points per wave) it's absolutely impossible with current tech in optics and as resolution decrease with wavelength enlargement I guess it's way better to just go near
Well stated. Many people looking in a scope or their digital zoom camera at the Moon think they're seeing rocks and small bolders. They're actually seeing big mountains and craters the size of huge lakes. These things look small because there are no real known references. When we look at Earth from a probe camera and see, say Florida, we know how big Florida is and that the Okefenokee is a really big lake. Therefore we don't expect to see Uncle Billy's RV outside Miami. Also moon mountains can look really "rocky" because there is nothing to erode them down to smooth cones like on Earth. However, I do think NASA/JPL does us a disservice by employing former Disney Imagineers to render the Hubble space art they often show in place of visual spectrum photography. People see what looks like something from Toy Story or Titanic, and they assume all is movie fake. In the old days, a text book would have a hand drawing or painting of say The Solar System or the Milky Way taken from an outside the galaxy perspective. We all knew that was a best guess imaginative picture based on other science. However with the flood of CGI astral images, even with backyard telescopes, kids get super skeptical. Best bet kids. Buy an analog reflective telescope (no camera or video gadgetry. Just lenses, mirrors and knobs) for about $200, go out of the city and look at some planets. Things will start to make sense.
Except that the backyard astronomer images are NOT CGI. Composites yes, multiple images stacked in a software program to get better exposure value and detail but absolutely not CGI. I am currently working on my own shot of the Andromeda galaxies only using a DSLR and 300mm f4 lens. I got exciting results with only a stack equalling about 2 minutes of exposure. If we ever get a clear night here again (6 weeks of no good conditions) I am hoping for 30 minutes or more. Everyone repeat: Composite is NOT CGI. Your own eyes create composite images from very tiny sensors!!!!!!!!!!
I think you meant Okeechobee Lake in Florida ! The Okefenokee Swamp is a shallow, 438,000-acre, peat-filled wetland straddling the Georgia-Florida line.
S Tho I look up to see all those satellites whizzing around!!! They say 10,000 pieces of space junk.. Gee, I never see them crossing in front of the moon , high up there! ...WHY NOT?? USA and Soviet are not in competition!... Google Star City to see how far it has developed.. There are no ICBMs , it's all a scam for $$$$ Just short range missiles for Kruschev... Mmmm. Cuba would work!! the proof of Einsteins T of Relatively, getting debunked..... ISNT EVEN TAUGHT to you 'genius'...WHY NOT? Put that in your pipe and smoke it!! Now read further, smart guy. G E E , why all the secrecy 👺 💩💩 👎🏽 👿 😈 ( the moon landing tapes ALL DISAPPEARED!!) ...It's all about the $$$ and the Free Masons /Illuminati that are are in control... ...//😱. proof of a flat earth is easy. JUSTLOOKOUTTHE window inanysmallairplane Orwatchaship DISAPPEAR THENWITHBINOCULARS SEEITAGAIN TELLYOURFRIENDS BRAINWASHINGCHILDRENIS. SICK TELLYOURFRIENDS. PLEEEEZE
@@Bogolyubovos You can occasionally see them pass in front of the moon. NOT with just your eyes, you would need a telescope. It would not be just some casual thing, like tossing the scope toward the moon and seeing satellites buzzing by. Also literally if you blink you would miss it. The satellites orbits were not planned so you could sit and watch them passing in front of the moon. Satellites are relatively small and a long ways away...how much detail can you see in a car 2 miles away or a 747 from 6-7 miles? Satellites are way farther. You can see satellites by eye under dark skies. You can get info as to where to look and at what time. Same with the ISS.
@@Bogolyubovos So. Living on the Moray Firth coast (North East Scotland) I should be able to point my telescope in a roughly north easterly direction and see Norway? Bloody hell, someone's stolen Norway!!!! My telescope hasn't "pulled it back over the horizon". What is this black magic?
It's also wrong. Sub-pixel resolution is standard fare in digital signal processing for images. This is the correct take on the issue. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-pixel_resolution
And once again, NASA math doesn't add up. According to the specs of the Hubble Telescopes camera, it SHOULD be able to pick up an very thorough image of the landing site instead of a scratchy render, as shown/explained in this video. All the info that dude said in this video is absolutely wrong. And, sadly, not many people will question any of it; because not many know about even the most basic principles of how cameras work. :(
@@anonymousshawn9996 Yeah mathematicians and scientists at NASA are completely wrong, so we are to believe a random person commenting on TH-cam......that's how conspiracy theories start
There is something that can be detected on the Surface of the moon: a reflector that was left there to be able to measure the distance between the earth and the moon. if a laser is aimed at the Surface of the moon it is bounced back from the reflector.The time that passes till the light is back gives an exact measure of the distance to the moon. without that reflector the reflection of the laser would be scattered and weakened beond any detection.
But that's not evidence humans landed on the moon. There's about 5 or 6 of those reflectors if memory serves. Only a couple of them were placed by humans. The rest were done the "old fashioned" way.
Why would anyone thumbs down this? This is the best answer to this question I’ve wondered about for many years. I wanted so bad to buy the telescope that could view some of the debris on the moon. I love space and all the wonders waiting for us to learn out there. Thank you for posting this for us.
@JFK Clone High Presumptive. One reason to dislike is to get it out of recommendations. Also no video is perfect and some people don't like aspects of a video. You can't really expect to please everyone. I like these videos but don't get butthurt because some people don't.
Because there's enough evidence to show we never went to the moon, even the moon rocks were found to be petrified wood. It was all staged but I know you aren't ready for the truth
Flat earthers - take them all to the space station and ask them to describe the earth...from the outside. Those that disbelieve gravity - take them all to a cliff and ask them what they're experiencing as you throw them off.
Imagine trying to hit a 0.5 inch polished aluminum target with a Kolibri Pistol at a distance of a mile on the X. While having a strobe light in your face! That's why we can't see lunar landers!
That sounds more like why the Apollo astronauts couldn't see stars in broad daylight despite the pitch black sky. (understood by science at least since the 1950s)
mohabiraq1 They're both the same to me. Conspiracy-minded, science illiterate buffoons who only want to argue all day nonstop (stubborn) and stroke their own ego with more conspiracy videos. How dare you give them a real answer, lies, fake, CGI! But what would I know, I'm a paid NASA shill who only comments online for money just to hide the real truth from you.
It just isn’t worth talking to anyone who doesn’t believe the moon landings happened. It makes me annoyed, goodness knows how the people involved feel. Mankind’s greatest achievement.
@@williamchiafos2325 Actually, I have read all the facts, seen the hoax theories, seen an unused saturn V in the flesh and come up with my own conclusion that it did indeed happen.
Nah. If we are 250,000 miles away from the Moon, then Hubble is about 249, 650 miles from the Moon. That doesn't help. Trying to see objects on the Moon with Hubble is like trying to see a coin across the width of America. Use any binoculars or any telescope you like - it's simply impossible with current technology.
There is another problem with using Hubble to image the landing cites, and it's the same reason that the Hubble has the lens cover. When you are looking at a distant star, so little of the light emitted is actually heading into your telescope that it appears very faint. The moon has a very low albido, but even so, it reflects a huge amount of photons from the sun. This would not be an issue if you were far away, but the moon is comparatively very close, so if Hubble were to look directly at it, the CCDs would be bombarded with photons, and would burn out from over exposure. Not a good expenditure, especially since it's already had it's final servicing mission. During periods of high debris bombardment, such as meteor storms, Hubble will close it's lens cap, and turn towards the Earth, protecting the primary mirror from micro-meteoroid impact. The purpose of the lens cap, even when the telescope is pointed away from the storm, is because the Earth is so bright during the day, that to look at it would burn out the ultra sensitive CCDs which were designed to look at faint distant galaxies.
***** Reaction wheels (a motorized version of what we on Earth call gyroscopes). Think about it, if it couldn't change it's direction, we'd be stuck staring in the same direction.
***** It's altitude is slowly decreasing due to atmospheric drag. Yes, even at almost 400 miles up, there are a few atoms for it to collide against and slow it down.
The Hubble has actually photographed the moon before, and it was for legitimate scientific reasons. www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/hubble_moon.html The Hubble's orbit is high enough for its decay rate to be very small. Currently, it's natural reentry will occur sometime between 2030 and 2040. It's not easy to predict precisely because there are many factors that can influence it. Chances are some effort will be made to control its decommissioning since some parts of its structure could survive reentry and thus be a hazard to people on the ground. Hubble is too close to the Earth to get a photograph of the entire planet. It's not much higher than the ISS and I'm sure you've seen pictures and video from there. Because of how fast it is moving it wouldn't be able to take useful photos of Earth's surface either.
Going to the moon for fun worse than going to burning man // there's nothing happening there // its either too hot or tool cold / no nature or other people or infrastructure / cold harsh & difficult / the only reason to go to build a space port for accessing deep space & associated nuclear reactor & electric mining for mineral resources & processing into useful stuff for construction & maintenance & fueling of & at spaceport moon base etc
Not only was this captivating, well spoken, but interesting and very informative. I have to say it's not only satirical but kind of a safety net to finish all the statements with "unless of course you're a non-believer". Smart and funny.
Like this photo taken by the Indian probe *_Chandrayaan-2._* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#/media/File:Chandrayaan-2_Apollo.jpg
VITA kyo Yeah you can't see the wind on earth either, but it exists. You see the effect of it but not the wind. You dim-witted spastic. You must be American.
***** First you say my claim is nonesense , then you say : not there => not to see , is true . Which is exactly what i said . You should take a class in logic ...
Hey Simon, Of course you can make a convincing argument about anything and everything in this world in your favor as you please whether what you are saying is the TRUTH or NOT. What?! Are you telling me you NEVER EVER heard of LAWYERS? (ROTFLMAO!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣) LAWYERS are KNOWN to LIE through their TEETH on BEHALF of their CLIENTS making a CONVINCING ARGUMENT that their CLIENT NEVER DID what he is accused of... LMAO!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 So, you need need to wake up and smell the coffee... ROTFLMAO!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Well said. I never knew the reasons we could not see them. But you explained it all. The LRO then proved to all the naysayers that all of the equipment left behind is indeed there.
You another dumb idiot that believes man went to moon because of a couple photo shopped images? Here go find me a real photo of our so called planet earth, nothing photo shopped, no composite, must be real so no CGI, i been looking for one for 24 years, i cannot find any high definition video of planet earth spinning from any of the thousands of satellites orbiting earth.
By not answering my question means you have no evidence to prove it happened, so you admit defeat, so yes end of discussion, you lose and its all a hoax, the moon landings could not be proven in a court of law let alone on a YT comment section, no evidence means it never happened, sorry to disappoint, you need proof of your idea before i can call it a conspiracy, you have none, so that means it never happened, which in turn means i don't even need to justify my conspiracy theory.
Serious telescopes of any kind are judged by their Light Gathering ability not their magnification. That would be reserved for binoculars and spotting scopes.
