*SUBSCRIBE IF YOU LIKED THIS VIDEO* Is Space Fake? - Joe Rogan 👉 th-cam.com/video/cq3tacD9DjE/w-d-xo.html Elon Musk - People Don't Realize It About Moon Landing 👉 th-cam.com/video/YF_BGAK5VrY/w-d-xo.html Why Elon Musk Lives in a 50k priced Small House 👉 th-cam.com/video/sF3Jz0NJ_s8/w-d-xo.html Elon Musk Destroys Apple 👉 th-cam.com/video/MXIswmG5xyE/w-d-xo.html
Elon Musk - ''Delete your Facebook'' 👉 th-cam.com/video/HA7bhpDaQ3Q/w-d-xo.html Elon Musk vs Jeff Bezos - It's Getting Worse Every Day 👉 th-cam.com/video/XFMPXHx-2VQ/w-d-xo.html
totally fake, no oxygen to fire up rocket to come back, not possible, as fake as the clowns with hairsprayed stiff hair on the fake space station and elon musks fake rocket coming down backwards like a pencil...all fake
@@spudspuddy Lol, do you often embarrass yourself by making unfounded ridiculous claims backed up by nothing more than ignorance, feelings, and fallacious logic? 😂 NASA landed men on the Moon despite what your astounding ignorance says. 😊 Do better, learn.
So the Russians, who with 100% certainty, were tracking the missions, decided to play along with the big secret that it didn't actually happen. I'll let you all decide whether that is plausible or not..
Right!!!?? Not only that if you do your research you will find that the source of the "fake moon landing" started at NASA itself!! Why did they do it? Its still a mystery
Why? For all the hype about the cold war America and the Soviets were bum chums. How else could the soviets get nukes? America told them. America gave tons of treasure to them in WW2. There was the international Geophysical Year and the handshake in orbit between US and Soviet astronauts. I could go on and on. The two super powers were friends The "oh we almost killed everyone with nukes" was just to scare the public. Never came close to happenning.
He said the Russians also faked the first flight of Yuri Gagarin into space. The Russians knew the moon landing was faked. I am convinced that many European US allies knew as well
So, in the title "The Mistake of the Moon Landing that Changes Everything," What was the mistake? And what did it change? I watched the whole video, and maybe I missed it, but this title is misleading.
yeah, i noticed that also. this is the second time i've watched a video about the moon landing that the title misled me. which makes me suspicious.....again, flashing thru the evidence to quickly and unnecessarily makes me wonder why im being manipulated to not doubt the moon landing. im still on the fence on this...i even think maybe they faked at 1st because of the deadline...and then tech caught up a bit......who knows, but somethings arent right.
its called disinformation for a reason xD thick shield and walls he says against radiation, when you clearly can see its just some cardboard falling apart wrapped in alumin foil xD
@@civildiscourse2000no way were 400K people involved in Nasa. Impossible, that's nearly half a million people supported by the taxpayer for an initiative that produced very little of real value in the economy. It's all a lie. Yes, they could launch satellites into low orbit, but no way they went through or beyond the radiation belts.
The better answer at 5:45 isn’t that the cameras couldn’t capture stars but because the lunar surface was magnitudes brighter than the star field. The cameras exposed for the lunar surface brightness and since it is far brighter than the stars in the sky, the stars don’t show up. This is a basic concept for photography. If they exposed for the star field, everything including the lunar surface, astronauts and space craft would be overexposed with no identifiable detail.
However, their space camera could have captured some of the 99% of radiation mass in the form of white streaks raining down in the distance background. Interestingly, such phenomena are not observed in any NASA moon landings. This claim videos has been proven by China's first mission to the dark side of the moon. Unfortunately, these videos related to this topic have been scrub removed from TH-cam.
@@AwesomeBlackDude *EDIT:* THIS COMMENT WAS INTENDED FOR @AwesomeBlackDude WHO HAS SINCE DELETED THEIR COMMENT. They basically said @strvenkothenbeutrl448 was not correct and spewing nonsense. My original comment: *_”@AwesomeBlackDude_*_ Please cite your source for your claims.”_
When America landed on the moon, they left their flag. If Britain ever landed on the moon, they wouldn't leave their flag, but they would leave a sign: Caution: Uneven Surface. ~Sean Lock
The one clip that's always made my question the truth about this. Is the clip at 2:18. Look closely. The astronaut is semi-transparent. As if he was super imposed over top of that image of the lunar lander. Nobody has ever mentioned this. To me this is the most glaring artifact.
we are living in very dangerous times....people are going insane slowly,, it scares me , moonlanding isnt the only topic...I know people who say that Putin is such a wonderful guy and that nothing happens in Ukraine...my blood boils when I hear this...someone who has lost many friends in this war,(civillians) yet people say that Putin doesnt attack civillains...why are my friends dead then? My 28 year old friend and her 4 year old daughter bombed to pits ,People are just getting stupid and its just horrible ...can you imagine that your house is being bombed and your family is dead but there are significant amount of people who say that it doesnt happen?
Or as Einstein was reputed to have said... "There are only two things which are infinite, the Universe, and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the former..."
@@fredfrog8538 The government might well lie, but the lies are easily found out once they're suspected. There is no way the Soviets or even the tens of thousands of people directly involved in the Apollo missions would have kept quiet if the Moon landings were a hoax, and the Government (or anyone else for that matter) couldn't have faked the Moon's environment perfectly. Also, there isn't a single scrap of evidence that even hints at trickery or fakery, and then there's the small matter of a few hundred kilos of lunar rocks and dust brought back by the astronauts...
@@fredfrog8538 if the Russian government (who were in an active space race with the US at the time of the moon landing) didnt say it was fake then why would it be?, because you know they would 100% call NASA out if it was fake.
Exactly. However, I AM in the doubtful crowd. I was well into electronics back then and the tech used in the 'computer' was transistor-transistor Logic Controllers. These are not CPU's and not technically a computer. The whole Van Allen belt thing still hasn't been proven yet. The space suits were never designed for such exposure and the cockpit was also not insulated against hours of radiation exposure. I know they did send Apollo 11 to the moon. I just doubt it was manned and/or they were technically able to land and take off. And if the soul objective was to land on the moon, why send another ten+ missions?
@@doraexplora9046 I think it was technically possible to do. Much that has happened since falls on both sides for me. For example, Space flight would seem to be necessary for a decent portion of modern telecommunications (pro). If you can acheive space flight and landing back on earth, you can land on the moon. The moon has little gravity, so less energy needed to break gravity. The argument against, our 'leaders' and 'experts' are imbeciles, and perhaps have always been. A team of humans could do amazing things, but only so long as those f-ups weren't involved ha ha.
I'm sorry I never did see a rocket engine ignite to propel them off the moon, just some sparks when the mylar foil ripped. Hypergolic fuel leaves a redish smoke, look it up. Bill Kaysing, who was a scientific writer for Rockedyne Corp. for years, talked about this. I forget which one, but if you watch closely enough you can see it take off and then hesitate before continuing, as though the crane slowed a little.
@@theturtlewombat I think the OP is saying that JR knows next to nothing about physics. But in answer to your question, anyone who doesn't have a good understanding of physics ought to ask questions. You can only 'challenge' something that you yourself understand.
@@theturtlewombat Yeah - because my physics degree - and 40 years of career in science - is practically worthless against you, Joe Rogan and every other know-nothing who has - relative to profesisonal physicists - same equivalent physics knowledge as a 5 year old...or a dog. Practicaly the same. Yours is the affliction of Dunning-Kruger. You don't need a booster shot - just to be shot.
Resently, NASA said they "lost the technology" to return to the moon... Hummm, I lost my car keys once, but the locksmith made me some new ones since he still had the technology to make car keys... Funny how NASA lost their "car keys" to the space crafts... Nope, Rogan was correct, it was fake and no response from the cheap seats is required.
No, quite a few years ago one astronaut lamented the loss of Apollo. And hoaxtards have pulled that comment out of context ever since, often garbling it together with a different quote mine about the Orion into incoherent hoaxtard crap.
And you heard that idiotic claim where exactly? Lmao, dont believe everything you see on the internet. NASA still have and even improved technology which they use. The trip to the moon is just not worth it nowadays.
@@peacefulruler1 As was told to you as a child, "Don't believe everything you read or watch on TV." There, I hope that helps... Oh BTW, the Chinese would never lie about filming an in-studio moon landing, now would they...
The mirror is an example of smoke. In other words, there is no mirror. The moon landing was faked. It had to be. Newtonian orbits are physically impossible. Projectile physics explains why.
The mirror could've been put there remotely. Even the landers could've been put there the same way. Bear in mind that 90% of what Governments tell us is complete bullshit.
@@jamesilish uh, NASA has talked about it many times, and you can find pictures and video of them removing it from the cargo bay it was stored in. Don’t just believe whatever nonsense you hear on the Internet.
When I lived in Houston, I visited the Johnson Space Center a LOT! One thing I learned was that astronauts had baggies taped to them to contain their feces and urine. This was in the early 80's. One could drive to anyone of the buildings, and walk right in. There was no security at that time. I went there often. I watched astronauts training in a huge water tank with a mock up of a lunar module. They were learning to use tools in zero gravity. I visited one building that had moon rocks. They were in "aquariums" that had rubber arms to reach in and dissect them. There was no one around. I had a pocket knife. I could have had me a moon rock, lol. One could even see the command center. It was incredible, to say the least. I even saw and was able to look into the Shuttle mock up interior. It didn't seem like it at the time, but the lack of security was astounding? One could literaly drive anywhere on campus, up to any building and walk around. Crazy. I cherish those memories like you can't believe. I seriously went there a LOT. Every other day, at times. After Challenger exploded, they pretty much shut everything down. Over 90% of it was shut down to the public. Probably closer to 99% of it. It was an astounding part of my life.
I think it's funny how they train in zero g pools... It's not even the same. Tools will still fall to earth in water, spinning your body around doesn't work bc there is resistance from the water.... It's close to zero g but not at the same time.
@@TheGuyJack1 The main thing they get out of the neutral buoyancy training is an understanding of the inertia properties of the objects they will pick and manipulate while spacewalking. And despite the viscosity of the water, they move at about the same rate and with the same movements so it lets them work out the timelines better.
@@moaningpheromones It was truly spectacular. It was a big part of my life. One thing that amazed me, was how small the first capsule was? For three people. One seat in front, two in back. Stacked on each other. Astronauts were incredibly small. There was an exhibit, where they compared a child toilet seat to what people would call a regular seat. Every pound counted. I am amazed, and proud of our brave men and women that volunteered for their missions. It's a part of my life that I will never forget. I miss those days dearly. I wish that I had went more often. Who knew?
You lucky man, I would have loved to wander around that place with you a couple of times. As for the lack of security. It wasn't really needed back then was it? it was (as they say) a very different world back then. Some things have changed for the better but a great many things are truly bloody awful. Sad old git alert!!! Common decency is sadly lacking these days, if you leave anything around some thieving tosser will surely nick it and you won't be allowed to punch them in the nose.
The space craft did not have thick walls, in fact the LEM was extremely fragile, it was the bare minimum necessary. Today I doubt it would even be considered safe. Many of the pictures show bits of the landing gear broke, there was no significant radiation protection, they simply could not afford it in terms of mass, same with the suits. Am not saying it didn't happen, but risk was extream much more than people realise.
Because the USA had serious goal to get to the moon. Then the program went to shit. Problem after problem, political and every else. Space shuttle made sense, then we could build up in space and move on from there. But obviously we had lots of issues, so that ended. They will be back to the moon soon enough. But what is the reason to be there?? Btw: a unmanned ship just landed there not too long ago
What does it say about us as a species that we’ve reached a point where ANY received wisdom or things proven as fact using maths and science is considered less true than feelings and fantasy and wishful thinking.
People are ruled by their egos and the veil of anonymous social media Plus, we live in an era where everyone through modern technology get mass attention almost the equivalent of a major hollywood star and any opinion, wish and desire of some nobody is taken onbosrd and treated with care and attention Once upin a time, the inly way you entered the limelight qas if you had a talent and to get such insane levels of mecia coverage and escessive wealth you had to be a major movie star The point was you jeeded great skill that had to be earned Nowadays, anyone can be a star Andy Warhol was right
You just described the democratic party perfectly. And math is invented, not fact. We use base 10 mathematics, but the Mayans used base 13. It's arbitrary, and doesn't prove anything except the base number of your fake math.
@@Gamer23-s6n math makes sure that the plane you're travelling on stays in the air, and that the MRI scanner your life may one day depend on is accurate and consistent... Feelings and fantasy and wishful thinking do none of those things.