Actually, by their light-gathering ability, *and* their resolving power - with roughly equal importance. The former property is good for seeing faint objects; the latter is good for discerning detail in extended objects, as well as in separating close point-sources, such as double stars.
Really???? Go look at Buzz Aldrin conversation with 8yo on Bitchute about the moon. Its not on yutube. Its censored here. Let's see if you weep after that.
You could put all the conspiritards in a rocket and fly them to the moon, land right on top of one of the Apollo landers and they'd still say it was all faked. At that point I'd encourage them to go outside and check for themselves, without spacesuits.
Completely honestly speaking....I am not sure one way or the other. Both sides make great arguments. My great grandfather died believing the whole thing was bullshit....as I grow older, and realize that our government is shady as hell, it's really hard to tell whats real and what isn't....just my humble 2 cents :)
TruthAND Factspls I have only seen facts from NASA, foreign governments with independent verification, and scientists from all over the world that agree it happened. I have never seen a conspiracy “fact” that wasn’t fake or explained by science. So tell me what keeps you on the fence. And distrust for the government is not a fact, it’s an opinion. I mean real facts.
Knoot _ , Ass hole, if you read my comment i didn't mention anything about a flat earth. I was just telling buddah to leave buddah behind and come to the Lord Jesus Christ, and so should you.
@Curious Droid, thanks for answering a long-held question of mine. I suppose it was something one could compute the answer to themselves, with geometry and trig, but it was nice to hear the qualitative version of it as well. Love your videos, tops.
And by" we", You are referring to yourself and who else , ? And whom ever they are , What makes you think they are with you ?? But just for shits and giggles , Tell me something . What if they left it up to you to put anyone into space , or in orbit of the moon ?, What would you do ? Just thought I'd put you in your place before you bit off more than you could chew , BTW We are watching you . So no more of that horseshit ,
@@basedguns8218 That was a reply to summer west , To a statement about putting a particular group of people into space to orbit the moon , Like he's Elon Musk or NASA. Or another bunch of assholes that don't have the ability to travel to the moon
*Tycho Crater* - A troll keeps asking why we can see it. It's about 85 km (53 mi) across. That's over 2000 square miles. If you do the maths, it's at the very limit of what we can see. But, it is a very bright spot surrounded by darker land - and it has "rays" that extend for hundreds of miles. So, you can just about see it with your naked eye. The troll (currently called "ThomasG10mtn") claims we shouldn't be able to see it, but I have no idea what their point is. I've tried to reason with them. *ThomasG10mtn* - we can see it, so *WHAT IS YOUR POINT?* The troll has posted the same question 4 times today. Each time they get a reasonable answer, they delete their original comment - so the thread disappears. *TL;DR:* Tycho is big, we can see it. The LM is small, so we can't.
No, f you do the math right - which means taking into account pixel resolution aliasing - you can achieve resolution better than your "limit" -- which means you're both wrong; and that even as you tap on his shoulder to call out the troll, there's another bigger hand tapping on your shoulder from behind. The relevant criterion is that given by the point spread function, *not* the pixel resolution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-pixel_resolution
*@Antares849* Honestly, I have tried, many times. His/her point seems to be, we can see the Tycho crater therefore we should be able to see the lunar module. That makes no sense. Tycho is really big, the LM is really small. That's all there is to it. It is sorta "weird" that we can see Tycho from Earth, because it is right on the limit of angular resolution. Weird, but understandable - because tbh, we're not seeing just the crater; we're seeing the light reflected from that really anomalous bright area, and the "spokes" going out from it. We're not really "seeing" the crater itself. We can _just_ see Tycho. Which makes perfect sense, given the calculations of angular resolution. Seriously, do the math yourself - it's not even hard. We cannot see the LM. We'd need a telescope with a 100m aperture, and even then it'd be a vague dot. But the very best telescopes in the world today do not have a 100m aperture. They have about a 10m aperture. Fortunately, that does not matter. We can just go closer. LRO took great photos of all the Apollo landing sites. And, of course, we have thousands of photos from the original missions.
*@Rock Brentwood* c/f Dawes' limit. (Not criticizing. Just adding a quick mention.) For others reading this; if you squish photons too close together, they interfere with each other. That limits how far we can see. It's easy maths, really. To see something 10m (3') wide from 380,000 km (240,000 miles) requires an aperture (ie an opening, in a camera) about 100m (33') wide. The biggest that exist are about 10m (3'). That's all. Check what I said. Check the facts. BTW, you might see stuff about bigger telescopes.. but those are *radio* telescopes, not optical. Different thing. Also, you might ask me about interferometry. That's a fair point. It is _possible_ to use several telescopes and have a bigger lens. It's really, really hard. I mean... they recently spent 10 years getting a picture of a black hole.. which is very cool... We could, in theory, spend 10 years and billions on some kind of international collaboration to get a tiny, blurry picture of the LM. Does not matter, will not help. Crazy people will just claim it's fake, same as the thousands of existing pictures.
@@ann_onn >> " _His/her point seems to be, we can see the Tycho crater therefore we should be able to see the lunar module. That makes no sense._ " > " _And, of course, we have thousands of photos from the original missions._ "
Neil Armstrong should have brought one of those giant flags that they drape on skyscrapers and laid it flat on the surface. Then we might be able to see it with a high-powered telescope.
Well, you hit the nail on the head when you commented that they may not believe in anything put out by NASA. It's truly not worth ANY effort trying to reason with the flat earth people or those who don't believe we ever went to the moon. Those people have no reasoning skills, nor the intellect to learn.
Well since you believe Google so much why don't you search white couples or search white inventors why don't you see the pictures they show you let's see how trustworthy Google is
Steve Downey Easy to disprove. When you search for "white couple" then Google searches for everything that matches with "white couple". Yes, "Black and white couple" has "white couple" in it's title. That is a match of more than 50% (54.545454...%)! Now search for "couple white" (with quotation marks) and you end up with completely different results.
Yes, I remember when they dropped that first assent stage back onto the moon to do a seismic test on it. They concluded that it was white Manchego IIRC. Venezuelan beaver cheese has a lower speed of sound so it is ruled out. Now I've gone an made myself peckish. I think I will pop into the local cheese shop.
For the people who refuse to believe that Apollo actually landed on the moon, here is the clear evidence that proves they did! Given the amount of skepticism regarding this topic, finally, this can be put to rest.
From orbital satellites, we can very clearly see numerous ancient water seeps on the slopes of Mars, seeps that are only several feet wide. This video is bull shit. We havent truly returned anything from the moon because it is covered in radioactive dust.
The reason there is sceptical beliefs..its because it never happened! If it really did then they would have gone back up there for further developments.
I think it's so awe inspiring that all of those spacecraft are just sitting there alone in the blackness and desolate landscape, possibly never to be seen again by human eyes. If they were a live entity it would be such an overwhelmingly lonely and hopeless existence. I do hope we can go back there. I'd love to witness that. I'm 41 and I wasn't even born when humans went to the moon. I find that incredible. I can't even get cell signal out here on my farm in 2019.
You can get a satellite signal out on your farm though. Cell phones are totally different. Satellite phones work fine from anywhere in the world. Unfortunately, satellite phones are more expensive... for now. Elon Musk has plans to change that.
What about the reflectors left for laser measurements of the moon's distance? They get checked almost every day, that's how we know the moon is moving away from us a little over an inch per year
Rkenton48 As a surveyor I can tell you that I can get a prism (a prism mirrored reflector) reading and measurement from a prism setup that is to far for me to clearly make out visually. The laser reflects back from the prism despite the fact I cannot see it... You just need to know about where to point it and when the pointing positioning is close enough you will get a distance reading because the prism reflects the beam back to the source.
@@sprtplt not in the intensity that they use. It is the very last part of the Apollo project still operational. Almost everyday they use the lasers, and they can tell when it hits a reflector and not just the surface.
I love this guy's videos and how he goes about explaining things. My 6yr is also hooked on space because of his videos!! Thank you very much for making complex subjects easy enough for a 6yr old to understand! Grazie!
waynusp1664 LOL. You were let out of the basement? Are you over losing your saviors election? LOLOLOL Will you cry when she goes to jail? God is against your actions. wise up!
Lochen Dude and you must be one of those lost deniers of history. And a democrat millennial. Thats the Modus Operandi of those who try to insult those they dont agree with. You are so sad. heading to hell and dont even realize nor care. so sad.
My mom used to say "the sheep will follow the goat" never really understood until i heard about what the flat earthers were saying about how they viewed the earth and planets.
chad wran, there are too many inconsistancies with your NASA hypothesis. As I said; anyone with a telescope can see the ISS. Even a good pair of binoculars can see the ISS. I've seen many things in space I wasn't looking for. The ISS among them. So it isn't doing what I was told. Where as you, on the other hand, are making a statement from a position of never having done it. You can't just decide the earth is a certain shape. You have to prove the words you speak. Not someone's redition off some video. Look for yourself. The world around tells a different story.
chad w, I'm not going to watch NASA videos. I have better things to do with my time. Back in the 90s I even saw one of the shuttles docked there. My god man can you more unobsrvant. Physics and science have never boggled my mind. You are so lost you are the sad one. I don't want to cry for a willful moron, such as yourself. I spend my time observing nature. You on the other hand, obviously, spend your time watching videos. Then you want to come on here and call people who do look, and probably have for more years than have been alive, they are stupid. There is no way to let you down with this one; you're an absolute dumbass. Can you make an honest observation? It's easy to see from your comment you haven't made any. You should before you open your mouth next time. So you don't feel like such a fool.
I don't believe in flat earthers - they don't exist. Nobody could possibly be that stupid and still find their way to the internet or tie their own shoe laces without accidentally killing themselves in the process. 100% of all flat earthers ae actually just trolls; flat earthers don't really exist.
I had a friend who absolutely insisted the landings were faked. he argued relentlessly. despite this. in astonishment, I could not believe his stupidity for a smart man. sometimes you have to walk away. there is no law for being stupid. there ought to be. brilliant video, as always
I understand your frustration. "The moon landing was faked," has been a conspiracy theory since day one. Don't be too disheartened. Memory of history fades with time.
@@carlosbrazao6039 1 - Camera exposure settings for good pictures on the moon underexpose the star field during lunar days. 2 The Van Allen belts are donut shaped and can be passed over/under. 3. Good question.
Cast away their doubts after seeing what? More images from NASA when they already have a track record for using computer imagery for, idk, every single image of everything they've given to us. It's not just NASA images I don't believe in, but any image from anywhere, from anyone. Images shouldn't hold up as proof or evidence of anything. With the tech today, images can easily be faked and you would swear up and down the image is real. In the real world, images alone prove nothing. Plus, for decades there have supposedly been spy satellites in orbit that could see details of a coin on a sidewalk. Just do some research. That being said, it means that this video is a load of horse shit, with the biggest load of horse shit being the douche bag in the video.
@@kellyblake4594 Interesting. I will now use your own logic to ascertain other conundrums we may come across. CCTV can no longer be used as evidence for a murder case in court, since the image could've been cybernetically altered. Photos can no longer be used on passports to identify a person since all images are now potentially fake. Any footage or photos of natural disasters such as the Asian tsunami are now void and are proof that it never happened, because reasons. I can now determine that it was actually Will Smith who played Ace Ventura and not Jim Carrey, as I now think that Will impersonated his voice and used excessive make up and acting skills to make it look like it was Jim in the movie. Photos of man made structures such as the Great wall of China are now no longer credible, and as a result, all great buildings in the world are fake until you see them for yourself.
Sounds SUPER convenient. Why put much effort into finding something we already know is there? INSANE perspective. How about to shut people like me up? Suuuuure nasa has their own official photos. Of course they do. They also somehow had photos and videos from spacecraft that passed through the Van Allen Radiation belts.
I can't imagine what our ancestors would've thought about the current wave of stupidity that is engulfing a good half of the population here in the USA. We were making progress as Society and getting more advanced and now suddenly these people are going to drag us backwards.
Your same kind of conspiratorial thinking and plotting was used against Christ so we non-believers in NASA's lies and their gullible brain-dead supporters such as yourself are in great company.
I take it they do have satellites-probes orbiting the Moon, presumably they have cameras on board. I can see my patio table from Google Earth. So why no pictures of the landing sites.
philip mc donagh It’s called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter - it’s been there for over 10 years. All the Apollo landing sites have been photographed with reasonable resolution.
whatever fortawesome keep buying their shit you probably think the 3WTC bldgs fell because of the airplanes crashed into them too huh??? a lot of conspiracy nuts are highly intelligent people who have spent countless hours of research to reach their conclusions and I for one appreciate the work these individuals take on ....QUESTIONMOSTEVERYTHING or pay the price at some point there will be NO return
+Craig, intelligence is not synonymous with sanity, and it is not synonymous with experience. Also, my friend, may I point out that "research" does not include watching you tube videos
The Chinese lunar orbiter has taken high resolution images of the lander's decent module and the lunar rover still sitting where it was parked. Even the tracks are visible.
NASA is a total fraud...nobody leaves earth..nobody..theyve been trying to break the dome for decades even w nuclear megaton warheads..yup no can......cuz God designed it that way.....you think the powers to be want us to know that truth
You can debunk that flat earth theory by going to a beach near a cargo port. Watch a tanker sailing out to sea. At the beginning you can see the entire back end of this. As it gets further away you can’t see the bottom of the back of the ship. Eventually all you will see is the very top of the ship and then it will totally disappear. That is because the curvature of the earth is preventing you from seeing it.
2:03 The size of the mirror is not directly related to the magnification of the objects that it observes, but rather how much light is gathered from the remote object. It is however related. It does affect the resolution of the magnified object with a given detector, whether an eyepiece or a CCD. So a larger mirror will show more detail. Ideally a refractor design gives better detail, but the practical design limits of the refractor only allow about a 40 inch objective lens. This is why reflectors are the most common design used.
B Crn Sorry, but I have no experience in telescope building. If the mirror you are considering is not made for use in a reflector telescope, I would avoid it. There are designs that use a front corrector plate such as Schmitt-Cassegrain. These are rarely home built. A good resource is Sky & Telescope Magazine. Google for their website. The "curve" of the mirror affects the focal point, rather than the magnification. The diameter of the mirror determines to light gathering ability, and the magnification depends on the eyepiece used as well as the limit imposed from the size of the aperture. Most home built telescope are Newtonian Reflectors. The are be best "cost to performance" design.
B Crn: I ground the lenses of an 8" diameter 8-foot length Newtonian reflector telescope when I was a young teenager in the early 1960's. Using it on earth I could see the veins and hair on a mosquito's wings from a long block away about 500 feet, as they circled the street lights. The main or primary lens can be spherical but where it focuses must be quite long or the light will not focus to one point (properly). The correct curvature for a reflector telescope is a paraboloid; this shape will allow it to focus properly at shorter focus lengths. Power of a telescope and resolution of objects are not the same thing. Magnification power is a ratio between the focal length of the eyepiece and the focal length of the primary lens. The longer the focal length of the main lens and the shorter the eyepiece's the more power. This focal length could be influenced by a second lens that interrupts the main lens's path and extends the total focal length effectively giving more magnification. In other words, you can have very high power with very small telescope but very poor quality. Resolution of a telescope, on the other hand, is directly affected by the size of the primary lens. The bigger the lens the more resolution and a clearer picture or image. Power without resolution gives a less formed dull image. I see no reason why a large telescope could not see the moon lander. A small telescope could see something the size of a football field. A large scope can gather about a million times more light. The metal aluminum foil body should stand out like a beacon.
15past2... I know that you were not talking to me, but I have to question parts of your story. The veins and hairs on a mosquito's wings at 500 feet is ridiculous and not possible. When a mosquito is flying the wings would be a blur even if you could image it, which you will not do with an 8 inch Newtonian. I am also pretty sure that mosquitos do NOT buzz streetlights. Also I think that the more spherical mirror will have a shorter focus point and shallower mirror the longer focus point. Most of the rest of your post is accurate, but that last paragraph. Not even the Keck telescopes can image any of the Apollo hardware. It is a matter of the limitations of optics. Only the LRO orbiter of the moon has taken images of the landing sites, and while the larger pieces are identified, they are not really clear view of the objects.
Swinde: If you must question it, you must but speak with knowledge. Go find a neighbor with an eight or ten inch that has a decent mirror on it and quality eyepieces and look for yourself. This isn't a radical idea, it is an observable fact! I am not sure about the distance but it was diagonally across a large school yard in a suburb. The school took up the whole block, the street light was across the far corner and I was across the street from the yard. Thousands of scientists their kids and neighbors watched these and many other things through that telescope as it was the largest in the area at the time. The bugs looked like mosquitos I am not sure what they were and by the way mosquitos do land and stop flitter-ing around. Who cares what kind of bug they were or are you just a negative person with an insecure ego. What does the focus point have to do with whether it is a spheroid or paraboloid or anything else??? You can have a sphere that is very flat or very tight. A sphere and a parabola are 2 different things. It is the shape of the lens only that focuses the light or not on an object or eyepiece. In a flatter spheroid the light is focused more closely together almost as good as a paraboloid! Draw them out and draw the light rays and see this! Look! If you put a bright light or a laser on the moon and shine it this way you will see it with the naked eye. The lander is coated with a shiny foil in unfilterd sunlight. Is it that hard for you to see that a large telesvope could pick this up or are you so set on making me wrong and yourself right that you lose logic. I expect no further response from you.
Debating flat-earthers should be for the sole purpose of educating the masses, with an interesting take on the subject, with zero care as to whether some oddballs believe you or not.
@Richard Patik And they should teach “the controversy”. Like how a group of internet trolls on 4chan started this pseudo-scientific meme just for fun. How they spread it. _Why_ it spread. And eventually to our philosophy of science and knowledge. e.g. How do we “know” anything?
2:01 The bigger the mirror, the more the magnification" I think the size only determines the amount of light it gathers, whereas the *curvature* determines magnification. Of course you can indirectly get more "magnification" because more light means more resolution, which lets you expand the image and see more detail.
The size ultimately determines the magnification, because you cannot magnify something that you can't detect. You need the "data", ie photons being emitted by the object you're trying to detect. If you squash photons too closely together, they interfere with each other, and that's what limits the resolution. To detect photons from an object just a few meters wide, from 380,000 km away would require a mirror about a kilometer wide. That's far larger than anything we are currently able to manufacture. There is a way to detect it from Earth, using interferometry. However, that's unlikely to happen, for several reasons. Firstly, it's extremely difficult and expensive. Secondly, there's no point. If we dedicate years of valuable telescope time to achieve it, we might just about see a tiny blurred speck. None of the hoax-nuts would accept that as evidence. Besides which - what's the point? We already know exactly what is there, and we already have extremely clear photographs and videos of it all, taken during the Apollo missions.
Returned from low earth orbit, the furthest men could go then and now. Remember, this “proof” is being served to you by the very liars who scammed us then and continue to scam us all now. It’s like saying “see Jesus was real because the Bible says so.” I won’t believe we put men on the moon 50 years ago until someone other than NASA proves it to us all.
If the Earth was flat, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
True
Not if the flat earth is lets say 100.000 miles long.
How many times y’all gonna use the corny statement
If the Flat-Earth morons believe the Earth is flat, why don't they find the edge & jump off?!
DPImage Capturing because the edge is not in their mom’s basement or the inside of their car, so the “research” stops right there.
A flatearther’s greatest fear is sphere itself
Bear Knuckles
Not a joke, just a fact.
Stop stealing others’ comments.
conflectiz
I’ve been saying this for years, you twat!😂
Pretty good ! How do the explain the curve of the earth ? Rhetorical!
I thought it was diabetes.
Flatearthers: "We have members all around the globe."
LMAO 😂
Translated: we have fooled idiots all over the globe
Brilliant! lol
Jason Huang I was never a what people call a glober didn’t didn’t give a damn about round earth or flat until I started realising the lies of nasa and the indoctrination in schools from early childhood and the media even Hollywood then I started to critically think and truly examine what they call evidence, once you do it all falls into place. The scariest thing now is the technology we have now they can make anything look real but the truth is it’s all plastic and the last thing they want is critical thinkers. In truth they are saying shut up and believe what I’m saying shut up and just get into line.
Why are you guys calling flat earthers bad names? I am one and I never call a globe believer retard.
Why this anger?
You do realise most flat earthers did believe in the spinning ball theory before we opened our mind to reality. It's not a cult or psychological state of mind. It's just fact
After an extensive study I have found two common things among flat earthers. They were VERY slippery at birth, and their parents
were very tall.
hahaha!
What
? What ? Could anyone explain
@@ishanghosh6604 They got dropped on their heads at birth
@@deanlindholm8663 ah ok
I find it kind of touching seeing the tracks of the astronauts on the moon, left 50 years ago. Imagine going back to a beach you visited as a child and see your footprints in the sand still there.. we may be long gone but we left a mark on the universe. Touching
*@Conor M* There is a tiny, crude picture of a penis on the Moon, drawn by artist Andy Warhol.
Apollo 12 took up a miniature "art museum" on a wafer. Famous artists were asked to contribute. Warhol drew a tiny cock-and-balls.
And then one day when we finally have space tourism to the moon, some fat guy wearing a Hawaiian shirt eating an icecream is going to trip over and ruin all the footprints for everyone.
@@bartonez123 Dennis Nedry?
@micah lynn Love the way no one got your point. Sure hope you did. i.e. sand, dust, collisions, 50 years and still footprints. Preserved. Perfectly. Just like your childhood beach would be... of course. ;)
th-cam.com/video/dTQoNcHTUSw/w-d-xo.html
I was a flat-Earther for five years, until I turned five.
Probably your father is flat earther.
LOL
@@harikishore2514 he is under the earth
Then you have been programmed for 5 years by education. And now you're scared to face the truth.
@@Tin.Man.Trading Why do all of you use the same language/words. You are a cult.