@@Tim22222 counterargument to what? I didn't hear an argument. Look, if you've lived in the modern world you should know why we sometimes can't do the things we ought technically to be able to do. Things that are made out of awesome components often suck. Somethings things that are made out of simplistic parts are awesome. For example Teslas are shit & will fail as soon as Tesla decides to stop fixing their many bugs; meanwhile a Porsche 912 is timeless & awesome & can be kept running indefinitely with a decent set of mechanics tools.
Yes, the Moon Lander was as flimsy as a Coca Cola Can !!!! But the Bits of Wood, Sticky Tape and Baco Foil were all the Boy Scouts could afford when they built the Moon Lander !!!!
What resources? The truth is the thing they're most interested in the moon for is water. But that's only because they can use it as rocket fuel if they split it into oxygen and hydrogen, and that's only useful there. You have to understand how expensive it was to launch a single moon mission. There is nothing on the moon that they could bring back that is valuable enough to pay for the cost of getting there in the first place. We went there out of curiosity and in order to gather scientific data. We sometimes believe that it is worth spending money for those purposes. But even if the moon contained huge reserves of oil, the cost of bringing it back would be so high that it wouldn't be worth it. It would be like driving across the country in order to pick up a gallon of gasoline and then driving back across the country again. Only even worse. As exciting as the idea of mining things in space is, the economics just don't justify it. If you spend enough money building a significant amount of space infrastructure, including large space stations able to generate gravity by having rotating discs, then it might be worth it. Then you can stay in space and start developing a space-based economy. But we are so very far away from a situation like that, the amount we would have to spend to build that infrastructure in the first place is astronomical. So to speak.
"You have to understand how expensive it was to launch a single moon mission" Meanwhile we are at least 30 trillion in debt. The government could easily print some more worthless fiat paper and go to the moon. @@NomadSoul76
@@derp8575 Sorry, others don’t use fallacious reasoning and confirmation bias mixed with erroneous presuppositions to conclude things like you. Try again?
Or giving up their lives by being sent to the front lines.What makes me sick to is the fat ass rocket boy while people their eat insects and leaves just to stay alive another day.
Proof we went to the Moon is in the quality of lighting of the landscape shots. Only the power of the Sun could evenly illuminate those 2 mile wide shots.
@@GreatNewsVideo ⬅️ Ask this pathetic, desperate troll to present any actual substantial evidence to back up their claim. It’s hilarious! 🤣 Do better, learn.
We went in and out of the Van Allen belt easily from 69-72 with ancient technology And not one person from any nation has done it since, while there are multiple counties in low earth orbit. Yeah, sounds totally legit. 😂
Its not about having the tech to do something its about getting the funding to do something. It wasnt until recently that Lunar Mining started being looked at as a chance to make huge profits that talk about going back started up again. Before that there was no financial reason to return and so no funding to do so.
The American public lost interest in moon landings which was shown when they were getting smaller and smaller audiences with each mission. Appollo 13 showed thr dangers
@@eddievanbasten1751 whatever other business he's doing is utterly irrelevant to what SpaceX, a company that sells literal launch vehicles does. Of course you know this, but framing it like this, instead of " this company that sells launches to orbit can get things into orbit" hides your lack of a real argument better. Also, while what SpaceX has done is helping commercial development of space (and particularly LEO) he's nowhere close to landing anything on Mars, something NASA has done with regularity. So he's literally way way behind on doing anything on Mars. He's also struggling hard to keep the schedule he's promised for a task he's been hired by NASA to do (much like how other corporations, again, get hired by NASA to build things for them, which has been the case since NASA was founded).
I was watching one of those conspiracy theory channels about four weeks ago and it showed an interview with Stanley Kubrick admitting that he filmed the moon landing.
It wasn't Stanley kubrick.. It was an actor and a film maker. Watch the whole vid and you see them coercing the lookalike actor. I don't believe they went to the moon, but I prefer to have authentic reasons why, and I feel genuinely that they didn't. But that Stanley kubrick vid is fake.
The big problem with these conspiracy theories about faking the moon landing is that almost every time, they say they can prove it was fake by talking about shadow angles and the fact that you cannot see the stars in some shots, among other things. As a professional photographer, explaining that is very easy, but it seems that the 'fake moon landing crowd' are photographic experts in addition to experts in physics. It doesn't matter that professionals in these fields can easily demonstrate that what is in the photos are normal characteristics of exposure setting (not seeing the stars), seemingly no shadows in some areas (the moon's surface reflects a great deal of light} and shadow angles being 'incorrect' (a very easily explained perspective convergence). Even more funny is that ALL of those so-called 'proof it was fake' issues are very easily demonstrated, even with a cell phone camera. You know, some years ago the Russians even got into the debate, saying that the moon landings were all real because they tracked every Gemini and Apollo mission, and they have proof. I think we all know that if the Russians had proof that we faked the moon landing, they would certainly announce it to the world in what would be their greatest propaganda coup against the west. But that's still not good enough for the moon landing experts. Oh wait, what about the low-orbit satellites taking photos of the Apollo lander section and even the lunar rovers? I guess those are fake too.
I'm a photographer as well and totally understand that if you expose for an intensely lit subject then ambient light gets reduced or eliminated. However, can you explain why the astronauts claim to not even seeing any stars? There is no atmosphere. They would have been starstruck from the view. Imagine looking up without having any light pollution or atmosphere. They would have wanted to stay there to enjoy the view and would be lost for words from the beauty of it all...if they were actually on the moon.
@5plus4 then can you explain why the photograph that is allegedly taken while on the moon looking at the earth does not have an atmosphere? Not only does it look fake AF, but how can they expose an image of earth but not the stars all while the moon is intensely lit up in the foreground? The moon is all blurry as if they had a telephoto lense focused on earth but we know that even at infinity, most of the moon surface should be in focus as well...even though it's not possible to expose for both. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. And you have not explained why the astronauts said that they never even saw any stars.
@@godswill2260 it wasn't an argument as such. It was more an attempt to get Bsharporbflat to think a little deeper about the question he posed, (how to tell if something is fake or real?). While the Moon landings and Finland aren't the same things of course, there are some parallels. Though of course, if Bsharporbflat doesn't believe that Finland is real either, the analogy wouldn't work.
Simple. Because there was no incentive to do so. NASA and America's priorities shifted towards LEO work with SkyLab and the ISS, along with the development of the Space Shuttle, and data collection from Mars. There was no space in the budget to do lunar landings just for the hell of it. Now, there is an incentive to go back to the Moon because we want to establish a permanent base there and a jumping off point to Mars.
We went back several times but these were expensive programs and not something that could be maintained indefinitely The Space Shuttle program was started with the hopes of having a reusable vehicle that would eventually lead to a space station then a moon station but lack of political capital and changing priorities led to a return to the moon being put off indefinitely. It's only now with Artemis that we're going back and fulfilling that goal.
That's just what Armstrong's and Aldrin's personalities were, out of the Apollo 11 crew only Michael Collins was quite good at public speaking, but there weren't many questions to him
It's very telling that none of the people criticizing the moon landings actually have any training or knowledge in these fields. And on top of that, it's a bit curious that hundreds of thousands of people were involved in the NASA missions, including Apollo, and not one of them has ever come forward with tales of secrets, etc even on their deathbeds when they had nothing to lose. Not one leak in over 50 years? No way.
I question how Nixon talked to the astronauts on the moon from a funky 60’s landline when we , in 2023 can’t get a radio station from so many miles away. That’s just one question among others.
Because the telephone was connected to a speaker, connected to a short wave transmitter/receiver at Capcom in Houston. They weren't idiots and could make it work.
@@AncientAbsWisdom Definitely not idiots if they could pull of the biggest hoax ever. Just asking questions. But, why didn’t the president just use a short wave transmitter directly? How did they hook a speaker to his landline? I’m not an electrician, just asking. Also, does the radiation from the Vanallen belt interrupt the radio waves?
@@AncientAbsWisdom It's a shame that the idiots today just can't seem to make it work with so many more resources and technology and money at their disposal . The best they can come up with are glorified roman candles that keep blowing up , and then being labeled as a success .
The landline call just went to Houston, who then simply hooked it up to the radio system they were using to connect with the astronauts. Really not that complicated. And you can't get a radio station from a certain distance on the Earth because the Earth is curved - when the broadcast tower is 240,000 miles high, that's not a problem. They used powerful transmitters and radio telescopes to send and receive signals.
@@davids7847 I'm not following, Nixon called....Houston's home base? OK sure. what do you mean they simply hooked it up to a radio system? Hooked what up? It transmitted signals and received them in real time, uninterrupted and not able to be vandalized? Was NASA still in direct contact with Neil at the same time? Pretty dangerous to leave a man on the moon without any comms. How many RF devices did Neil have then? Buzz was operating on a different frequency?
@@GreatNewsVideo Oops! You’re projecting again. Remember the time you couldn’t provide a single shred of evidence to substantiate your claim? 😉 Do better, learn.
My dad bought our first color TV a week before the Moon landing. The coverage was in color - until they showed the actual landing footage which was dark, grainy and black and white. I knew something was up.
You're stupid. Mobile TV broadcasting technology in mid 1969 certainly wasn't good, especially when broadcasting from a distance as far as the moon. Of course you'll have a distorted signal, especially when taking into consideration that the people at NASA aren't broadcast technicians and especially not the people sent to the moon.
@@RonOside Because the first-generation lunar module’s batteries were not powerful enough and it lacked the bandwidth to operate a standard NTSC TV system, the TV pictures were filmed by a black and white slow scan television camera and beamed back to Earth, via a steerable 20-watt S-band high gain antenna installed on top of the lunar module ascent stage.
One thing that ive wondered about is in regards to its propulsion. It took 3 fuel tanks the size of a barn silo to leave the earths atmosphere, but how did the little landing craft leave the moons atmosphere? I dont see any fuel tanks in any of the photos that seem large enough to accomplish this.
#1 Um, the moon doesn't HAVE an atmosphere! #2 What lifted off the earth weighed 6 million pounds. What lifted off the moon weighed 1700. Seriously, you can't guess why the latter required less fuel??? _STAY IN SCHOOL._
Has anyone ever wondered why there is no HD camera streaming filming our earth from moon 24x7? Or why there are still no UHD video of the moon surface to this day... ? Or a drone roaming the moon streaming back?
Because it's all highly classified technology that every other space agency on Earth are trying to get their hands on? Live streaming it directly to them is a ridiculous idea.
With the X Rays and UV, Searing Heat and Infra Red light Blazing down onto the Moon's Surface, I can't imagine any camera would work at all in those conditions !!!!
@@spaceted3977 is that any different to what the space stations caemras'are exposed to that orbit the earth 247? I dont think so. BTW it is possible an EMF shield aroiund cameras which will shield it form any type of space radiation.
@@leealtman The Radiation inside the Earths Magnetic Field is nothing compared to that on the Moon !!!! The deep space cameras are infra red and rf so you can't see what's on the Moon !!!!
It’s not ever going to happen because according to one of nasas spokesman they’ve ‘lost’ the technology to return to the moon and it’s ‘too complicated’ to recreate nowadays….. Even though we have far more advanced technologies than in the 60’s , and the moon landing used less technology than a Nokia 3210 , we’re supposed to believe it can’t be done anymore. They can go to mars and back though! Apparently 🤦♂️
Not anytime soon I imagine. NASA consumed something like 4% of all Federal spending getting man to the moon. All by itself. That's a fucktonne of money.
Kubrick made a movie in 1980 called The Shining where he gave clues about how he was involved in the fake moon landings. Theorists note the ways in which Kubrick changed his source material, Steven King’s novel The Shining, the story of a haunted hotel and its winter caretaker and his family. One example: In the novel, the room to be avoided, the epicenter of bad mojo, is Room 217. Kubrick changed it to Room 237. Why would you make a change like that? Maybe because the moon, on average, is 237,000 miles from the earth. Did anyone ask Kubrick why ?
If you want people to believe a lie, it has to be repeated over and over. The mere appearance of confidence and conviction in an official pronouncement is enough to sway most doubters, no matter how egregious the lie. Dr Goebbels was well acquainted with the technique.
Does no one else find it suspicious that not a single one of the astronauts *on any of the moon missions* would swear on a Bible that he had walked on the moon? Not even Armstrong or Aldrin would-and Aldrin punched the interviewer in the face. Why didn’t he (or any of them) just say “yes”? Seems like a simple way to get rid of controversy and confusion.
this is false as several did (not that a saying words while holding a fantazy book has any real value). and aldrin didn't punch an interviewer, he punched an asshole that wouldn't stop harassing and insulting him.