I love the sarcasms at the end. Spot on!
STIGZ .... you must be an ignorism lover and follower then....
Flat Earth people are crazy.
piss off NASA just pissss offfff
bullshit..... with all the billions NASholes have burned through and continue to waste faster than the fed can print one would think you'd want to prove yourselves. The simple truth is its all one quintessential bunch of crap. I spent my youth idolizing nasa and the like I bought into all of the lies we were sold. I hope and pray that the truth with come out one of these days...when I think of all the ways that money could have been better spent and invested I get myself so worked up I get miserable and out of sorts. ain't that a bitch
craig carlson Get a job and it will ease your mind. NASA has made many advances in medicine and technology over the years. ..When you grow up you will see.
Think about it. If the Earth was in fact flat, the properties on the edge would be the most expensive because of the stellar views.
What edge?
I see what you did there haha
According to flat earthers there is no space.
@@bishalshakya7366 you’ve been to space?
@@JFK-ir7yz oh are we playing "you don't see, you don't exist"
You really did a good job on this and I think you explained it in layman's terms perfectly. Thank you.
TirarADeguello I didn’t know you watch him!
I wish he would explain how we can identify humans from space using satellites.
@@andrewe165 I'm a big fan of science channels, and Curious Droid busts his ass making great content. I've been with him from near the start.
As always:)
TirarADeguello So the sun revolve under the flat earth and how come at the united state night time and Japan morning time I don't get it FLAT EARTH
We older earthlings watched all of the Gemini, surveyor, Apollo missions along with many others not mentioned. Do you think for one minute the governments of Russia, China, the u k, France etc. And their populations weren't sitting in front of their t.v.s watching too ? Their scientists were tracking the Apollo spacecrafts. The Russians would have loved to call the Americans liars in that they did not land on the moon. They were our chief competitors. Funny thing, they didn't. They congratulated us for a job well done. But yet we have present day Americans who are busying themselves with this nonsense that there weren't any moon landings. So in ten , fifteen years, some country will land on Mars. And they will see it. And when they get old they will read on you tube how young people, who did not witness the first Mars landing, are calling it a hoax. And the joke will be on them. Brave men risked their lives to take us to the moon and advance space exploration and these deniers sit on their comfortable couch and give no credit to them. Ship of Fools.
Well said. I wasn't _quite_ old enough, although I apparently 'watched' Armstrong land, at the age of about 2 weeks. I'm hoping we'll witness it again, perhaps within 10 years. You might enjoy playing with this interactive site about Apollo 11 from the audio perspective; I did. www.firstmenonthemoon.com/
ann onn -- added the site, thank you
macc240038 I saw it on TV when I was 8 yrs old! But just because it was on TV does not confirm it was real, especially when the broadcast was provided by the agency claiming to have gone to the moon..... mankind did not go to the moon....NASA lies... research it!
Denis Boissonneault - your reducing all that I said simply seeing it on TV. That's just one line. A small percentage of what I said. Do you realize that the lunar orbiters are photographing the lunar landing sites right now ? The Chinese will soon duplicate the feat that Americans accomplished years ago ? Many be you'll live long enough to see astronaut walk on the moon again. And they will walk right up to the lunar Rover and send live video back. What will you conjure up then ?
cheezl 2 We have plenty of proof, the problem is that you don't believe it. You should be the one providing it.
The real reason we can't see the landers is because over time, they sank into the cheese the moon is made out of. Yep.
simul8guy - what do YOU think?
True... the moon is indeed made of cheese.
you need too watch operation avalanche you just have to watch it you must see this movie it will make u shit your panties
Hm, I suddenly feel like having a grilled cheese sandwich :P.
God Evelyn, you and your cheesy jokes.
Well done!
Not to mention that the Soviets would have called us out had the telemetry been from anywhere else other than on the moon.
If you had a powerful enough receiver at the time you could even tune into the moon landings live yourself to prove its real.
Russia absolutely didn’t believe we went to the moon. Most Russians still don’t believe it. At this point, with all of the information that is available, you have to be willfully stupid to believe it. Look at the “craft” they used. Look at the fact we can’t do what they did then… today with modern tech. If you think we landed on the moon still, you’re willfully naive.
@@zackattack635 Wherever you get your news, you need to find a better source.
@@ElenaGeorge1 as opposed to you, someone who thinks we went to the moon in 1969 and played golf… but can’t come close now. 50 years of insane technical progress, just can’t match the comically dumb “craft” they used to do the impossible? Stop being so gullible sweetie.
@@zackattack635 You suffer from Dunning-Kruger. A doctor will not help you but finding more information and actually studying the subject instead of watching stupid videos about it might.
THX for all!
It reminds me I was 20 and working in an hotel for the holydays (I was studen), and the night Apollo XI had landed (yes, it was early in the morning, in France), the whole crew wake up to see this historic exploit on a shitty small screen TV.
Now, Im old and retired, but when i see all the conspiracy theorys, I'm between laughing or weeping.
THX again !
I had no idea Uncle Fester knows so much about space
That's FUNNY! Uncle Fester had a great smile & punch lines! I miss him! "THE ADAMS FAMILY" was great for the 60's..wait was it "THE MUNSTERS"??? I'm getting too old to remember anymore...
For years I have wondered that very question. And the answer was so perfect! Thank you sir for illuminating that one pixel in my brain that had been in the dark all that time.
Photos of the Apollo landings sites have been available online for over 10 years. They were taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which is still at work mapping the Moon. "The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is an orbiting spacecraft that has studied the Moon in unprecedented detail since 2009, including the ways in which its surface has been altered in recent geologic times. Completing its fourth extended mission on September 30, 2022, the has accomplished all its original science goals and will continue to perform science investigations as well as inform future Artemis missions as it begins its 5th extended mission in October 2022."
its a bit like trying to find a Boeing Jet in the Indian Ocean,,,,
Lol hahhaha haha.
daaaark :D
ha ha
Lol. I know, right?
Only the moon doesn't have an ocean :-/
Nice to see the face behind the videos, cool stuff, thanks for spreading the knowledge!
mmm?
Must of been weird parking the Lunar Buggy, knowing that it will be their virtually for ever. In the future, there will be glass around it, and tourists to the moon will visit it, like attractions on earth. 🤒
But it won't be there even virtually for ever. It 'could' be hit by a meteor at any time, after a billion years those odds get better than nill. 3-6 billion years from now the Moon will be enveloped by the Sun, along with Earth and all our terrestrial and lunar creations will be reduced to atomic plasma.
+Sinister Veridicus You mean nuke ourselves to the moon.
As far as the human race is concerned, forever. We will not be here even in 1 billion years let alone 3-6.
Nick Breen The end may come sooner than that with all the greed, hate and killing going on.
Who were the globalists from 622 - 750 AD? Islam has its own agenda, fully independent from outside influence, a singular goal to make the planet islamic by any means necessary.
"But my iPhone takes great pictures, why won't it show me those landers?" Facepalm....people who don't understand how telescopes work but want to say we didn't go to to the moon because science. Oy!
And it comes mostly from people wo have not the faintest idea how photography works in the fist place. All that because the technicians that programmed the "Automode" actually know what they are doing...
Sprite Bonn Would you be kind enough to give the links, thanks.
@Mocco Mongananzo you underestimate the conspiracy nuts.
It’s lag
@Sprite Bonn what about the slug tracks and the railroad tracks and the thumb tracks... lol
Here's a good way to show just how hard the lunar landers would be to see from earth: Think of that iconic Apollo image of the earth rising over the moon. Now imagine how much you would need to zoom in to see a CAR on that image!
Edmund Earle, another way is to also consider what would be necessary to spot your backyard garden shed or camper/caravan from the Moon, or for some of the doubters, their quarter acre marijuana crop.
Wow. Thank you for making me laugh. I was having an off morning till i read this funny comment.
+Woty: A 1/2 inch newspaper letter read from100 miles away, is proportional to "reading" an object on the moon 100 feet in size. The moonlander was what, about 10 to 15 feet in size? There is currently no scope on earth or around earth that has the resolution to photograph moon landing artifacts. (Whether or not there is actually any artifacts there). Begin your research by looking up the resolution of some major earth scopes. Or perhaps it would be more easy and entertaining to watch another silly utube conspiracy vid.....
Great videos
Operation Northwoods...
Operation Mockingbird...
The Gulf of Tonkin attack...
If the CIA planned on assassinating thousands of its own people:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
then the step to faking moon landings was quite small. All the landings happened under the most fraudulent administration in history (Nixon administration) in a 3 year period (69-72) and stopped when Watergate broke. Since then, not a human beyond orbit in any of the world’s space programs.
To not consider the circumstances surrounding a claim is no different than blind religious idiocy. I’m not a conspiracy guy in any way but lived in the 1960s. I wouldn’t trust a word out of a 1960s US government mouth if it had been peer reviewed and tested to an infallible shine.
For many of us in the 1960s, Nixon’s first moon landing 6 months after he was sworn into office at the height of Vietnam (Tet offensive) was like if Trump’s _Space_ _Force_ put men on Mars only 6 months after being sworn into office in the middle of a Russian collusion investigation while in the middle of a major war with say N. Korea.
This isn’t a claim of a flat earth. This isn’t a claim of big foot. This isn’t a claim of aliens in Roswell. This is the refutation of a claim by an unscrupulous government.
*Occam’s* *Razor:*
_The_ _simplest_ _solution_ _tends_ _to_ _be_ _the_ _correct_ _one._ _When_ _presented_ _with_ _competing_ _hypotheses_ _to_ _solve_ _a_ _problem,_ _one_ _should_ _select_ _the_ _one_ _with_ _the_ _fewest_ _assumptions._
So with that in mind, why is it that in almost 50 years no human has been beyond orbit in any space program in the world regardless of _Moore’s_ _Law,_ globalization and extraordinary technological advancements? Because we never went to begin with.
Why can’t we see the moon landers? There never were any. Why so many questions about the moon landings with absurdly complex answers? Because we never went.
Before the lunar mapping mission there was another way people checked on the locations of the landings. Some missions had mirrors designed to bounce lasers back to Earth.
Yes but the reflectors never worked.
@@jay404 they did we realized that the moon moves back from earth by just 3.8 cm
@@Sam_Sam2 3.8cm per year, yes.
@@jay404 yes they did, and still do.
@@sosababy1016 moon laser experiment is only claimed successful for the first time since aug 2020.
Flat earthers use GPS to get to their flat earth convention.
They're using satellites to post on the internet too...
Flat Earth Convention of Extreme Stupidity. .......FECES 💩
Society has profited from Apollo. You, however, are keeping us in the dark ages by denying science. It's your fault we've not returned in 50 years. If it was supported better, we'd have been back decades ago. You're discrediting the memory of heroes who died to get us there, and spitting in the face of millions who dedicate their life to the science behind space technology.
Tell me, how do you know that the Van Allen belts exist?
Who told you they did?
*@Cam* So you believe NASA?
There is a wiki article on the Event Horizon telescope showing in pictures what was the level of magnification it had to achieve to photograph M87's black hole. It is equivalent to seeing a tennis ball on the moon. Sufficient to say you need at least a continent size telescope to see something that small clearly on the moon's surface.
In microwaves wavelength, right. But in optic, a smaller telescope would do (a 100m wide should see Apollo remains, a 1km wide one should see a tennis ball - but for atmospheric effects and such). Still way more that what we have now.
@@ThomasKundera I thought clustering telescopes would make up for that? Several evenly spaced ones?
@@amentco8445 You can cluster radio-telescopes as the wavelength is large enough to allow sampling of the wave itself (several data points per wave) it's absolutely impossible with current tech in optics and as resolution decrease with wavelength enlargement I guess it's way better to just go near
Well stated. Many people looking in a scope or their digital zoom camera at the Moon think they're seeing rocks and small bolders. They're actually seeing big mountains and craters the size of huge lakes. These things look small because there are no real known references. When we look at Earth from a probe camera and see, say Florida, we know how big Florida is and that the Okefenokee is a really big lake. Therefore we don't expect to see Uncle Billy's RV outside Miami. Also moon mountains can look really "rocky" because there is nothing to erode them down to smooth cones like on Earth.
However, I do think NASA/JPL does us a disservice by employing former Disney Imagineers to render the Hubble space art they often show in place of visual spectrum photography. People see what looks like something from Toy Story or Titanic, and they assume all is movie fake. In the old days, a text book would have a hand drawing or painting of say The Solar System or the Milky Way taken from an outside the galaxy perspective. We all knew that was a best guess imaginative picture based on other science. However with the flood of CGI astral images, even with backyard telescopes, kids get super skeptical.
Best bet kids. Buy an analog reflective telescope (no camera or video gadgetry. Just lenses, mirrors and knobs) for about $200, go out of the city and look at some planets. Things will start to make sense.
Except that the backyard astronomer images are NOT CGI. Composites yes, multiple images stacked in a software program to get better exposure value and detail but absolutely not CGI.
I am currently working on my own shot of the Andromeda galaxies only using a DSLR and 300mm f4 lens. I got exciting results with only a stack equalling about 2 minutes of exposure.
If we ever get a clear night here again (6 weeks of no good conditions) I am hoping for 30 minutes or more.
Everyone repeat: Composite is NOT CGI. Your own eyes create composite images from very tiny sensors!!!!!!!!!!
I think you meant Okeechobee Lake in Florida ! The Okefenokee Swamp is a shallow, 438,000-acre, peat-filled wetland straddling the Georgia-Florida line.
S Tho I look up to see all those satellites whizzing around!!!
They say 10,000 pieces of space junk..
Gee, I never see them crossing in front of the moon , high up there!
...WHY NOT??
USA and Soviet are not in competition!... Google Star City to see how far it has developed..
There are no ICBMs , it's all a scam for $$$$
Just short range missiles for Kruschev... Mmmm. Cuba would work!!
the proof of Einsteins T of Relatively, getting debunked.....
ISNT EVEN TAUGHT to you 'genius'...WHY NOT?
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!! Now read further, smart guy.
G E E , why all the secrecy 👺 💩💩 👎🏽 👿 😈 ( the moon landing tapes ALL DISAPPEARED!!)
...It's all about the $$$ and the Free Masons /Illuminati that are are in control...
...//😱. proof of a flat earth is easy.
JUSTLOOKOUTTHE window inanysmallairplane
Orwatchaship DISAPPEAR THENWITHBINOCULARS SEEITAGAIN
TELLYOURFRIENDS
BRAINWASHINGCHILDRENIS. SICK
TELLYOURFRIENDS. PLEEEEZE
@@Bogolyubovos You can occasionally see them pass in front of the moon. NOT with just your eyes, you would need a telescope. It would not be just some casual thing, like tossing the scope toward the moon and seeing satellites buzzing by.
Also literally if you blink you would miss it. The satellites orbits were not planned so you could sit and watch them passing in front of the moon. Satellites are relatively small and a long ways away...how much detail can you see in a car 2 miles away or a 747 from 6-7 miles? Satellites are way farther.
You can see satellites by eye under dark skies. You can get info as to where to look and at what time. Same with the ISS.
@@Bogolyubovos So. Living on the Moray Firth coast (North East Scotland) I should be able to point my telescope in a roughly north easterly direction and see Norway? Bloody hell, someone's stolen Norway!!!! My telescope hasn't "pulled it back over the horizon". What is this black magic?
Well done on explaining the Pixel resolution, much easier to understand why we can just see them :)
It's also wrong. Sub-pixel resolution is standard fare in digital signal processing for images. This is the correct take on the issue. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-pixel_resolution
And once again, NASA math doesn't add up. According to the specs of the Hubble Telescopes camera, it SHOULD be able to pick up an very thorough image of the landing site instead of a scratchy render, as shown/explained in this video.
All the info that dude said in this video is absolutely wrong. And, sadly, not many people will question any of it; because not many know about even the most basic principles of how cameras work. :(
Or....it was a complete hoax
Bla bla bla we fooled u and the lunar lander is in a storage shed in Hollywood...we took the money and ran ...thanks stupid mericans
@@anonymousshawn9996 Yeah mathematicians and scientists at NASA are completely wrong, so we are to believe a random person commenting on TH-cam......that's how conspiracy theories start
There is something that can be detected on the Surface of the moon: a reflector that was left there to be able to measure the distance between the earth and the moon.
if a laser is aimed at the Surface of the moon it is bounced back from the reflector.The time that passes till the light is back gives an exact measure of the distance to the moon.
without that reflector the reflection of the laser would be scattered and weakened beond any detection.
bullshit man its fuckin bullshit
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon
Here ya go
But that's not evidence humans landed on the moon.
There's about 5 or 6 of those reflectors if memory serves. Only a couple of them were placed by humans. The rest were done the "old fashioned" way.
Robert Pruitt says..."But that's not evidence humans landed on the moon."
And then says..."Only a couple of them were placed by humans."
Ummm...
Ulrich Kälber, go away Russian troll. 🚫🇷🇺
Why would anyone thumbs down this? This is the best answer to this question I’ve wondered about for many years. I wanted so bad to buy the telescope that could view some of the debris on the moon. I love space and all the wonders waiting for us to learn out there. Thank you for posting this for us.
Because sadly, so many believe a BS and unsupported claim that man was never on the moon
@@James-rc6qq I like the challenges they provide and the rebuttals. I've learned a lot about the lunar missions through the doubt cast on it.
@JFK Clone High Presumptive. One reason to dislike is to get it out of recommendations. Also no video is perfect and some people don't like aspects of a video. You can't really expect to please everyone. I like these videos but don't get butthurt because some people don't.
Because there's enough evidence to show we never went to the moon, even the moon rocks were found to be petrified wood. It was all staged but I know you aren't ready for the truth
2016: Why can't we see the Apollo lunar landers on the Moon from Earth ?
2019: Nikon COOLPIX Px000: "Hold my beer"
Not even close.
th-cam.com/video/XkOTnQ5vLwk/w-d-xo.html
??? You must be kidding.
@@ann_onn eeehehe. Nice, but doable!
No, you'd need a lens much larger than 100 meters / 300 feet wide.
No such thing exists.
Our best telescopes are about 10m/30'.
Been there, done that! Any other stupid questions you morons?
You could put a flat-earther in a rocket, take him to the moon and show him first hand and he would claim we went there and staged it.
“There’s a hologram on my spacesuit’s visor”
Ohrenaugenkatze _ yea , in the vacuum of space though
@@_charliezard_7218 That was the joke.......
Flat earthers - take them all to the space station and ask them to describe the earth...from the outside.
Those that disbelieve gravity - take them all to a cliff and ask them what they're experiencing as you throw them off.
No he wouldn't, he would say why did u take this rocket 2 the desert, & what is Stanley Kubrick doing here?
The deniers are so thick that we could take them to the Moon and they would STILL claim it is all fake.
Swinde dump the deniers on the moon without space suits see if they think it's in a studio after that..
well for a few seconds anyway.
They like to feel special. Like a little club of idiots.
Swinde ....sucker think for youself
Nexus Texas .....fuck you
Skipping Stone Ok, I see your brain isn't that sophisticated!. Run along now child. Adults are discussing adult things!
Imagine trying to hit a 0.5 inch polished aluminum target with a Kolibri Pistol at a distance of a mile on the X. While having a strobe light in your face! That's why we can't see lunar landers!
That sounds more like why the Apollo astronauts couldn't see stars in broad daylight despite the pitch black sky. (understood by science at least since the 1950s)
Loved how you're making fun of flat earthers xD
Liar!
Feels bumpy to me.
"Earth round, shoe flat? Something doesn't add up"
- Flat Earther
I love how you poked fun at the flat earthers. Great vids. Thank you for doing what you do!!!
If someone believe the moon landing was fake that doesn't mean he believe the earth is flat.
@mohabiraq1 He was poking fun at all the stupid conspiracy theories not saying they all believe the same thing... Although most of them do.
mohabiraq1 They're both the same to me. Conspiracy-minded, science illiterate buffoons who only want to argue all day nonstop (stubborn) and stroke their own ego with more conspiracy videos. How dare you give them a real answer, lies, fake, CGI! But what would I know, I'm a paid NASA shill who only comments online for money just to hide the real truth from you.
I respect that, as you have to respect my opinion that you are a sheep with shoes.
Straight Shooter keep eating that bullshit NASA feeds you. Make sure you get a big spoon too
It just isn’t worth talking to anyone who doesn’t believe the moon landings happened. It makes me annoyed, goodness knows how the people involved feel. Mankind’s greatest achievement.
BakerCars&Hifi your mind is so closed you aren't getting enough oxygen to your brain.
@@williamchiafos2325 Actually, I have read all the facts, seen the hoax theories, seen an unused saturn V in the flesh and come up with my own conclusion that it did indeed happen.
So trying to see objects on the moon with the hubble is like trying to see an amoeba 2 feet away from you with binoculars?
Nah.
If we are 250,000 miles away from the Moon, then Hubble is about 249, 650 miles from the Moon.
That doesn't help.
Trying to see objects on the Moon with Hubble is like trying to see a coin across the width of America. Use any binoculars or any telescope you like - it's simply impossible with current technology.
There is another problem with using Hubble to image the landing cites, and it's the same reason that the Hubble has the lens cover. When you are looking at a distant star, so little of the light emitted is actually heading into your telescope that it appears very faint. The moon has a very low albido, but even so, it reflects a huge amount of photons from the sun. This would not be an issue if you were far away, but the moon is comparatively very close, so if Hubble were to look directly at it, the CCDs would be bombarded with photons, and would burn out from over exposure. Not a good expenditure, especially since it's already had it's final servicing mission.
During periods of high debris bombardment, such as meteor storms, Hubble will close it's lens cap, and turn towards the Earth, protecting the primary mirror from micro-meteoroid impact. The purpose of the lens cap, even when the telescope is pointed away from the storm, is because the Earth is so bright during the day, that to look at it would burn out the ultra sensitive CCDs which were designed to look at faint distant galaxies.