@@osbon no. learn to read. firstly several did swear on the bible (and again, not doing it wouldn't be evidence for anything either. do you demand they also swear on the torah, baghavadgita, koran and say.. the elder edda too?) and the guy aldrin punched wasn't interviewing him, nor was he a journalist, but a lying sadsack taxi driver
@@Agarwaen So, to recap: you give zero evidence and engage in ad hominem attacks, while your brief paragraph is littered with red herrings. Did you never read Sherlock Holmes or take a class in logical fallacies and how to avoid using them?
@@osbonyou're calling people liars and frauds, then crying about ad hominems? do you understand the word "hypocrisy"? and you yourself give exactly ZERO evidence, then cry about no evidence. you'er hypocrisy writ large.
@4:58 totally untrue claim. There is no radiation proof film for cameras. The syface of the moon is exposed 100% to solar radiation which consists of gamma radiation. There is no protection against gamma radiation other than lead, concrete, water or combination of the three. Since all three are heavy we can reasonably suspect they were not used to radition protect the cameras or film meaning gamma radiation like x-ray passes through and leaving traces in photographic film. After all thats exactly what an x-ray is, a shadow image of your internals on folm where x-rays absorbed by the body travel slower than those hitting the film directly burning the film making it black. And the white being the shaded area where your body too the hit. The same goes for an unsheilded camera and film. Also photgraphic film cannot be protected against expisure to radiation since that is how photographic filmm works. It absorbs photons (all light is radiation on different wave lengths). To capture an image the film must be exposed to radiation to create an image. To protect film against radiation prevents it creating a photograph or video if the film is moving or in modern filming digitally photos being taken and recorded simultaneously. The photos from the moon are impossible to record on the moon but not to transmit to earth to be recorded in a 'sterile" area away from the harmful radiation. Also the van allen belts would not be deadly for the 67 minutes astronauts would pass through it, but it would make them vomit badly within a few days, also outside the van allen belt there is no orotection from solar (or cosmic) radiation that the van allen belts protect us from on earth (the aurora borealis (northern lights)), in space or on the moon outside these belts there is zero protection. All there is is a spacecraft that must be as small and light as possible. Weight requires fuel to lift and fuel introduces more weight. Therefore radiation sheilding MUST be ultra light, so no concrete, lead or water, and if it was water, it would diminish its protection as it was used leading to no protection since the water would be bear minimum plus a little for contingency not an abundance of water to bring back to earth unused carrying extra pointless weight. Then there is oh but space weight is non-existent. This is false, low gravity environments do not take mass away from an object just reduce its mass relational to the gravity field it is within. All in all this claim of landing on the moon is false. There has been no manned moon landing EVER. The radiation outside the van allen belts is greater than within them and inside the two rings closer to earths surface. The more you close in on the surface of the earth the lower the radiation detected. Inversely the opposite is true. The moon has never had a single visit until Chandrayaan-3. As expected that went a very long way from the claimed US landings. I feel to avoid a fly over of an unlanded location. Chandrayaan-3, landed at the south pole, why no astronauts? We have the knowledge, right? So why no astronauts? Is it because we cant send people that WILL HAVE TO come back and die soon afterwards from radiation sickness? This lying in science is bad for science. If we are ever to get to mars or anywhere we need people fixing the problems of space flight that prevent it not hiw to green a planet we cant get too. If people will die soon after entering [outer] space (that is outside the van allen belt), we need to find ways to prevent that. Not pretend we can do it and its safe. NASA (by default the US Govt) has lied about the moon for so long now they cant face the truth for fear of the harm their lie will do to the world and trust in these egregious and deceitful organisations such as NASA and the US Govt. If human on the moon is possible we need to see and have rock solid proof humans ate there.
this is entirely false. most of the suns radiation is in the visible, or near visible (mostly infrared, and some uv) bands. if 100% of the suns radiation was gamma rays, life on this planet could not exist. radiation outside the VABs are not at all higher than inside them, nor would they make astronauts passing through them vomit. then you have some insane word salad that only makes sure we understand you have no clue what mass (or momentum) is. that you selectively chose to believe that chandrayan-3 was the first visit (meaning you claim the same people that sent it, faked the first two) is just.. absurd. and it landed at the south pole because the polar regions have craters that gets no sunlight, possibly allowing for ice (ie water) which could allow for more permanent bases. and they didn't send astronauts.. because probes are a fraction the cost.
First off of course photographic film can be protected from radiation. You said it yourself, lead or other materials provides shielding from radiation. Gamma rays don't expose film in the same way that X-rays do. Do you ever wonder why we use X-rays to look inside people's bodies instead of gamma rays? It wouldn't expose the film. Based on what I have looked up it seems that a gamma ray might affect film a little bit, but if it was placed in a protective enclosure before and after the pictures were taken I don't think the effect would be that bad. There might be a little fogging that would reduce the contrast a little bit, but you fix that when you are printing the pictures. I've manually developed and printed my own film, I know something of how this works.
@@derp8575 We know for a fact the VABs exist. You have no idea how sound versus fallacious logic actually works. Case in point, your continuous use of the latter. Try again?
If we went to the moon why haven't we been back? With our current technology, it would be a trivial task don't you think? Has anyone actually looked at the lunar lander in HD? It looks like it is made from cardboard and curtain rods. I recently saw a NASA video I think it was preparation for Artemis I where they were saying that they were putting a dummy in the spacecraft with various sensors to see what effect the trip would have on a human. Why the heck if they had already been there would they need to do that? We have astronauts who lived for years after the supposed moon landings that they could study. And that doesn't even take into consideration who was filming the first man to set feet on the moon. I have watched digitally remastered videos of the moon landings and they look like a bad B movie. But I think the biggest proof is that we haven't been back. Please don't tell me it's because of money, to date we have sent 135 billion to Ukraine and spent over 1 trillion in Afghanistan and the F35 program is now over 1 trillion. When you can pring money from thin air money is not the problem.
That’s no mystery. There were 6 landings & the public gradually lost interest. It’s been done & the incentives are not as high. It’s way low on the priority list. Now the focus is on sending probes on asteroids & other worlds. Not to mention figuring out how to go to Mars.
If its so trivial then you stump up the cash to fund it. Tech is not the issue, politics is what stopped it. And its actually harder with current electronics as its much more susceptible to radiation than the very basic stuff (iron cores and wires) of the original Apollo computers. The missions you are quoting are for much longer times in space, which means radiation exposure becomes much more of an issue than a trip to the moon and back.
I find it funny that the kicked up regolith is the main thing you are having trouble with. Seldom mentioned but I have always considered it one of the strongest proofs that they were actually on the moon. There is a lot of very fine material in the regality. Neil Armstrong described it as a powder. If staged on earth the finer particles would have behaved like dust and hung in the air as dust does here. In all the film from all six missions showing regolith kicked up or flung up from the rover wheels there is absolutely not the slightest indication of dust hanging in the air. Instead in every case the material follows a ballistic path and pretty much all of it hits ground at the same time without being slowed by an atmosphere. The flag as well behaves as one would expect in a vacuum. The only time the flags are moving in when the astronauts are manipulating the pole. The flag is merely acting like a pendulum, moving back and fourth in diminishing arcs unimpeded by any atmosphere. You will never see any movement after it settles if the astronauts have not disturbed it. All the other issues with lighting, shadows, stars, and crosshairs have all been thoroughly explained by people much smarter than I. It happened. They were there. The Russians would have been all over it with valid scientific analysis if any of these conspiracies had any validity.
" If staged on earth the finer particles would have behaved like dust and hung in the air as dust does here" Not if the footage was shot in NASA's giant vacuum chamber. Those clips are of a remote controlled model with a doll in the driver's seat.
@@jonsmith3945 Oh hey, you ignorant @ss is back. Why do t you specify which “giant vacuum chamber” you’re referring to. Let’s start there. Remember, you made the specific claim, substantiate it. Do better, learn.
@@jonsmith3945 exactly mate...these people don't seem to realise the funding NASA have (from black ops)and they film in swimming pools..vacuum Chambers and C.I.A film studios with all the best lighting and cameras etc etc...and they can't seem to answer why Buzz Aldrin said "because we weren't there..and that's the way it happened" aswell as him being triggered into Mk Ultra glitches and getting violent at the very mention of the Moon Hoax.
There's a problem with this theory. The problem is the project was not a secret, it was announced to the entire world by Kennedy when it was begun. So you have entire aerospace engineering companies, staffed full of engineers who were not in on the conspiracy. They were full of engineers who were experts in their field who designed spacecraft to get to the moon. They all had to believe that what they were doing was real and feasible. Then you have the people who actually built the spacecraft, they all knew what the spacecraft were. They would have known if they were building props. And then you have the people who tested it. Then you have the people who participated in the launch. All of those people had to be fooled. They all had to design and build spacecraft to go to the moon that we just didn't send to the moon. Basically this conspiracy theory says that we went through all the work but then we just didn't do it and filmed a fake in a top secret movie studio somewhere. And you think that's more believable. How do you think that works? Does the conspiracy start work decades earlier training up every single one of those people and indoctrinating them into false science so that they would believe what they were doing? I'm sorry but this really doesn't work. You've only made the conspiracy far larger. You now need a conspiracy to make the very public moonshot program happen without anyone knowing that it was fake, while you have the people working on the fake program at the same time.
Yes you’re right about all the engineers and experts building spacecraft and real astronauts testing them. They just never successfully did it in the timescale they wanted. There was always a race with Russia to be the first and people in power will stop at nothing to be first. Especially when showing power on a global scale. Whenever a new mission or goal is set out there are always different methods to achieve that goal. So with this, once they realised they were not going to land on the moon first they released the fake footage. This had been made by a handful of people in on the conspiracy, and from looking at the set and spacecraft I don’t think is so hard to believe. These people probably aren’t even around anymore to tell the truth. “If you know what I mean” I suggest that after they probably did eventually land on the moon and have been going to it ever since. However they can not show real footage of the moon now as it would completely sabotage the so called original moon landing.
@@Jesus-is-king-4e Except every one of those engineers experienced the process of doing it on that timescale. They built it during the timeline in which they were supposed to build it. They launched it too, in full view of the world. ALL of them would have to be in on it, otherwise they would have known that the mission wasn't completed on time. The people designing it would have known that the design wasn't done when it was launched. Nope, all of those 40,000 people had to be in on it.
@@NomadSoul76 you’re not getting what I am saying. The rocket still left the launch pad with the astronauts and the engineers did complete it in time however they didn’t land on the moon. Everyone watched the rocket take off, that’s it. After that we’re watching it on television only. You don’t believe everything you see on television do you? Television = tell lies through vision. Look into the first patents for the tv and you will understand why it was made. Peace ✌️
Here's the problem you create. This wasn't some isolated project that was only worked on by a handful of people "in the know". People who make the argument that you are making can't possibly understand how NASA actually operates. Or how the government operates in general. NASA doesn't own and operate a "spaceship factory". They get funding from the government, and they use that funding to enter into contracts with DOZENS of civilian aerospace companies. NASA doesn't build anything. A company under contract with NASA builds it. NASA provides needs and specifications, etc. and those companies provide the hardware that meets those specifications. If NASA pays a company to develop a space craft capable of landing men on the moon, that company will run its own tests, and design the craft themselves, and will at the very least be CAPABLE of the task. That would NECESSARILY develop something CAPABLE of making the trip and landing men on the moon, returning safely, etc. Either there are WAY more than 10 people "in the know" or the hardware developed by private industry contracted by NASA was actually capable of landing men on the moon and returning them safely to Earth. There is ZERO chance that a team of expert aerospace engineers, physicists, etc. who are tasked with developing hardware for a specific task would provide such hardware without knowing whether or not it was capable to the task - - - so again, the only two possibilities here are that the hundreds of thousands who worked on various hardware and sub-structures developed for the Apollo program delivered equipment CAPABLE of the task for which they were designed, engineered, and developed for NASA, OR those tasked with their development would necessarily know the missions would have to be faked - - - which would involve FAR more than 10 people. It is patently absurd to insist that a program of this scope could possibly be completely fake.......and that only 10 people know about it. Asinine nonsense.