*****
Reaction wheels (a motorized version of what we on Earth call gyroscopes). Think about it, if it couldn't change it's direction, we'd be stuck staring in the same direction.
*****
It's altitude is slowly decreasing due to atmospheric drag. Yes, even at almost 400 miles up, there are a few atoms for it to collide against and slow it down.
The Hubble has actually photographed the moon before, and it was for legitimate scientific reasons. www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/hubble_moon.html
The Hubble's orbit is high enough for its decay rate to be very small. Currently, it's natural reentry will occur sometime between 2030 and 2040. It's not easy to predict precisely because there are many factors that can influence it. Chances are some effort will be made to control its decommissioning since some parts of its structure could survive reentry and thus be a hazard to people on the ground.
Hubble is too close to the Earth to get a photograph of the entire planet. It's not much higher than the ISS and I'm sure you've seen pictures and video from there. Because of how fast it is moving it wouldn't be able to take useful photos of Earth's surface either.
It's not a very low libido, I just think you showed more interest back in the 60's.
The word you are looking for is ALBEDO, though the man in the moon may indeed have a very high libido
"Moon made of cheese & only 700 ft in diameter" said chief Flatearther
Going to the moon for fun worse than going to burning man // there's nothing happening there // its either too hot or tool cold / no nature or other people or infrastructure / cold harsh & difficult / the only reason to go to build a space port for accessing deep space & associated nuclear reactor & electric mining for mineral resources & processing into useful stuff for construction & maintenance & fueling of & at spaceport moon base etc
It's actually a family sized pizza with the lot!! (Slightly overcooked.)
It's true the moon is made of cheese, but obviously its bigger than that, at least 800 ft.
I think cheese would be more likely for it to be made of that than dust. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Not only was this captivating, well spoken, but interesting and very informative. I have to say it's not only satirical but kind of a safety net to finish all the statements with "unless of course you're a non-believer". Smart and funny.
You should also talk about the non-nasa lunar orbiters which also proof the apollo landings.
Like this photo taken by the Indian probe *_Chandrayaan-2._*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#/media/File:Chandrayaan-2_Apollo.jpg
We can't see them because they are not there .
VITA kyo
Yeah you can't see the wind on earth either, but it exists.
You see the effect of it but not the wind.
You dim-witted spastic. You must be American.
wide awake
You can see air can you?
Your proof that the moon landings didn't happen is you can't see the flag up there?
***** First you say my claim is nonesense , then you say : not there => not to see , is true . Which is exactly what i said . You should take a class in logic ...
***** You think your logic will make appear moon landers on the moon ?
***** How can a logic expert as you are , believe we went on the moon ?
You're very convincing for a cybernetic android.
It's actually Uncle Fetser from the Addams family
I can't even see one hair on his head.
That's because IT'S A CYBERNETIC ORGANISM, LIVING TISSUE OVER METAL ENDOSKELETON.
Hey Simon, Of course you can make a convincing argument about anything and everything in this world in your favor as you please whether what you are saying is the TRUTH or NOT. What?! Are you telling me you NEVER EVER heard of LAWYERS? (ROTFLMAO!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣) LAWYERS are KNOWN to LIE through their TEETH on BEHALF of their CLIENTS making a CONVINCING ARGUMENT that their CLIENT NEVER DID what he is accused of... LMAO!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 So, you need need to wake up and smell the coffee... ROTFLMAO!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@1USAUSA Need more ROTFLMAOs, and shitload more emojis.
flatearthers: "all i heard was the end, '...and the earth is, flat.' -see? duh, we win."
No wonder I couldn't find them after I snapped a picture of the moon and try to enlarge it on me iPhone
Hee Sing Sia lol
Hee Sing Sia - My Samsung works fine, there's no lander to see, and my phone sees nothing... proof right there.
Well I took a picture and Obama was not in it. Does that mean he doesn't exist either?
Yes it does beacon, yes it does. We must now also go ponder the implications that we were also not in that image.
beaconrider Correct, although you might have software than inhibits photographs of crap subject matter.
Well said. I never knew the reasons we could not see them. But you explained it all. The LRO then proved to all the naysayers that all of the equipment left behind is indeed there.
Of course they will. Oh well.
GinSkimPivot NASA Orion video debunks all this!
Well, almost anyone can tell that SOME is. Right angle, right distance. Glad they left right-angle reflectors on the surface.
You another dumb idiot that believes man went to moon because of a couple photo shopped images? Here go find me a real photo of our so called planet earth, nothing photo shopped, no composite, must be real so no CGI, i been looking for one for 24 years, i cannot find any high definition video of planet earth spinning from any of the thousands of satellites orbiting earth.
By not answering my question means you have no evidence to prove it happened, so you admit defeat, so yes end of discussion, you lose and its all a hoax, the moon landings could not be proven in a court of law let alone on a YT comment section, no evidence means it never happened, sorry to disappoint, you need proof of your idea before i can call it a conspiracy, you have none, so that means it never happened, which in turn means i don't even need to justify my conspiracy theory.
Serious telescopes of any kind are judged by their Light Gathering ability not their magnification.
That would be reserved for binoculars and spotting scopes.
Actually, by their light-gathering ability, *and* their resolving power - with roughly equal importance.
The former property is good for seeing faint objects; the latter is good for discerning detail in extended objects, as well as in separating close point-sources, such as double stars.
I weep for humanity that can entertain the idea the moon landings were fake
Really???? Go look at Buzz Aldrin conversation with 8yo on Bitchute about the moon. Its not on yutube. Its censored here. Let's see if you weep after that.
@@danielmaxter1928 are you saying buzz is going to deny the moon landing? Buzz Aldrin the astronaut?
@@danielmaxter1928 There you are! The Lunatic in this video thread!
You could put all the conspiritards in a rocket and fly them to the moon, land right on top of one of the Apollo landers and they'd still say it was all faked. At that point I'd encourage them to go outside and check for themselves, without spacesuits.
Thats the best idea ... I would even pay to watch it live
Completely honestly speaking....I am not sure one way or the other. Both sides make great arguments. My great grandfather died believing the whole thing was bullshit....as I grow older, and realize that our government is shady as hell, it's really hard to tell whats real and what isn't....just my humble 2 cents :)
TruthAND Factspls so don’t take their word for it, use science and independent verification.
Mr Obvious oh I do...and that's why I am where I am.
TruthAND Factspls I have only seen facts from NASA, foreign governments with independent verification, and scientists from all over the world that agree it happened. I have never seen a conspiracy “fact” that wasn’t fake or explained by science. So tell me what keeps you on the fence. And distrust for the government is not a fact, it’s an opinion. I mean real facts.
I loved the way he ended the video with some pure aggression in his usual calm tone.
Buddha G Dhaubhadel, Buddha, may God save you. Come to the Loed Jesus Christ and you'll be saved.
I admire the restraint and patience he deals with the loony element who deny everything.
@@auletjohnast03638 Oh so a "cristian" flat earther. You are a discrace to the human race. (And all other cristians with a brain)
Knoot _ , Ass hole, if you read my comment i didn't mention anything about a flat earth. I was just telling buddah to leave buddah behind and come to the Lord Jesus Christ, and so should you.
Great job!! Thank you, love your hair by the way!
Wdfukc utmhh,. Isn't hkwnfs ftpn , tell world law
Stupid hair to depart a very smart head!
What hair
@@kridadounsattapong1533 l
@@kridadounsattapong1533 yes.
Yes, sir I thank you very much, for explaining how a telescope component work.
Bullshit
@Curious Droid, thanks for answering a long-held question of mine. I suppose it was something one could compute the answer to themselves, with geometry and trig, but it was nice to hear the qualitative version of it as well. Love your videos, tops.
YOU IDIOT.
We should put the flat earthers in orbit around the moon
But that will just be a simulation to them
And by" we", You are referring to yourself and who else , ? And whom ever they are , What makes you think they are with you ?? But just for shits and giggles , Tell me something . What if they left it up to you to put anyone into space , or in orbit of the moon ?, What would you do ? Just thought I'd put you in your place before you bit off more than you could chew , BTW We are watching you . So no more of that horseshit ,
@@williamholt2429 wat
@@basedguns8218 That was a reply to summer west , To a statement about putting a particular group of people into space to orbit the moon , Like he's Elon Musk or NASA. Or another bunch of assholes that don't have the ability to travel to the moon
@@williamholt2429 it was a joke about how much proof they need cuz they're so intellectualy incompetent. Sheeeeesh
Thank you Paul, the "Why can't we see..." is very well explained! Thank you also for all the videos.
Their are flat earthier’s all over the globe
S'il y a un complot, il est breton. La Bretagne est partout ;)
Because they never went to the moon! 🤣
They landed inside the moon cave.
All Lies
I wish the flat earthers would prove their theory once and for all by jumping off the edge en masse.
What edge?
They can't get passed the armed penguins or I'm sure they'd try.
@@Plisken65 Are you a flat earther Edward?
What edge?
@stephan diehl just take a one of those Antarctic guided tours.
Fantastic , best Vid I've watched thats answered a question I have pondered for a few years . Thanks C-Droid .
*Tycho Crater* - A troll keeps asking why we can see it.
It's about 85 km (53 mi) across. That's over 2000 square miles.
If you do the maths, it's at the very limit of what we can see.
But, it is a very bright spot surrounded by darker land - and it has "rays" that extend for hundreds of miles. So, you can just about see it with your naked eye.
The troll (currently called "ThomasG10mtn") claims we shouldn't be able to see it, but I have no idea what their point is. I've tried to reason with them. *ThomasG10mtn* - we can see it, so *WHAT IS YOUR POINT?*
The troll has posted the same question 4 times today. Each time they get a reasonable answer, they delete their original comment - so the thread disappears.
*TL;DR:*
Tycho is big, we can see it.
The LM is small, so we can't.
>> " _The troll (currently called "ThomasG10mtn") claims we shouldn't be able to see it, but I have no idea what their point is._ "
No, f you do the math right - which means taking into account pixel resolution aliasing - you can achieve resolution better than your "limit" -- which means you're both wrong; and that even as you tap on his shoulder to call out the troll, there's another bigger hand tapping on your shoulder from behind. The relevant criterion is that given by the point spread function, *not* the pixel resolution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-pixel_resolution
*@Antares849* Honestly, I have tried, many times.
His/her point seems to be, we can see the Tycho crater therefore we should be able to see the lunar module.
That makes no sense.
Tycho is really big, the LM is really small.
That's all there is to it.
It is sorta "weird" that we can see Tycho from Earth, because it is right on the limit of angular resolution. Weird, but understandable - because tbh, we're not seeing just the crater; we're seeing the light reflected from that really anomalous bright area, and the "spokes" going out from it. We're not really "seeing" the crater itself.
We can _just_ see Tycho. Which makes perfect sense, given the calculations of angular resolution. Seriously, do the math yourself - it's not even hard.
We cannot see the LM. We'd need a telescope with a 100m aperture, and even then it'd be a vague dot. But the very best telescopes in the world today do not have a 100m aperture. They have about a 10m aperture.
Fortunately, that does not matter. We can just go closer. LRO took great photos of all the Apollo landing sites.
And, of course, we have thousands of photos from the original missions.
*@Rock Brentwood* c/f Dawes' limit.
(Not criticizing. Just adding a quick mention.)
For others reading this; if you squish photons too close together, they interfere with each other. That limits how far we can see. It's easy maths, really.
To see something 10m (3') wide from 380,000 km (240,000 miles) requires an aperture (ie an opening, in a camera) about 100m (33') wide.
The biggest that exist are about 10m (3').
That's all.
Check what I said. Check the facts.
BTW, you might see stuff about bigger telescopes.. but those are *radio* telescopes, not optical. Different thing.
Also, you might ask me about interferometry. That's a fair point. It is _possible_ to use several telescopes and have a bigger lens. It's really, really hard. I mean... they recently spent 10 years getting a picture of a black hole.. which is very cool...
We could, in theory, spend 10 years and billions on some kind of international collaboration to get a tiny, blurry picture of the LM.
Does not matter, will not help. Crazy people will just claim it's fake, same as the thousands of existing pictures.
@@ann_onn >> " _His/her point seems to be, we can see the Tycho crater therefore we should be able to see the lunar module. That makes no sense._ " > " _And, of course, we have thousands of photos from the original missions._ "
I feel like I'm living in the middle ages after reading the comments here.
pachma Yes.
If you're referring to the elite contolling information to supress the common man, then I agree with you.
Flat Earth...thumbs up
@@ronpapi9539 Flat thumbs... Earth up
@felix mendez NASA s got a lot of Donald Trumps on their team.All talking no proof.
Neil Armstrong should have brought one of those giant flags that they drape on skyscrapers and laid it flat on the surface. Then we might be able to see it with a high-powered telescope.
That would have been a good idea but It might have been too heavy for the LM
@@eclipsisolis Yeah, I didn't think of that. It's probably too big and heavy for two men to carry too.
I better not say I'm from Australia, they won't believe me mate. LOL
@Traveler2017 LOL good one mate! :-)
What's it like down ---yonder---under... lol
@@ronaldstarkey4336 we are cruising mate. Hopefully the rest of the world can start to be a bit more happier this year. ♥
For me it's the best explanation yet. Well done
It's sad that this video needs to be made. The majority of people should know this in elementary school.
Well, you hit the nail on the head when you commented that they may not believe in anything put out by NASA. It's truly not worth ANY effort trying to reason with the flat earth people or those who don't believe we ever went to the moon. Those people have no reasoning skills, nor the intellect to learn.
th-cam.com/video/yjf3ufgYj6A/w-d-xo.html simulation video with the data of the satellite.
Just have to wait for Google Moon.
aphilipdent: No need to wait, it's already here and includes "tours" of the landing sites:
www.google.co.uk/moon/
You can check out mars as well...
Well since you believe Google so much why don't you search white couples or search white inventors why don't you see the pictures they show you let's see how trustworthy Google is
Steve Downey Easy to disprove. When you search for "white couple" then Google searches for everything that matches with "white couple". Yes, "Black and white couple" has "white couple" in it's title. That is a match of more than 50% (54.545454...%)! Now search for "couple white" (with quotation marks) and you end up with completely different results.
A couple of corrections. First; the earth is not flat and it's not spherical, it's a cube. 2nd; The Moon is made of cheese, everyone knows that!
Yes, I remember when they dropped that first assent stage back onto the moon to do a seismic test on it. They concluded that it was white Manchego IIRC.
Venezuelan beaver cheese has a lower speed of sound so it is ruled out.
Now I've gone an made myself peckish. I think I will pop into the local cheese shop.
@@kensmith5694 Good points! I saw a documentary on the Moon/cheese. I believe it was Wallace and Gromit. Clearly it was cheese! #AllHailCheese
😂😀😂😀😂
Clueless ..... Earth's a cube 😁😁😁😁😁
Cube!?!? It's torus shaped you government shill! Wake up, sheeple!
Great steady description. Nice to watch something interesting and well spoken at a good speed. Cheers. Sailing With Vampires
i like the way you present things and the info you include as its detailed enough to clearly understand and straight to the point...well done!
Bullshit
For the people who refuse to believe that Apollo actually landed on the moon, here is the clear evidence that proves they did!
Given the amount of skepticism regarding this topic, finally, this can be put to rest.
INDEED
From orbital satellites, we can very clearly see numerous ancient water seeps on the slopes of Mars, seeps that are only several feet wide. This video is bull shit.
We havent truly returned anything from the moon because it is covered in radioactive dust.
The reason there is sceptical beliefs..its because it never happened! If it really did then they would have gone back up there for further developments.
@@michaellyne8773 yeah, there would be condos selling 500,000 grand
@@mikesparrow9975 absolutely
I think it's so awe inspiring that all of those spacecraft are just sitting there alone in the blackness and desolate landscape, possibly never to be seen again by human eyes. If they were a live entity it would be such an overwhelmingly lonely and hopeless existence. I do hope we can go back there. I'd love to witness that. I'm 41 and I wasn't even born when humans went to the moon. I find that incredible. I can't even get cell signal out here on my farm in 2019.
You can get a satellite signal out on your farm though.
Cell phones are totally different.
Satellite phones work fine from anywhere in the world. Unfortunately, satellite phones are more expensive... for now. Elon Musk has plans to change that.
What about the reflectors left for laser measurements of the moon's distance? They get checked almost every day, that's how we know the moon is moving away from us a little over an inch per year
Rkenton48 As a surveyor I can tell you that I can get a prism (a prism mirrored reflector) reading and measurement from a prism setup that is to far for me to clearly make out visually. The laser reflects back from the prism despite the fact I cannot see it... You just need to know about where to point it and when the pointing positioning is close enough you will get a distance reading because the prism reflects the beam back to the source.
@@kem2359 my point exactly. Those reflectors are proof positive that we did indeed send men to the moon, not to Stanley Kubrick.
LOL, the moon is reflective to laser light naturally.
@@sprtplt not in the intensity that they use. It is the very last part of the Apollo project still operational. Almost everyday they use the lasers, and they can tell when it hits a reflector and not just the surface.
This laser experiment is a dumb example of evidence, as most people know lasers reflect back to their source, without the need for mirrors.
I love this guy's videos and how he goes about explaining things. My 6yr is also hooked on space because of his videos!! Thank you very much for making complex subjects easy enough for a 6yr old to understand! Grazie!
Prego
nice video. subscribed!
Billthesheepdog shill!
waynusp1664 LOL. You were let out of the basement? Are you over losing your saviors election? LOLOLOL Will you cry when she goes to jail? God is against your actions. wise up!
Billthesheepdog you're an idiot.
Lochen Dude and you must be one of those lost deniers of history. And a democrat millennial. Thats the Modus Operandi of those who try to insult those they dont agree with. You are so sad. heading to hell and dont even realize nor care. so sad.
...
My mom used to say "the sheep will follow the goat" never really understood until i heard about what the flat earthers were saying about how they viewed the earth and planets.
chad wran, there are too many inconsistancies with your NASA hypothesis. As I said; anyone with a telescope can see the ISS. Even a good pair of binoculars can see the ISS. I've seen many things in space I wasn't looking for. The ISS among them. So it isn't doing what I was told. Where as you, on the other hand, are making a statement from a position of never having done it. You can't just decide the earth is a certain shape. You have to prove the words you speak. Not someone's redition off some video. Look for yourself. The world around tells a different story.
Oh no but NASA said they landed on the moon.
chad w, I'm not going to watch NASA videos. I have better things to do with my time. Back in the 90s I even saw one of the shuttles docked there. My god man can you more unobsrvant. Physics and science have never boggled my mind. You are so lost you are the sad one. I don't want to cry for a willful moron, such as yourself. I spend my time observing nature. You on the other hand, obviously, spend your time watching videos. Then you want to come on here and call people who do look, and probably have for more years than have been alive, they are stupid. There is no way to let you down with this one; you're an absolute dumbass. Can you make an honest observation? It's easy to see from your comment you haven't made any. You should before you open your mouth next time. So you don't feel like such a fool.
I don't believe in flat earthers - they don't exist. Nobody could possibly be that stupid and still find their way to the internet or tie their own shoe laces without accidentally killing themselves in the process. 100% of all flat earthers ae actually just trolls; flat earthers don't really exist.
I had a friend who absolutely insisted the landings were faked. he argued relentlessly. despite this. in astonishment, I could not believe his stupidity for a smart man. sometimes you have to walk away. there is no law for being stupid. there ought to be.
brilliant video, as always
I understand your frustration. "The moon landing was faked," has been a conspiracy theory since day one. Don't be too disheartened. Memory of history fades with time.
As my father taught me: “it’s hard to argue with a genius, but impossible to argue with a moron.”
Wiw never stars on the pics.. ... they can not pass van ray belt...whobis now stupid
@@carlosbrazao6039 1 - Camera exposure settings for good pictures on the moon underexpose the star field during lunar days. 2 The Van Allen belts are donut shaped and can be passed over/under. 3. Good question.
@@kalrex6615 He gave you good advice, I don't argue with morons anymore I just ignore them now, it frustrates them more that way.
Your channel is amazing
Love the way you present the facts / information.
I'm a fan
This comment section has left me with a loss for words. I wish that i had not looked in the first place.
Frightening, isn't it?
Loincourt Lestat It is
Short answer is.... yes we can see it and bounce fucking lasers off of it
Apollo retro-reflectors! :p
oliver dutton No those are the retro reflectors
They did it on the Mythbusters show disproving moon landing hoaxes.
They bounce "fucking" lasers off the "fucking" mirrors that they "fucking" left behind, not the "fucking" modules them "fucking" selves.
@@dphorganthey were paid by nasa
hmph. I’ll get my 350,000mm f0.2 lens and get to the bottom of this.
Just caught this segment now, and loved it . Non believers are going not believe, it's a heir thing..
Good stuff, enjoyed it immensely.. Thanks.
Very good descriptions. Easy logic to follow comparing distances and “focal length “, if you will. Thx
His voice is what gave him a sub from me
same here :D
CONSOLESELITE you're right. I don't particularly like this format.
CONSOLESELITE The lies gave him an unsub.
+Alan the champ, I also have been lmfao!!! Please keep this up, I am loving every minute!
We smell our own simul8gay
Nicely put, clearly explained and concise. Any unbeliever with even a small amount of open mindedness should cast away their doubts after seeing this.
Cast away their doubts after seeing what? More images from NASA when they already have a track record for using computer imagery for, idk, every single image of everything they've given to us. It's not just NASA images I don't believe in, but any image from anywhere, from anyone. Images shouldn't hold up as proof or evidence of anything. With the tech today, images can easily be faked and you would swear up and down the image is real. In the real world, images alone prove nothing. Plus, for decades there have supposedly been spy satellites in orbit that could see details of a coin on a sidewalk. Just do some research. That being said, it means that this video is a load of horse shit, with the biggest load of horse shit being the douche bag in the video.