And how do you know that those photos are real and not doctored? with the Tech today you can't be sure. But one thing's for sure going outside of Low earth orbit for Humans will kill you from radiation. Everything about the Apollo missions were correct, This gentlemen says hundreds of thousands of people were involved this is Correct. But only 3 people went up in the rocket. You cant see after the rocket left the Pad. The Astronaut's Never left Orbit, they just stayed in Low Earth Orbit for the duration of the Mission doing Secret stuff for the Government splashing down only after the Mission was complete from our point of View. People just Follow the Narrative and if it makes sense they will go along no matter what. There are So many problems with the Narrative that we went to the Moon. you don't understand how easily people are intimidated to keeping their mouth shut. or you end up in an accident. Like the 3 that died on the pad in the capsule. Come on dude. How many people work in these Secret military programs Groom lake and so on and Nothing comes out. People dont talk when they know men are going to show up at your house when you speak up. 99.99% of people are afraid to talk.
@kevinswinyer3176 it wasn't the tech that was destroyed, it was a basement filled with tape of all the equations and math. It would take years to replace, and since we have had no mission to go back, there is no need to pay for those years of research
@@BartoniusAustinius.. that's really not accurate at all. the calculations required would take minutes, not years to do, nor was any lost in the manner you suggest.
The individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” and have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s. Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. There is also no cold war imperative and no time limit publically placed on it by a president. We also live in much more risk averse times. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
. . Hey, let's sit at home and get paid to prop up a dead horse . . we "lost the technology" -- needed as well for missile tech and satellites etc . . repetition rather than comprehension is all we need . . Not working so well these days, even with all the sponsored activity in the forums in desperation to prop up a dead horse . . Did I say prop up a dead horse?. . I really wanted to say it -- prop up a dead horse . . Prop up a dead horse .
do you still have the technology to play an 8 track tape ?? Or even a VHS tape ?? Think before you ask. Technology changes. No way NASA would use 60s technology today, and first they would have to re-build everything.
Some people do own vintage technology. They could easily fund and rebuild Apollo tech. They don't want to do it because we've never been in space. @@johnmorrison9758
@@SamuelBlack84 Yes. Not to say there weren't any giant beasts. Just not the way we were told. Mud fossils of dragons exist, but not Tyrannosaurus rex. Hope that makes sense.
@derp8575 I just wanted to test how far your delusions went, and I now realise that you shouldn't even be trusted to open a tin of beans that are already open
It’s called dynamic range! All photographers understand this due to film speed, aperture settings, and camera speed. Flag motion was inertia and rocket exhaust at launch from the moon! I used computers with the same ability as the computers used on Apollo, they worked well for real time work using assembly language but expensive! Anyone could buy equipment to listen in on the transmissions.
@@headhunter7616 Oops! You dropped this. 😉 *False Equivalence Fallacy:* a logical fallacy that occurs when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equivalent, simply because they share some characteristics, despite the fact that there are also notable between them. For example, a false equivalence is saying that cats and dogs are the same animal, since they’re both mammals and have a tail. Do better, learn.
@@headhunter7616 It most certainly is, little one. The Moon landings happened. The other things you listed have no evidence for their existence. Try again? 😉
Just in case. 😊 Proof NASA landed men on the Moon: 1. There are over 8,000 photos available to the public of the moon landing missions. 2. There are thousands of hours of video too. 3. Hundreds of kilograms of lunar material that has been studied and verified by astronomers and geologists all over the world and showed chemical signs of being on the moon. 4. The LRRR data laser retroreflector arrays left by Apollo 11, and other subsequent Apollo missions, can still be interacted with today by using powerful enough lasers here on Earth. 5. The SELENE photos which show the damage to the lunar surface where we landed the Apollo missions. 6. The Chang'e 2 photos, which show the lander base. 7. Chandrayaan-2, which managed to photograph another Apollo lander base. 8. A group at Kettering Grammar School, using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits. 9. Pic du Midi Observatory, which watched Apollo missions all the way to the moon. 10. The Lick Observatory observations during the return coast to Earth produced live television pictures broadcast to United States west coast viewers via KQED-TV in San Francisco 11. Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and the Lunar Module. He could only detect messages FROM the lunar vehicles and not to them, cause the earth was between him and Huston. Also, backyard amateurs all around the world were able to tune in on the Apollo audio (not the video, that would have taken bigger hardware, but, the audio was easy) by pointing their Yagi and/or dishes at the moon. Hundreds (or maybe thousands?) of people in many countries did exactly that. 12. The Soviet Union, who monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, who's leader Vasily Mishin, in an interview for the article "The Moon Programme That Faltered", describes how the Soviet Moon programme dwindled after the Apollo landing. 13. The absurdity that thousands of people who worked on the Apollo missions would have to be kept silent for years and years without a single person coming forward to claim it was a fraud. 14. In October-November 1977, the Soviet radio telescope RATAN-600 observed all five transmitters of ALSEP scientific packages placed on the Moon surface by all Apollo landing missions excluding Apollo 11. Their selenographic coordinates and the transmitter power outputs (20 W were in agreement with the NASA reports). 15. Images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories. Although this probe was indeed launched by NASA, the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of an academic group - the LROC Science Operations Center at Arizona State University, along with many other academic groups. At least some of these groups, such as the German Aerospace Center, Berlin, are not located in the US, and are not funded by the US government. 16. After the images shown here were taken, the LRO mission moved into a lower orbit for higher resolution camera work. All of the sites have since been re-imaged at higher resolution. Comparison of the original 16 mm 17. Apollo 17 LM camera footage during ascent to the 2011 LRO photos of the landing site show an almost exact match of the rover tracks. 18. Further imaging in 2012 shows the shadows cast by the flags planted by the astronauts on all Apollo landing sites. The exception is that of Apollo 11, which matches Buzz Aldrin's account of the flag being blown over by the lander's rocket exhaust on leaving the Moon. 19. Spain and Australia were 2/3rds of the DSN that received all of the TV broadcasts from the moon. 20. Dozens of tracking stations around the world (including from enemies) used radar and radio telescopes to track all of the missions. You can find more info about this on MIT's site. The tracking was accurate to within 1 mile. 21. Spain had the largest telescope on Earth at the time, and used it to photograph the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon (which spanned out for miles, thus were visible to a large enough telescope), as well as the Apollo 13 debris and gas field (same dynamic). 22. There are more than 100,000 photos taken from lunar orbit. 23. The Jodrell Bank Observatory tracked the movements of the Eagle Lunar Module from the beginning of its descent clear down to the lunar surface by monitoring the doppler shift in its telemetry signal. Do better, learn.
. . Hey, let's sit at home and get paid to prop up a dead horse . . we "lost the technology" -- needed as well for missile tech and satellites etc . . repetition rather than comprehension is all we need . . Not working so well these days, even with all the sponsored activity in the forums in desperation to prop up a dead horse . . Did I say prop up a dead horse?. . I really wanted to say it -- prop up a dead horse . . Prop up a dead horse
The only thing that that makes me question it is why did they record the live footage from a screen and degrade the quality? And how is it that the live footage was so smooth and didn't cut out or have connection problems back then? Modern trips to the moon we have had live footage problems and disconnections. Also the footage of rovers going onto the moon is always super slow FPS. Why? Why not a nice smooth video? Why has tech gotten worse for recording on the moon?
I had the pleasure of visiting with Gene cernan for a couple of hours, at a small air show in Montana. you get a little different perspective when you can look in a man's eyes and get the story right from his mouth . I made sure and shake his hand twice just in case there was a little moondust still working its way out of him.🚀
Cernan, as with all "Astronots" who claim they went to the Moon are frauds, liars and deceivers. Remember, these guys are military men, NASA is an agency within the Dept of Defense, these people keep secrets and will lie.
Considering that moondust is notorious for getting into everything, i wouldn't even be surprised. Oh yeah, also, it smells like burnt gunpowder, AND you can be allergic to it.
It never happened. It should’ve easily been proven by the best proof in the world… video. A video during travel time or from earth as they traveled should’ve suffice. Even a photograph from a university as they entered orbit would’ve been a must do.
@@The713Sonic There's literally hundreds of hours of audio footage, hundreds of images and tons of videos from each mission and from each part of them too.
White reflects light and you can actually get shadows forming away from a white fabric such as the white space suits. Any artist can tell you that little bit of trivia.
Everybody's an expert everybody's after the 10 seconds of fame. Except how many death bed confessions have there been from NASA employees? The answer is zero.
Come on Joe don't let the deniers conn you, there were hundreds of full action rehearsals to promote realism and these were filmed, it is called practice or rehearsals.
Re. Van Allen belts... you forgot to mention that Carl Sagan was replaced on the project after his analysis of the telemetry from the van Allen belt probes proved that it wasn't possible for a human being to survive traversing it
@@Tokinjester : We went in 1968 through 1972 over 9 different missions to the lunar surface as well as lunar orbit. Do we have the technology? Of course. Do you have fully designed integrated systems using new technology fully tested? No. That's under development. Would you pull out a 60 year piece of hardware and launch yourself in it? Doubtful. Please explain why you think going to the moon is easy or cheap. This should be good.
@@kitcanyon658 there's also documentary evidence that Apollo 11 was actually in low earth orbit when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon...you can see this for yourself in the documentary film, "a funny thing happened on the way to the moon" Feel free to share your thoughts on those
@@Tokinjester Ignorance, feelings, and fallacious logic aren’t valid pieces of evidence. Try compelling, substantial evidence, like we have to prove NASA landed men on the Moon; works much better. 😊 Do better, learn.
Hard to say because we weren't there. Those rockets are equipped with escape hatches. The astronots slide down a slide out of the rocket into a safe room. In theory they can use the escape hatches before the launch. Then the rocket could be launched and land in the ocean, out of our view. The average tell-a-vision consumer would believe that the astronots are on-board.
With all this technology we could actually send a rover and stream a video from the moon. "the Moon is 384,400 km from Earth and communications take 2,5 seconds; Mars is between 55,7 million to 401,3 million kilometres" Give me a break with this garbage moon landing.
@@DavidLoveMore Those that worked Project Apollo know, scientists on Earth know, it's remarkably easy to verify that all the landings took place. In this case, many scientists shoot at the Laser Reflectors on the Moon as they still work to this day, although they have eroded a bit.
IMMA and the Moon, I was a part of a primary Lunar material analysis team using the Ion Microprobe Mass Analyzer (IMMA) The IMMA system was capable of projecting a powerful Ion beam of only 3um x 6um any where on a petrographic sample section. The back scattered sample ions were then extracted by a pickup electrode and analyzed by the high resolution, electromagnetic spectrometer capable of detecting single arriving events (Ions). The spectrometer is capable of displaying very high resolution elemental and isotopic profiles allowing the study of isotopic ratios and age dating by using known isotopic ratio decay rates. One of the most compelling characteristics of the Lunar material we analyzed was a very high level of H3 trapped in the interstitial spaces (between crystal structures). H3 is very rare here on Earth. The Earth, which is protected by its magnetic field, and has essentially no H3. However, the Moon is bombarded with large quantities of Helium-3 by the solar wind. I prepped those Lunar samples myself. And then watched the results come out on the plotter...So much for the "we didn't really go to the Moon" B.S. It is well known that the H3 isotope could provide a safe and far more efficient nuclear energy source (initiator) in a fusion reactor. It is not radioactive and would not produce dangerous waste products." Also, according to a recent study, mining it could be a very profitable undertaking. The energy produced by the helium-3 would be 250 times greater than that needed to extract this resource from the Moon and transport it to Earth, where the lunar reserves of helium-3 could supply human energy needs for centuries. We're going back to the Moon. And it's not just for the view folks. Take care out there..kunkprime
Having read the comments here, you lost them after the second sentence. If they understood what you were doing, they would grasp the physics of the moon landings.
. . are you sure it wasn't your uncle or your cousin? . . next door neighbor? . . . . Hey, let's sit at home and get paid to prop up a dead horse . . we "lost the technology" -- needed as well for missile tech and satellites etc . . repetition rather than comprehension is all we need . . Not working so well these days, even with all the sponsored activity in the forums in desperation to prop up a dead horse . . Did I say prop up a dead horse?. . I really wanted to say it -- prop up a dead horse . . Prop up a dead horse .
@@davros_adl8155 well the malicious thing in this video is that he is citing wrongly. I cannot remember Joe Rogan saying in an episode he thinks the moonlanding is fake. He has talked about it for sure (that's where some citations come from, a completely different context) but I never heard him say he thinks it's fake, and I doubt he ever has said that, otherwise that exact sentence was used in this video, which it isn't.
. . Hey, let's sit at home and get paid to prop up a dead horse . . we "lost the technology" -- needed as well for missile tech and satellites etc . . repetition rather than comprehension is all we need . . Not working so well these days, even with all the sponsored activity in the forums in desperation to prop up a dead horse . . Did I say prop up a dead horse?. . I really wanted to say it -- prop up a dead horse . . Prop up a dead horse .
The world's a stage. Everyone is in cahoots. You can't fear monger if everyone knows you're best friends, and you can't tax the living fuck out of your countrymen to fund your space agency's budget if nobody believes you can land on the Moon.
Around 70 thousand people worked for NASA at the time and NO ONE leaked that this was all fake. If it was fake at least ONE of them who was in the know, would have come forward covertly by now. This crap show segment is such a slap in the face to Armstrong and the miracle hard work all these guys went through. You should be ashamed.
Actually it was around 400,000 people in the USA who worked on the space program. Hundreds of 3rd party suppliers made millions of components for the program. And yes, how would you even get 10 people in a room to commit to a 'hoax'?
This is ridiculous, the 400000 people would not know about the deseption. The equipment was all real, they really built the rockets, but that doesn't mean the government and cia wouldn't have a backup plan incase something in this very long complex chain of tech broke at some late stage or found out they got something wrong. Only a handful of guys at the top levels would know its being faked the kind of guys that lie and keep secrets for a living, the guys working on the suits or the camaras etc would have no idea. So yes it could have been faked and very convincingly. For the record I do not believe it was a hoax.
NASA destroyed the construction plans of the Saturn V rocket. I guess that proves how good the astronauts were shielded from radiation and how easy it is to fly the moon lander.
The astronauts walk differently because they’re mission was to enjoy the moment. Put up an American flag. Just look at the time Sam Shepard hit a golf ball, he was hoping around just like the 1st landing astronauts. These men we’re truly brave men. Don’t let anyone take that away.
Watched the landing here in Australia in late 60’s at school. Asked teacher is this real cause of strange things. Like if Armstrong was first first person on the moon .. who then filmed him on ground, as he descended down ladder ? Other thing why was flag flapping around ?
No, because the sun’s full brightness experienced on the Moon (with no filtering by an atmosphere) drowns out all the stars. Nobody questions why we can’t see most stars in daylight on Earth.
@@fredbloggs5902 The fact that the sky is blue during the day on Earth and black during the day on the Moon goes against what you're saying. Yes, Sunlight is less obstructed on the Moon than on Earth, but this increased brightness is only a visual interference for deep space observation if you're looking close to or directly at the Sun. The air particles in our atmosphere scatters light particles such that there are no black portions of the daytime sky no matter what direction you look, whereas from the Moon's surface you can actually see the blackness of space when not looking in the direction of the Sun.
@@quincylee2276 You’re right except for the fact that people take photographs of things (like each other) and the astronauts wore white spacesuits. The bright sunlight reflected off the objects in the photo means the camera aperture has to adjusted to avoid overexposure. This reduces the light from the stars below the level of being seen in the photo. Go learn something before you embarrass yourself any further.
You are correct - the Soviets beat the U.S. to every milestone, but when it came to the highest tech required to actually land humans on the moon, the USSR couldn't get it done with their budget and technology. The Saturn V worked every time, while Russia's N1 failed every time. Also, the Soviet lander wouldn't have had nearly the sophistication of the Apollo Guidance Computer to navigate and automate much of the landing. It would have been interesting to see if the Soviets could have landed men on the moon if the N1 rocket worked.
@@ohger1 so why did Elon buy Twitter. That’s a extreme amount of money to spend and he is still getting bashed in the media. I still can’t think of what the bigger picture is on that move.
Yeah , but we beat em in hockey in 1980 and that's all that matters . Sports and entertainment is everything , and don't you forget it . Play ball ! ☺️
They are jumping and running and bouncing around like a bunch of drunken ducks. I would think that 250,000 miles away from earth without any treatment for broken bones or other injuries, they would be moving carefully and not taking risks.
![[Part 1] รักมาไม่ทันตั้งตัว❤ หนุ่มสาวโสดถูกจับมาแต่งงานกันกะทันหัน แถมเธอยังเป็นหัวหน้าของเขา?!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/y2pOOMkuFI0/mqdefault.jpg)
*SUBSCRIBE IF YOU LIKED THIS VIDEO*
Is Space Fake? - Joe Rogan 👉 th-cam.com/video/cq3tacD9DjE/w-d-xo.html
Elon Musk - People Don't Realize It About Moon Landing 👉 th-cam.com/video/YF_BGAK5VrY/w-d-xo.html
Why Elon Musk Lives in a 50k priced Small House 👉 th-cam.com/video/sF3Jz0NJ_s8/w-d-xo.html
Elon Musk Destroys Apple 👉 th-cam.com/video/MXIswmG5xyE/w-d-xo.html
Elon Musk - ''Delete your Facebook'' 👉 th-cam.com/video/HA7bhpDaQ3Q/w-d-xo.html
Elon Musk vs Jeff Bezos - It's Getting Worse Every Day 👉 th-cam.com/video/XFMPXHx-2VQ/w-d-xo.html
totally fake, no oxygen to fire up rocket to come back, not possible, as fake as the clowns with hairsprayed stiff hair on the fake space station and elon musks fake rocket coming down backwards like a pencil...all fake
@@spudspuddy Lol, do you often embarrass yourself by making unfounded ridiculous claims backed up by nothing more than ignorance, feelings, and fallacious logic? 😂
NASA landed men on the Moon despite what your astounding ignorance says. 😊
Do better, learn.
Everybody knows the gov don't lie
@@fredfrog8538 Lol, do you know what fallacious logic is? How about desperate gaslighting?
@user-go9rs5sz2r Probably Bart Sibrel. 🤣
So the Russians, who with 100% certainty, were tracking the missions, decided to play along with the big secret that it didn't actually happen. I'll let you all decide whether that is plausible or not..
Right!!!?? Not only that if you do your research you will find that the source of the "fake moon landing" started at NASA itself!! Why did they do it? Its still a mystery
Why? For all the hype about the cold war America and the Soviets were bum chums.
How else could the soviets get nukes? America told them. America gave tons of treasure to them in WW2. There was the international Geophysical Year and the handshake in orbit between US and Soviet astronauts.
I could go on and on. The two super powers were friends
The "oh we almost killed everyone with nukes" was just to scare the public. Never came close to happenning.
Maybe the Russians were lying to their public too?
Oh no *checks notes* the American govt and soviet union would never lie...
Excellent point. They would have jumped all over a fake landing.
He said the Russians also faked the first flight of Yuri Gagarin into space. The Russians knew the moon landing was faked. I am convinced that many European US allies knew as well
So, in the title "The Mistake of the Moon Landing that Changes Everything," What was the mistake? And what did it change? I watched the whole video, and maybe I missed it, but this title is misleading.
He's a BS'er, rehashing BS in support of BS.
Click bait.
Especially using Joe Rogan's name in the title. Even worse than click bait.
Yeah I’m pretty sure it’s a bot lol. It’s an epidemic on TH-cam
yeah, i noticed that also. this is the second time i've watched a video about the moon landing that the title misled me. which makes me suspicious.....again, flashing thru the evidence to quickly and unnecessarily makes me wonder why im being manipulated to not doubt the moon landing. im still on the fence on this...i even think maybe they faked at 1st because of the deadline...and then tech caught up a bit......who knows, but somethings arent right.
10 seconds of Joe Rogan's opinion followed by a 12 minute diatribe against moonlanding conspiracies. without actually addressing Rogan's point.
They are both in on it?
The day I give a single solitary eff what Joe Rogan thinks about anything is the day they should take away my keys.
its called disinformation for a reason xD thick shield and walls he says against radiation, when you clearly can see its just some cardboard falling apart wrapped in alumin foil xD
@@civildiscourse2000no way were 400K people involved in Nasa. Impossible, that's nearly half a million people supported by the taxpayer for an initiative that produced very little of real value in the economy. It's all a lie. Yes, they could launch satellites into low orbit, but no way they went through or beyond the radiation belts.
Let me guess you think the earth is flat too
My great great grandma was dying in tears how fake it was in 69... she said it was awful
Amazing how you made a 12 minute video without actually saying anything of valuable
Absolute bs isn't it
Utterly disgusting tbh
You mean the 12 minutes of him debunking all the different points made by theorists? Did you even watch the video?
The better answer at 5:45 isn’t that the cameras couldn’t capture stars but because the lunar surface was magnitudes brighter than the star field. The cameras exposed for the lunar surface brightness and since it is far brighter than the stars in the sky, the stars don’t show up. This is a basic concept for photography. If they exposed for the star field, everything including the lunar surface, astronauts and space craft would be overexposed with no identifiable detail.
However, their space camera could have captured some of the 99% of radiation mass in the form of white streaks raining down in the distance background.
Interestingly, such phenomena are not observed in any NASA moon landings.
This claim videos has been proven by China's first mission to the dark side of the moon. Unfortunately, these videos related to this topic have been scrub removed from TH-cam.
@@AwesomeBlackDude *EDIT:* THIS COMMENT WAS INTENDED FOR @AwesomeBlackDude WHO HAS SINCE DELETED THEIR COMMENT. They basically said @strvenkothenbeutrl448 was not correct and spewing nonsense.
My original comment: *_”@AwesomeBlackDude_*_ Please cite your source for your claims.”_
@DemonDrummer1018 he already did, basic photography, read the comment
@@gorillainacoupe420 Look at who I was replying to. I wasn’t replying to @stevenkothenbeut448.
@@DemonDrummer use your iphone to take a picture of stars and the yourself at the same time. Let me know how it goes.
When America landed on the moon, they left their flag.
If Britain ever landed on the moon, they wouldn't leave their flag,
but they would leave a sign: Caution: Uneven Surface.
~Sean Lock
"Mind the gap"
Klevvaaa! 😀
@@DerHammerSpricht Stay safe, be kind, protect the NHS.
🤣😂😅👌
RIP Sean.
The one clip that's always made my question the truth about this. Is the clip at 2:18. Look closely. The astronaut is semi-transparent. As if he was super imposed over top of that image of the lunar lander. Nobody has ever mentioned this. To me this is the most glaring artifact.
🔍 image lag as a reference; it's an artifact created by the equipment used
Maybe, but that same type of artifact can also be created when an image is superimposed over that type of film. @@wrenengels7435
@@matthewmoore757 That footage was not filmed, though.
Hmmm, never noticed that. That certain makes no sense. 🤔
It’s annoying that if you search for moon landing to see original footage TH-cam feeds you loads of idiocy
NASA doesn't have original footage! That's the problem!
When I ask what the atmosphere on the moon is made of NASA and everyone else can't answer.
@@filipzawadzki9424seriously? Do you tried using google? You can access NASA archive with hundreds of movies from Apollo 11-17.
we are living in very dangerous times....people are going insane slowly,, it scares me , moonlanding isnt the only topic...I know people who say that Putin is such a wonderful guy and that nothing happens in Ukraine...my blood boils when I hear this...someone who has lost many friends in this war,(civillians) yet people say that Putin doesnt attack civillains...why are my friends dead then? My 28 year old friend and her 4 year old daughter bombed to pits ,People are just getting stupid and its just horrible ...can you imagine that your house is being bombed and your family is dead but there are significant amount of people who say that it doesnt happen?
@@neilpike6758 eeh. Moon "atmosphere" is composed from NOTHING. Literally in almost every article about moon there's that information.
How right and accurate you can be is limited by reality. But there is NO limit to how wrong you can be.
Or as Einstein was reputed to have said... "There are only two things which are infinite, the Universe, and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the former..."
@chrisantoniou4366 There's a limit to stupidity. It becomes ignorance.
Of course,we all know the gov would never lie
@@fredfrog8538 The government might well lie, but the lies are easily found out once they're suspected. There is no way the Soviets or even the tens of thousands of people directly involved in the Apollo missions would have kept quiet if the Moon landings were a hoax, and the Government (or anyone else for that matter) couldn't have faked the Moon's environment perfectly. Also, there isn't a single scrap of evidence that even hints at trickery or fakery, and then there's the small matter of a few hundred kilos of lunar rocks and dust brought back by the astronauts...
@@fredfrog8538 if the Russian government (who were in an active space race with the US at the time of the moon landing) didnt say it was fake then why would it be?, because you know they would 100% call NASA out if it was fake.
Kant says anything can be doubted. But, something being doubtful, and something not being real, are two entirely different things.
Exactly. However, I AM in the doubtful crowd. I was well into electronics back then and the tech used in the 'computer' was transistor-transistor Logic Controllers. These are not CPU's and not technically a computer. The whole Van Allen belt thing still hasn't been proven yet. The space suits were never designed for such exposure and the cockpit was also not insulated against hours of radiation exposure. I know they did send Apollo 11 to the moon. I just doubt it was manned and/or they were technically able to land and take off. And if the soul objective was to land on the moon, why send another ten+ missions?