@@kellyblake4594 see, you guys are so closed minded it's sad. Same nonsense about CGI even from the days before it existed
@@kellyblake4594 Interesting. I will now use your own logic to ascertain other conundrums we may come across.
CCTV can no longer be used as evidence for a murder case in court, since the image could've been cybernetically altered. Photos can no longer be used on passports to identify a person since all images are now potentially fake. Any footage or photos of natural disasters such as the Asian tsunami are now void and are proof that it never happened, because reasons. I can now determine that it was actually Will Smith who played Ace Ventura and not Jim Carrey, as I now think that Will impersonated his voice and used excessive make up and acting skills to make it look like it was Jim in the movie. Photos of man made structures such as the Great wall of China are now no longer credible, and as a result, all great buildings in the world are fake until you see them for yourself.
Anyone have basic information about camera sensors and lenses will exactly understand what this man saying. Well done.
Sounds SUPER convenient. Why put much effort into finding something we already know is there? INSANE perspective. How about to shut people like me up? Suuuuure nasa has their own official photos. Of course they do. They also somehow had photos and videos from spacecraft that passed through the Van Allen Radiation belts.
Bullshit
Its like trying to find staff in b&Q
So true 😂
I can't imagine what our ancestors would've thought about the current wave of stupidity that is engulfing a good half of the population here in the USA. We were making progress as Society and getting more advanced and now suddenly these people are going to drag us backwards.
I AGREE
Your same kind of conspiratorial thinking and plotting was used against Christ so we non-believers in NASA's lies and their gullible brain-dead supporters such as yourself are in great company.
Excellent! Thanks - Keep it up.
There was a time when you could just say “they’re too small to be seen” and people would say OK.
But some people now think that they are smarter than they really are...
I take it they do have satellites-probes orbiting the Moon, presumably they have cameras on board. I can see my patio table from Google Earth. So why no pictures of the landing sites.
@@philipmcdonagh1094 There are photos of the landing sites, you can even see the trails of the astronauts.
philip mc donagh It’s called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter - it’s been there for over 10 years.
All the Apollo landing sites have been photographed with reasonable resolution.
@@executivesteps Have to throw my peepers across that thanks
Thank you for a clear and concise explanation.
It was a joy to watch, also I learned a few things I didn't previously know!
Bullshit
I heard it was all done by Stanley Kubrick but the guy was such a perfectionist he insisted on filming it on the actual moon.
Hahaha
Fun fact: all networks had their cameras fixed on a movie screen that played the “live” footage of the moon landing. Oops.
My feed is all space videos now since I’ve watched so many Apollo 11 videos in the last week
Same hahaha! I don't mind it at all though! It's good stuff!
Me neither plus the comment section is funny with all those moon deniers and flat earthers
Ger - I love these types of videos. I also like scrolling through the comments to see what those flat earth idiots say. Makes me laugh everytime :)
Sibby I always go straight to the comments 😂
Did you watch the 'return' press conference? that's always entertaining 😁
5:30 Where man goes, rubbish goes.
Love this presentation Mr Droid, thank you
All the flat earthers and conspiracy nuts will simply say this is all fake.
whatever fortawesome keep buying their shit you probably think the 3WTC bldgs fell because of the airplanes crashed into them too huh??? a lot of conspiracy nuts are highly intelligent people who have spent countless hours of research to reach their conclusions and I for one appreciate the work these individuals take on ....QUESTIONMOSTEVERYTHING or pay the price at some point there will be NO return
#moonhoax #HURRAYFORHOLLYWOOD #NASALIES
@@craigcarlson3978 Intelligence is a surface condition; stupid goes down to the bone.
you forgot to mention the people who look at the facts and not the geico lizard narrarator.
+Craig, intelligence is not synonymous with sanity, and it is not synonymous with experience. Also, my friend, may I point out that "research" does not include watching you tube videos
The Chinese lunar orbiter has taken high resolution images of the lander's decent module and the lunar rover still sitting where it was parked. Even the tracks are visible.
Imagine how much the astronauts owe in parking fines by now!!
I waiting for a conspiracy nut to say the Chinese are in on the conspiracy.
Flatearther: Australia doesn't exist
Me: What nationality are you?
Flatearther: Australian...
nice
NASA is a total fraud...nobody leaves earth..nobody..theyve been trying to break the dome for decades even w nuclear megaton warheads..yup no can......cuz God designed it that way.....you think the powers to be want us to know that truth
Awww, look. Tommy’s mommy let him use her computer unsupervised.
@@Vessekx Mom's theory: Everyone will be running to God
How did you come up with that?? Not the same shape .
This was in fact, the best flat earth video I’ve ever seen, even though it was barely mentioned, just right at the end. 😂🤣
You can debunk that flat earth theory by going to a beach near a cargo port. Watch a tanker sailing out to sea. At the beginning you can see the entire back end of this. As it gets further away you can’t see the bottom of the back of the ship. Eventually all you will see is the very top of the ship and then it will totally disappear. That is because the curvature of the earth is preventing you from seeing it.
2:03 The size of the mirror is not directly related to the magnification of the objects that it observes, but rather how much light is gathered from the remote object. It is however related. It does affect the resolution of the magnified object with a given detector, whether an eyepiece or a CCD. So a larger mirror will show more detail. Ideally a refractor design gives better detail, but the practical design limits of the refractor only allow about a 40 inch objective lens. This is why reflectors are the most common design used.
Correct.
B Crn Sorry, but I have no experience in telescope building. If the mirror you are considering is not made for use in a reflector telescope, I would avoid it. There are designs that use a front corrector plate such as Schmitt-Cassegrain. These are rarely home built. A good resource is Sky & Telescope Magazine. Google for their website. The "curve" of the mirror affects the focal point, rather than the magnification. The diameter of the mirror determines to light gathering ability, and the magnification depends on the eyepiece used as well as the limit imposed from the size of the aperture. Most home built telescope are Newtonian Reflectors. The are be best "cost to performance" design.
B Crn: I ground the lenses of an 8" diameter 8-foot length Newtonian reflector telescope when I was a young teenager in the early 1960's. Using it on earth I could see the veins and hair on a mosquito's wings from a long block away about 500 feet, as they circled the street lights.
The main or primary lens can be spherical but where it focuses must be quite long or the light will not focus to one point (properly). The correct curvature for a reflector telescope is a paraboloid; this shape will allow it to focus properly at shorter focus lengths.
Power of a telescope and resolution of objects are not the same thing. Magnification power is a ratio between the focal length of the eyepiece and the focal length of the primary lens. The longer the focal length of the main lens and the shorter the eyepiece's the more power. This focal length could be influenced by a second lens that interrupts the main lens's path and extends the total focal length effectively giving more magnification. In other words, you can have very high power with very small telescope but very poor quality.
Resolution of a telescope, on the other hand, is directly affected by the size of the primary lens. The bigger the lens the more resolution and a clearer picture or image. Power without resolution gives a less formed dull image.
I see no reason why a large telescope could not see the moon lander. A small telescope could see something the size of a football field. A large scope can gather about a million times more light. The metal aluminum foil body should stand out like a beacon.
15past2... I know that you were not talking to me, but I have to question parts of your story. The veins and hairs on a mosquito's wings at 500 feet is ridiculous and not possible. When a mosquito is flying the wings would be a blur even if you could image it, which you will not do with an 8 inch Newtonian. I am also pretty sure that mosquitos do NOT buzz streetlights. Also I think that the more spherical mirror will have a shorter focus point and shallower mirror the longer focus point. Most of the rest of your post is accurate, but that last paragraph. Not even the Keck telescopes can image any of the Apollo hardware. It is a matter of the limitations of optics. Only the LRO orbiter of the moon has taken images of the landing sites, and while the larger pieces are identified, they are not really clear view of the objects.
Swinde: If you must question it, you must but speak with knowledge. Go find a neighbor with an eight or ten inch that has a decent mirror on it and quality eyepieces and look for yourself. This isn't a radical idea, it is an observable fact!
I am not sure about the distance but it was diagonally across a large school yard in a suburb. The school took up the whole block, the street light was across the far corner and I was across the street from the yard. Thousands of scientists their kids and neighbors watched these and many other things through that telescope as it was the largest in the area at the time. The bugs looked like mosquitos I am not sure what they were and by the way mosquitos do land and stop flitter-ing around. Who cares what kind of bug they were or are you just a negative person with an insecure ego.
What does the focus point have to do with whether it is a spheroid or paraboloid or anything else??? You can have a sphere that is very flat or very tight. A sphere and a parabola are 2 different things. It is the shape of the lens only that focuses the light or not on an object or eyepiece. In a flatter spheroid the light is focused more closely together almost as good as a paraboloid! Draw them out and draw the light rays and see this!
Look! If you put a bright light or a laser on the moon and shine it this way you will see it with the naked eye. The lander is coated with a shiny foil in unfilterd sunlight. Is it that hard for you to see that a large telesvope could pick this up or are you so set on making me wrong and yourself right that you lose logic.
I expect no further response from you.
Debating flat-earthers should be for the sole purpose of educating the masses, with an interesting take on the subject, with zero care as to whether some oddballs believe you or not.
But they want to “teach the controversy”.
@Richard Patik And they should teach “the controversy”. Like how a group of internet trolls on 4chan started this pseudo-scientific meme just for fun. How they spread it. _Why_ it spread. And eventually to our philosophy of science and knowledge. e.g. How do we “know” anything?
Strangely, flat earthers have been donating their brains to science long before their body ceases all life functions.
2:01 The bigger the mirror, the more the magnification" I think the size only determines the amount of light it gathers, whereas the *curvature* determines magnification. Of course you can indirectly get more "magnification" because more light means more resolution, which lets you expand the image and see more detail.
The size ultimately determines the magnification, because you cannot magnify something that you can't detect. You need the "data", ie photons being emitted by the object you're trying to detect.
If you squash photons too closely together, they interfere with each other, and that's what limits the resolution. To detect photons from an object just a few meters wide, from 380,000 km away would require a mirror about a kilometer wide. That's far larger than anything we are currently able to manufacture.
There is a way to detect it from Earth, using interferometry. However, that's unlikely to happen, for several reasons. Firstly, it's extremely difficult and expensive. Secondly, there's no point. If we dedicate years of valuable telescope time to achieve it, we might just about see a tiny blurred speck. None of the hoax-nuts would accept that as evidence.
Besides which - what's the point? We already know exactly what is there, and we already have extremely clear photographs and videos of it all, taken during the Apollo missions.
Yeah if they faked the moon trip,where did re entry module come back from,did they fake the splash too.
Returned from low earth orbit, the furthest men could go then and now. Remember, this “proof” is being served to you by the very liars who scammed us then and continue to scam us all now. It’s like saying “see Jesus was real because the Bible says so.” I won’t believe we put men on the moon 50 years ago until someone other than NASA proves it to us all.