@@doraexplora9046 I think it was technically possible to do. Much that has happened since falls on both sides for me. For example, Space flight would seem to be necessary for a decent portion of modern telecommunications (pro). If you can acheive space flight and landing back on earth, you can land on the moon. The moon has little gravity, so less energy needed to break gravity.
The argument against, our 'leaders' and 'experts' are imbeciles, and perhaps have always been. A team of humans could do amazing things, but only so long as those f-ups weren't involved ha ha.
You spelled can't wrong, and YES anything can be doubted, even two plus two equals four is doubted these days.
yEAH BUT i DOUBT WHETHER HE'S DOUBTFUL OR NOT!
@@melaniecampbell7055 was the first part of that meant to be a joke? i literally kant tell
How did that 'lander' leave the moon, accelerate to 3,500 kph, catch up and dock with the orbiter before heading back?
rocket engine
bro thinks they got out and pushed it off the moon
I'm sorry I never did see a rocket engine ignite to propel them off the moon, just some sparks when the mylar foil ripped. Hypergolic fuel leaves a redish smoke, look it up. Bill Kaysing, who was a scientific writer for Rockedyne Corp. for years, talked about this. I forget which one, but if you watch closely enough you can see it take off and then hesitate before continuing, as though the crane slowed a little.
That’s what science is
Did you seriously say physics and Joe Rogan in the same sentence!?😂
@@theturtlewombat I think the OP is saying that JR knows next to nothing about physics. But in answer to your question, anyone who doesn't have a good understanding of physics ought to ask questions. You can only 'challenge' something that you yourself understand.
@@ragnarlothbrok6140 😆 The only person?
@@ragnarlothbrok6140 I'm not dismissing anything! Just the irony!🤣🤦♂️
@@theturtlewombat Yeah - because my physics degree - and 40 years of career in science - is practically worthless against you, Joe Rogan and every other know-nothing who has - relative to profesisonal physicists - same equivalent physics knowledge as a 5 year old...or a dog. Practicaly the same.
Yours is the affliction of Dunning-Kruger. You don't need a booster shot - just to be shot.
😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣
Resently, NASA said they "lost the technology" to return to the moon... Hummm, I lost my car keys once, but the locksmith made me some new ones since he still had the technology to make car keys... Funny how NASA lost their "car keys" to the space crafts... Nope, Rogan was correct, it was fake and no response from the cheap seats is required.
No, quite a few years ago one astronaut lamented the loss of Apollo. And hoaxtards have pulled that comment out of context ever since, often garbling it together with a different quote mine about the Orion into incoherent hoaxtard crap.
And you heard that idiotic claim where exactly? Lmao, dont believe everything you see on the internet. NASA still have and even improved technology which they use. The trip to the moon is just not worth it nowadays.
The Chinese have already landed on the moon more than once.
@@peacefulruler1 As was told to you as a child, "Don't believe everything you read or watch on TV." There, I hope that helps... Oh BTW, the Chinese would never lie about filming an in-studio moon landing, now would they...
Don't forget about the mirror that was left behind just to conduct earth laser experiments. It is widely used.
Ohhhh k
😂😂😂😂😂😂🎉
The mirror is an example of smoke. In other words, there is no mirror. The moon landing was faked. It had to be. Newtonian orbits are physically impossible. Projectile physics explains why.
I take it you have that on personal knowledge or is that just a religious beleif you hold near and dear to your heart.
The mirror could've been put there remotely. Even the landers could've been put there the same way. Bear in mind that 90% of what Governments tell us is complete bullshit.
Gotta love that moon rover with an umbrella antennae and lawn chairs for seats. Those were some expensive lawn chairs.
No one knows how the Lunar lander carried the rover vehicle down to the surface ?
NASA will not talk about it either.
@@jamesilish th-cam.com/video/7MBehb5w7gE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=jXHaAY_Ynld6XB_F
@@jamesilish th-cam.com/video/7MBehb5w7gE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=jXHaAY_Ynld6XB_F
@@jamesilish uh, NASA has talked about it many times, and you can find pictures and video of them removing it from the cargo bay it was stored in. Don’t just believe whatever nonsense you hear on the Internet.
@@jamesilish This 👏👏👏👏👏....and where did the tripods appear from?... That (ahem) landed on the moon?
When I lived in Houston, I visited the Johnson Space Center a LOT! One thing I learned was that astronauts had baggies taped to them to contain their feces and urine. This was in the
early 80's. One could drive to anyone of the buildings, and walk right in. There was no security at that time. I went there often. I watched astronauts training in a huge water tank with
a mock up of a lunar module. They were learning to use tools in zero gravity. I visited one building that had moon rocks. They were in "aquariums" that had rubber arms to reach in
and dissect them. There was no one around. I had a pocket knife. I could have had me a moon rock, lol. One could even see the command center. It was incredible, to say the least.
I even saw and was able to look into the Shuttle mock up interior. It didn't seem like it at the time, but the lack of security was astounding? One could literaly drive anywhere on campus,
up to any building and walk around. Crazy. I cherish those memories like you can't believe. I seriously went there a LOT. Every other day, at times.
After Challenger exploded, they pretty much shut everything down. Over 90% of it was shut down to the public. Probably closer to 99% of it. It was an astounding part of my life.
I think it's funny how they train in zero g pools... It's not even the same. Tools will still fall to earth in water, spinning your body around doesn't work bc there is resistance from the water.... It's close to zero g but not at the same time.
@@TheGuyJack1 The main thing they get out of the neutral buoyancy training is an understanding of the inertia properties of the objects they will pick and manipulate while spacewalking. And despite the viscosity of the water, they move at about the same rate and with the same movements so it lets them work out the timelines better.
Man, I like your big Johnson story.
@@moaningpheromones It was truly spectacular. It was a big part of my life. One thing that amazed me, was how small the first capsule was? For three people.
One seat in front, two in back. Stacked on each other. Astronauts were incredibly small. There was an exhibit, where they compared a child toilet seat to what
people would call a regular seat. Every pound counted. I am amazed, and proud of our brave men and women that volunteered for their missions.
It's a part of my life that I will never forget. I miss those days dearly. I wish that I had went more often. Who knew?
You lucky man, I would have loved to wander around that place with you a couple of times. As for the lack of security. It wasn't really needed back then was it? it was (as they say) a very different world back then. Some things have changed for the better but a great many things are truly bloody awful. Sad old git alert!!! Common decency is sadly lacking these days, if you leave anything around some thieving tosser will surely nick it and you won't be allowed to punch them in the nose.
The space craft did not have thick walls, in fact the LEM was extremely fragile, it was the bare minimum necessary. Today I doubt it would even be considered safe. Many of the pictures show bits of the landing gear broke, there was no significant radiation protection, they simply could not afford it in terms of mass, same with the suits. Am not saying it didn't happen, but risk was extream much more than people realise.
Yeah, going to the moon is an inherently dangerous task I think.....
I was born in 1969. How was technology so much better 55 years ago than it is today?
Exactly ‼️‼️💯💯
Most things are better today, some maybe not. We have a rover on Mars at the moment. We could not have done that in 1969.
Analog
Because the USA had serious goal to get to the moon. Then the program went to shit. Problem after problem, political and every else.
Space shuttle made sense, then we could build up in space and move on from there. But obviously we had lots of issues, so that ended.
They will be back to the moon soon enough. But what is the reason to be there?? Btw: a unmanned ship just landed there not too long ago
They had iPhones in 1969, except the iPhone was large called the EAGLE
What does it say about us as a species that we’ve reached a point where ANY received wisdom or things proven as fact using maths and science is considered less true than feelings and fantasy and wishful thinking.
U R BRAINWASHED!!!! That is what it says!!!!!!
People are ruled by their egos and the veil of anonymous social media
Plus, we live in an era where everyone through modern technology get mass attention almost the equivalent of a major hollywood star and any opinion, wish and desire of some nobody is taken onbosrd and treated with care and attention
Once upin a time, the inly way you entered the limelight qas if you had a talent and to get such insane levels of mecia coverage and escessive wealth you had to be a major movie star
The point was you jeeded great skill that had to be earned
Nowadays, anyone can be a star
Andy Warhol was right
You just described the democratic party perfectly. And math is invented, not fact. We use base 10 mathematics, but the Mayans used base 13. It's arbitrary, and doesn't prove anything except the base number of your fake math.
@@Gamer23-s6n math makes sure that the plane you're travelling on stays in the air, and that the MRI scanner your life may one day depend on is accurate and consistent... Feelings and fantasy and wishful thinking do none of those things.
Gulf of Tonkin Incident was reported as fact.. Oswald got job at Tx Book Deposirtory months before the Dallas Presidential trip was planned.
If we went to moon in ‘69 with less computer power than my I phone has.
Then once computers were more advanced, why not then?!?
Because Apollo was canceled by congress & the money taken away. No money, no moon missions.
why aren't cars a million times more efficient when we have that much better computers? think about that for a second and you might get some idea.
@@Tim22222cope and bs excuses
@@-Zardoz- It's 100% true & no amount of denialism will change that. If you had a fact-based counter argument, you'd make it.
@@Tim22222 counterargument to what? I didn't hear an argument.
Look, if you've lived in the modern world you should know why we sometimes can't do the things we ought technically to be able to do. Things that are made out of awesome components often suck. Somethings things that are made out of simplistic parts are awesome.
For example Teslas are shit & will fail as soon as Tesla decides to stop fixing their many bugs; meanwhile a Porsche 912 is timeless & awesome & can be kept running indefinitely with a decent set of mechanics tools.
I told my parents as a kindergarten that's aluminum foil 😂
They absolutely did not have thick radiation shielding, quite the opposite.
They had this material called "aluminum foil", it's radiation proof!
@@EverydayBronco-dh8hs They actually just took the risk of exposure and went on with it.
@@jamescarter8311 🤣
I wonder why they call emergency blankets "space" blankets?😆
Yes, the Moon Lander was as flimsy as a Coca Cola Can !!!! But the Bits of Wood, Sticky Tape and Baco Foil were all the Boy Scouts could afford when they built the Moon Lander !!!!
If we saw “fake footage” does that mean we never made it to the moon? No, it means they are showing us video saying “look, we made it to the moon”
There is no fake footage.
We all know Kubrick was responsible for the production of the landing
And being such a stickler for realism he insisted it be filmed on location.
@@jeffreyb.2817 might have landed if not for the fact that kubrick was basically the opposite of 'a stickler for realism.'
And Spielberg
@@jeffreyb.2817 why snitch it out in The Shining ?
Nope. Next? 🙃
Imagine that “going to the moon where there is some type of untapped resources” and NEVER going back.
it's only been "never" when infinity amount of time has passed. at the moment it's merely "not yet gone back".
What resources? The truth is the thing they're most interested in the moon for is water. But that's only because they can use it as rocket fuel if they split it into oxygen and hydrogen, and that's only useful there.
You have to understand how expensive it was to launch a single moon mission. There is nothing on the moon that they could bring back that is valuable enough to pay for the cost of getting there in the first place. We went there out of curiosity and in order to gather scientific data. We sometimes believe that it is worth spending money for those purposes. But even if the moon contained huge reserves of oil, the cost of bringing it back would be so high that it wouldn't be worth it. It would be like driving across the country in order to pick up a gallon of gasoline and then driving back across the country again. Only even worse.
As exciting as the idea of mining things in space is, the economics just don't justify it. If you spend enough money building a significant amount of space infrastructure, including large space stations able to generate gravity by having rotating discs, then it might be worth it. Then you can stay in space and start developing a space-based economy. But we are so very far away from a situation like that, the amount we would have to spend to build that infrastructure in the first place is astronomical. So to speak.
Artemis was recently delayed. How many years of delays will it take before you start to question the narrative? @@Agarwaen
"You have to understand how expensive it was to launch a single moon mission"
Meanwhile we are at least 30 trillion in debt. The government could easily print some more worthless fiat paper and go to the moon. @@NomadSoul76
@@derp8575 Sorry, others don’t use fallacious reasoning and confirmation bias mixed with erroneous presuppositions to conclude things like you.
Try again?
We can’t even go now in 2024 but went in 1969 😂 ✌🏼
🍎 2️⃣ 🍊 🙄
@@wrenengels7435 the world controlling by dirty politics -
the world controling by dirty politics
@@warrior-0078 irrelevant reply and fueled by conjecture
. . and all the sponsored activity in the forums in desperation to prop up a dead horse . . LOL
“Wer having an arms race”
Funny how the people who suffer war are never the ones starting it
That's not actually true. Many leaders who started wars were once soldiers themselves, including Hitler.
Or giving up their lives by being sent to the front lines.What makes me sick to is the fat ass rocket boy while people their eat insects and leaves just to stay alive another day.
Hitler was a zionist. @@jamescarter8311
Eat ze bugs or you are a conspiracy theorist. @@TheUnofficialMaker
@@derp8575 False dichotomy fallacy.
Try again?
Proof we went to the Moon is in the quality of lighting of the landscape shots. Only the power of the Sun could evenly illuminate those 2 mile wide shots.
the sun also shines on earth
@@robotpanda77 Through an atmosphere.
@@robotpanda77 Expand.
lol
@@GreatNewsVideo ⬅️ Ask this pathetic, desperate troll to present any actual substantial evidence to back up their claim. It’s hilarious! 🤣
Do better, learn.
We went in and out of the Van Allen belt easily from 69-72 with ancient technology And not one person from any nation has done it since, while there are multiple counties in low earth orbit. Yeah, sounds totally legit. 😂
What would we do on the moon?
@@evacody1249 walk just like Micheal ...obviously
I have no doubt it’s a big story that never happened just like the rest of the 60’s. Just like the crap Warren Commission report on jfk. Total bs……
Tell us you don't understand radiation and fields without telling us you don't understand radiation or fields.
@@liveleigh I just listen to NASA and then watch what they do. Operation Stsrfish Prine for starters.
The only dark thing about the Apollo program, was the fact that the development of ICBM was a major contributing justification for the Apollo program.
Never heard so many crazy excuses.
It seems unusual that we haven't returned to the moon. You would think that advances in technology would have made moon travel easier.
it has, but not to the ridiculous degree required to make it affordable.
Its not about having the tech to do something its about getting the funding to do something. It wasnt until recently that Lunar Mining started being looked at as a chance to make huge profits that talk about going back started up again. Before that there was no financial reason to return and so no funding to do so.
The American public lost interest in moon landings which was shown when they were getting smaller and smaller audiences with each mission. Appollo 13 showed thr dangers
@@Agarwaenand yet a man that sells electric cars can run a space program to get himself to Mars.
@@eddievanbasten1751 whatever other business he's doing is utterly irrelevant to what SpaceX, a company that sells literal launch vehicles does. Of course you know this, but framing it like this, instead of " this company that sells launches to orbit can get things into orbit" hides your lack of a real argument better. Also, while what SpaceX has done is helping commercial development of space (and particularly LEO) he's nowhere close to landing anything on Mars, something NASA has done with regularity. So he's literally way way behind on doing anything on Mars. He's also struggling hard to keep the schedule he's promised for a task he's been hired by NASA to do (much like how other corporations, again, get hired by NASA to build things for them, which has been the case since NASA was founded).
I was watching one of those conspiracy theory channels about four weeks ago and it showed an interview with Stanley Kubrick admitting that he filmed the moon landing.
they showed you a clip that was filmed to MAKE FUN OF CONSPIRACIES LIKE THIS.
Yeah... Kubrick was such a perfectionist he demanded that they shoot on location.
That wasn't Kubrick. It was an actor called Tom Mayk and the (fictional) film was called "Shooting Stanley Kubrick".
It wasn't Stanley kubrick.. It was an actor and a film maker. Watch the whole vid and you see them coercing the lookalike actor.
I don't believe they went to the moon, but I prefer to have authentic reasons why, and I feel genuinely that they didn't. But that Stanley kubrick vid is fake.
The big problem with these conspiracy theories about faking the moon landing is that almost every time, they say they can prove it was fake by talking about shadow angles and the fact that you cannot see the stars in some shots, among other things. As a professional photographer, explaining that is very easy, but it seems that the 'fake moon landing crowd' are photographic experts in addition to experts in physics. It doesn't matter that professionals in these fields can easily demonstrate that what is in the photos are normal characteristics of exposure setting (not seeing the stars), seemingly no shadows in some areas (the moon's surface reflects a great deal of light} and shadow angles being 'incorrect' (a very easily explained perspective convergence). Even more funny is that ALL of those so-called 'proof it was fake' issues are very easily demonstrated, even with a cell phone camera.
You know, some years ago the Russians even got into the debate, saying that the moon landings were all real because they tracked every Gemini and Apollo mission, and they have proof. I think we all know that if the Russians had proof that we faked the moon landing, they would certainly announce it to the world in what would be their greatest propaganda coup against the west. But that's still not good enough for the moon landing experts. Oh wait, what about the low-orbit satellites taking photos of the Apollo lander section and even the lunar rovers? I guess those are fake too.
I'm a photographer as well and totally understand that if you expose for an intensely lit subject then ambient light gets reduced or eliminated. However, can you explain why the astronauts claim to not even seeing any stars? There is no atmosphere. They would have been starstruck from the view. Imagine looking up without having any light pollution or atmosphere. They would have wanted to stay there to enjoy the view and would be lost for words from the beauty of it all...if they were actually on the moon.
@@vincentgrossi4428there is an atmosphere.
They did go to the moon but j dont think they showed us it
It's just a bunch of talentless nobodies trying to get attention
@5plus4 then can you explain why the photograph that is allegedly taken while on the moon looking at the earth does not have an atmosphere? Not only does it look fake AF, but how can they expose an image of earth but not the stars all while the moon is intensely lit up in the foreground? The moon is all blurry as if they had a telephoto lense focused on earth but we know that even at infinity, most of the moon surface should be in focus as well...even though it's not possible to expose for both. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. And you have not explained why the astronauts said that they never even saw any stars.
The question is …. How can you tell if your fake footage is real?
We will never know wheter they went to the moon, or didnt..
@@playlists1168 just like we'll never really know if Finland exists.
@@grahamyates2490 that is got to be the weakest argument ever
congrats...you win the prize
@@godswill2260 it wasn't an argument as such. It was more an attempt to get Bsharporbflat to think a little deeper about the question he posed, (how to tell if something is fake or real?).
While the Moon landings and Finland aren't the same things of course, there are some parallels. Though of course, if Bsharporbflat doesn't believe that Finland is real either, the analogy wouldn't work.
Of Course the Moon Landings are True !!!! Just like Pixies, Fairies and Horoscopes !!!! I also have proof that Santa Claus is Real !!!!!
If we did in fact go I'm just curious why we haven't been back given the significant technological advances
NASA is doing the Artemis Program, we lost the technology
@@John_Gillman hahahaha
Simple. Because there was no incentive to do so. NASA and America's priorities shifted towards LEO work with SkyLab and the ISS, along with the development of the Space Shuttle, and data collection from Mars. There was no space in the budget to do lunar landings just for the hell of it.
Now, there is an incentive to go back to the Moon because we want to establish a permanent base there and a jumping off point to Mars.
We went back several times but these were expensive programs and not something that could be maintained indefinitely The Space Shuttle program was started with the hopes of having a reusable vehicle that would eventually lead to a space station then a moon station but lack of political capital and changing priorities led to a return to the moon being put off indefinitely. It's only now with Artemis that we're going back and fulfilling that goal.
Only reason we went to the moon was to see if it would be an advantage military. It isn’t. So why go back?
There is something very peculiar about the first astronauts behavior especially Armstrongs after returning if they ever did go.
That's just what Armstrong's and Aldrin's personalities were, out of the Apollo 11 crew only Michael Collins was quite good at public speaking, but there weren't many questions to him
It's very telling that none of the people criticizing the moon landings actually have any training or knowledge in these fields. And on top of that, it's a bit curious that hundreds of thousands of people were involved in the NASA missions, including Apollo, and not one of them has ever come forward with tales of secrets, etc even on their deathbeds when they had nothing to lose. Not one leak in over 50 years? No way.
I question how Nixon talked to the astronauts on the moon from a funky 60’s landline when we , in 2023 can’t get a radio station from so many miles away. That’s just one question among others.
Because the telephone was connected to a speaker, connected to a short wave transmitter/receiver at Capcom in Houston. They weren't idiots and could make it work.
@@AncientAbsWisdom Definitely not idiots if they could pull of the biggest hoax ever. Just asking questions. But, why didn’t the president just use a short wave transmitter directly? How did they hook a speaker to his landline? I’m not an electrician, just asking. Also, does the radiation from the Vanallen belt interrupt the radio waves?
@@AncientAbsWisdom It's a shame that the idiots today just can't seem to make it work with so many more resources and technology and money at their disposal . The best they can come up with are glorified roman candles that keep blowing up , and then being labeled as a success .
The landline call just went to Houston, who then simply hooked it up to the radio system they were using to connect with the astronauts. Really not that complicated.
And you can't get a radio station from a certain distance on the Earth because the Earth is curved - when the broadcast tower is 240,000 miles high, that's not a problem. They used powerful transmitters and radio telescopes to send and receive signals.
@@davids7847 I'm not following, Nixon called....Houston's home base? OK sure. what do you mean they simply hooked it up to a radio system? Hooked what up? It transmitted signals and received them in real time, uninterrupted and not able to be vandalized? Was NASA still in direct contact with Neil at the same time? Pretty dangerous to leave a man on the moon without any comms. How many RF devices did Neil have then? Buzz was operating on a different frequency?
As Neil deGrasse Tyson said (not exact quote maybe) "To fake the moon landing would be much more difficult than to actually go there".
He’s a clown bro who cares what he says😂
Well if NDT said it, it must be true.
@@danascully7358 You’re really bad at figuring out what differentiates sound from fallacious logic…aren’t you…
Do better, learn.
@@DemonDrummer Do better....stop spreading lies.
@@GreatNewsVideo Oops! You’re projecting again. Remember the time you couldn’t provide a single shred of evidence to substantiate your claim? 😉
Do better, learn.
My dad bought our first color TV a week before the Moon landing. The coverage was in color - until they showed the actual landing footage which was dark, grainy and black and white. I knew something was up.
You're stupid. Mobile TV broadcasting technology in mid 1969 certainly wasn't good, especially when broadcasting from a distance as far as the moon. Of course you'll have a distorted signal, especially when taking into consideration that the people at NASA aren't broadcast technicians and especially not the people sent to the moon.
@@davids7847 'color TV cameras required a big antenna to be set up'
It's fortunate no one thought of that in the months of set-up.
@@RonOside … they did think of it. Hence the camera in the cargo bay. It’s not like they came up with that after launch.
@@RonOside Because the first-generation lunar module’s batteries were not powerful enough and it lacked the bandwidth to operate a standard NTSC TV system, the TV pictures were filmed by a black and white slow scan television camera and beamed back to Earth, via a steerable 20-watt S-band high gain antenna installed on top of the lunar module ascent stage.
So you were stupid from a young age, huh..?
One thing that ive wondered about is in regards to its propulsion. It took 3 fuel tanks the size of a barn silo to leave the earths atmosphere, but how did the little landing craft leave the moons atmosphere? I dont see any fuel tanks in any of the photos that seem large enough to accomplish this.
#1 Um, the moon doesn't HAVE an atmosphere!
#2 What lifted off the earth weighed 6 million pounds. What lifted off the moon weighed 1700. Seriously, you can't guess why the latter required less fuel??? _STAY IN SCHOOL._
@@Tim22222
re: OP
Another amusing moment when people put no actual thought into what they publicly share.
Most intelligent boomer:
Some people would deny that you slapped them in the face, …when you just did! 😂🤣
Has anyone ever wondered why there is no HD camera streaming filming our earth from moon 24x7?
Or why there are still no UHD video of the moon surface to this day... ?
Or a drone roaming the moon streaming back?
Well there's no atmosphere on the moon for a drone to fly around in, but we do have a drone on Mars. And multiple moon rovers
Because it's all highly classified technology that every other space agency on Earth are trying to get their hands on? Live streaming it directly to them is a ridiculous idea.
With the X Rays and UV, Searing Heat and Infra Red light Blazing down onto the Moon's Surface, I can't imagine any camera would work at all in those conditions !!!!
@@spaceted3977 is that any different to what the space stations caemras'are exposed to that orbit the earth 247? I dont think so. BTW it is possible an EMF shield aroiund cameras which will shield it form any type of space radiation.
@@leealtman The Radiation inside the Earths Magnetic Field is nothing compared to that on the Moon !!!! The deep space cameras are infra red and rf so you can't see what's on the Moon !!!!
So when are they going back to the moon? We need a pt2 you know.
you ready to finance it ??
@@johnmorrison9758 with your help yeah lol
2025
It’s not ever going to happen because according to one of nasas spokesman they’ve ‘lost’ the technology to return to the moon and it’s ‘too complicated’ to recreate nowadays….. Even though we have far more advanced technologies than in the 60’s , and the moon landing used less technology than a Nokia 3210 , we’re supposed to believe it can’t be done anymore.
They can go to mars and back though!
Apparently 🤦♂️
Not anytime soon I imagine. NASA consumed something like 4% of all Federal spending getting man to the moon. All by itself. That's a fucktonne of money.
It wasn't fake. "Just look at the dirt and dust floating around." It's simple physics!
So if it were faked, they did it 6 times? Inconceivable.
Kubrick made a movie in 1980 called The Shining where he gave clues about how he was involved in the fake moon landings.
Theorists note the ways in which Kubrick changed his source material, Steven King’s novel The Shining, the story of a haunted hotel and its winter caretaker and his family. One example: In the novel, the room to be avoided, the epicenter of bad mojo, is Room 217. Kubrick changed it to Room 237. Why would you make a change like that? Maybe because the moon, on average, is 237,000 miles from the earth.
Did anyone ask Kubrick why ?
They could return to the same sound studio 6 times - yeah.
@@ask_why000 riiiight. 😘
If you want people to believe a lie, it has to be repeated over and over. The mere appearance of confidence and conviction in an official pronouncement is enough to sway most doubters, no matter how egregious the lie. Dr Goebbels was well acquainted with the technique.
@bernarddavis1050 well explain the lunar module and the tire tracks from the service module? you can see with a telescope. But I digress. 😘
Does no one else find it suspicious that not a single one of the astronauts *on any of the moon missions* would swear on a Bible that he had walked on the moon? Not even Armstrong or Aldrin would-and Aldrin punched the interviewer in the face. Why didn’t he (or any of them) just say “yes”? Seems like a simple way to get rid of controversy and confusion.
this is false as several did (not that a saying words while holding a fantazy book has any real value). and aldrin didn't punch an interviewer, he punched an asshole that wouldn't stop harassing and insulting him.
@@Agarwaen so you basically just admitted everything I said was true. Thanks 😄
@@osbon no. learn to read. firstly several did swear on the bible (and again, not doing it wouldn't be evidence for anything either. do you demand they also swear on the torah, baghavadgita, koran and say.. the elder edda too?) and the guy aldrin punched wasn't interviewing him, nor was he a journalist, but a lying sadsack taxi driver
@@Agarwaen So, to recap: you give zero evidence and engage in ad hominem attacks, while your brief paragraph is littered with red herrings. Did you never read Sherlock Holmes or take a class in logical fallacies and how to avoid using them?
@@osbonyou're calling people liars and frauds, then crying about ad hominems? do you understand the word "hypocrisy"? and you yourself give exactly ZERO evidence, then cry about no evidence. you'er hypocrisy writ large.
@4:58 totally untrue claim.
There is no radiation proof film for cameras.
The syface of the moon is exposed 100% to solar radiation which consists of gamma radiation.
There is no protection against gamma radiation other than lead, concrete, water or combination of the three.
Since all three are heavy we can reasonably suspect they were not used to radition protect the cameras or film meaning gamma radiation like x-ray passes through and leaving traces in photographic film. After all thats exactly what an x-ray is, a shadow image of your internals on folm where x-rays absorbed by the body travel slower than those hitting the film directly burning the film making it black. And the white being the shaded area where your body too the hit.
The same goes for an unsheilded camera and film.
Also photgraphic film cannot be protected against expisure to radiation since that is how photographic filmm works. It absorbs photons (all light is radiation on different wave lengths). To capture an image the film must be exposed to radiation to create an image.
To protect film against radiation prevents it creating a photograph or video if the film is moving or in modern filming digitally photos being taken and recorded simultaneously.
The photos from the moon are impossible to record on the moon but not to transmit to earth to be recorded in a 'sterile" area away from the harmful radiation.
Also the van allen belts would not be deadly for the 67 minutes astronauts would pass through it, but it would make them vomit badly within a few days, also outside the van allen belt there is no orotection from solar (or cosmic) radiation that the van allen belts protect us from on earth (the aurora borealis (northern lights)), in space or on the moon outside these belts there is zero protection.
All there is is a spacecraft that must be as small and light as possible. Weight requires fuel to lift and fuel introduces more weight.
Therefore radiation sheilding MUST be ultra light, so no concrete, lead or water, and if it was water, it would diminish its protection as it was used leading to no protection since the water would be bear minimum plus a little for contingency not an abundance of water to bring back to earth unused carrying extra pointless weight.
Then there is oh but space weight is non-existent. This is false, low gravity environments do not take mass away from an object just reduce its mass relational to the gravity field it is within.
All in all this claim of landing on the moon is false.
There has been no manned moon landing EVER.
The radiation outside the van allen belts is greater than within them and inside the two rings closer to earths surface. The more you close in on the surface of the earth the lower the radiation detected.
Inversely the opposite is true.
The moon has never had a single visit until Chandrayaan-3. As expected that went a very long way from the claimed US landings. I feel to avoid a fly over of an unlanded location.
Chandrayaan-3, landed at the south pole, why no astronauts?
We have the knowledge, right? So why no astronauts? Is it because we cant send people that WILL HAVE TO come back and die soon afterwards from radiation sickness?
This lying in science is bad for science. If we are ever to get to mars or anywhere we need people fixing the problems of space flight that prevent it not hiw to green a planet we cant get too.
If people will die soon after entering [outer] space (that is outside the van allen belt), we need to find ways to prevent that. Not pretend we can do it and its safe.
NASA (by default the US Govt) has lied about the moon for so long now they cant face the truth for fear of the harm their lie will do to the world and trust in these egregious and deceitful organisations such as NASA and the US Govt.
If human on the moon is possible we need to see and have rock solid proof humans ate there.
this is entirely false. most of the suns radiation is in the visible, or near visible (mostly infrared, and some uv) bands. if 100% of the suns radiation was gamma rays, life on this planet could not exist. radiation outside the VABs are not at all higher than inside them, nor would they make astronauts passing through them vomit. then you have some insane word salad that only makes sure we understand you have no clue what mass (or momentum) is. that you selectively chose to believe that chandrayan-3 was the first visit (meaning you claim the same people that sent it, faked the first two) is just.. absurd. and it landed at the south pole because the polar regions have craters that gets no sunlight, possibly allowing for ice (ie water) which could allow for more permanent bases. and they didn't send astronauts.. because probes are a fraction the cost.
First off of course photographic film can be protected from radiation. You said it yourself, lead or other materials provides shielding from radiation.
Gamma rays don't expose film in the same way that X-rays do. Do you ever wonder why we use X-rays to look inside people's bodies instead of gamma rays? It wouldn't expose the film. Based on what I have looked up it seems that a gamma ray might affect film a little bit, but if it was placed in a protective enclosure before and after the pictures were taken I don't think the effect would be that bad. There might be a little fogging that would reduce the contrast a little bit, but you fix that when you are printing the pictures. I've manually developed and printed my own film, I know something of how this works.
We don't even know if those belts exist. At the end of the day we appeal to authority on these matters.
@@derp8575 We know for a fact the VABs exist. You have no idea how sound versus fallacious logic actually works. Case in point, your continuous use of the latter.
Try again?
Not only were the camera inferior as far as contrast, but they were on the "daylight" side of the moon. How many stars do you see during the day?
None but i dont see a black sky either during the day
@@kYnTsoHow many stars do you see when you take a picture of a full moon?
If we went to the moon why haven't we been back? With our current technology, it would be a trivial task don't you think? Has anyone actually looked at the lunar lander in HD? It looks like it is made from cardboard and curtain rods. I recently saw a NASA video I think it was preparation for Artemis I where they were saying that they were putting a dummy in the spacecraft with various sensors to see what effect the trip would have on a human. Why the heck if they had already been there would they need to do that? We have astronauts who lived for years after the supposed moon landings that they could study. And that doesn't even take into consideration who was filming the first man to set feet on the moon. I have watched digitally remastered videos of the moon landings and they look like a bad B movie. But I think the biggest proof is that we haven't been back. Please don't tell me it's because of money, to date we have sent 135 billion to Ukraine and spent over 1 trillion in Afghanistan and the F35 program is now over 1 trillion. When you can pring money from thin air money is not the problem.
That’s no mystery. There were 6 landings & the public gradually lost interest. It’s been done & the incentives are not as high. It’s way low on the priority list. Now the focus is on sending probes on asteroids & other worlds. Not to mention figuring out how to go to Mars.
If its so trivial then you stump up the cash to fund it. Tech is not the issue, politics is what stopped it. And its actually harder with current electronics as its much more susceptible to radiation than the very basic stuff (iron cores and wires) of the original Apollo computers. The missions you are quoting are for much longer times in space, which means radiation exposure becomes much more of an issue than a trip to the moon and back.
I find it funny that the kicked up regolith is the main thing you are having trouble with. Seldom mentioned but I have always considered it one of the strongest proofs that they were actually on the moon. There is a lot of very fine material in the regality. Neil Armstrong described it as a powder. If staged on earth the finer particles would have behaved like dust and hung in the air as dust does here. In all the film from all six missions showing regolith kicked up or flung up from the rover wheels there is absolutely not the slightest indication of dust hanging in the air. Instead in every case the material follows a ballistic path and pretty much all of it hits ground at the same time without being slowed by an atmosphere. The flag as well behaves as one would expect in a vacuum. The only time the flags are moving in when the astronauts are manipulating the pole. The flag is merely acting like a pendulum, moving back and fourth in diminishing arcs unimpeded by any atmosphere. You will never see any movement after it settles if the astronauts have not disturbed it. All the other issues with lighting, shadows, stars, and crosshairs have all been thoroughly explained by people much smarter than I. It happened. They were there. The Russians would have been all over it with valid scientific analysis if any of these conspiracies had any validity.
👏
" If staged on earth the finer particles would have behaved like dust and hung in the air as dust does here"
Not if the footage was shot in NASA's giant vacuum chamber. Those clips are of a remote controlled model with a doll in the driver's seat.
@@jonsmith3945 Oh hey, you ignorant @ss is back. Why do t you specify which “giant vacuum chamber” you’re referring to. Let’s start there. Remember, you made the specific claim, substantiate it.
Do better, learn.
@@jonsmith3945 exactly mate...these people don't seem to realise the funding NASA have (from black ops)and they film in swimming pools..vacuum Chambers and C.I.A film studios with all the best lighting and cameras etc etc...and they can't seem to answer why Buzz Aldrin said "because we weren't there..and that's the way it happened" aswell as him being triggered into Mk Ultra glitches and getting violent at the very mention of the Moon Hoax.
So your counter is the russians didnt say we didnt.
Just because 400000 people were involved doesn’t make it impossible. Only the 10 people in the recording room needed to know the truth.
There's a problem with this theory. The problem is the project was not a secret, it was announced to the entire world by Kennedy when it was begun. So you have entire aerospace engineering companies, staffed full of engineers who were not in on the conspiracy. They were full of engineers who were experts in their field who designed spacecraft to get to the moon. They all had to believe that what they were doing was real and feasible. Then you have the people who actually built the spacecraft, they all knew what the spacecraft were. They would have known if they were building props. And then you have the people who tested it. Then you have the people who participated in the launch.
All of those people had to be fooled. They all had to design and build spacecraft to go to the moon that we just didn't send to the moon. Basically this conspiracy theory says that we went through all the work but then we just didn't do it and filmed a fake in a top secret movie studio somewhere.
And you think that's more believable.
How do you think that works? Does the conspiracy start work decades earlier training up every single one of those people and indoctrinating them into false science so that they would believe what they were doing?
I'm sorry but this really doesn't work. You've only made the conspiracy far larger. You now need a conspiracy to make the very public moonshot program happen without anyone knowing that it was fake, while you have the people working on the fake program at the same time.
Yes you’re right about all the engineers and experts building spacecraft and real astronauts testing them. They just never successfully did it in the timescale they wanted.
There was always a race with Russia to be the first and people in power will stop at nothing to be first. Especially when showing power on a global scale.
Whenever a new mission or goal is set out there are always different methods to achieve that goal. So with this, once they realised they were not going to land on the moon first they released the fake footage. This had been made by a handful of people in on the conspiracy, and from looking at the set and spacecraft I don’t think is so hard to believe. These people probably aren’t even around anymore to tell the truth. “If you know what I mean”
I suggest that after they probably did eventually land on the moon and have been going to it ever since. However they can not show real footage of the moon now as it would completely sabotage the so called original moon landing.
@@Jesus-is-king-4e Except every one of those engineers experienced the process of doing it on that timescale. They built it during the timeline in which they were supposed to build it. They launched it too, in full view of the world. ALL of them would have to be in on it, otherwise they would have known that the mission wasn't completed on time. The people designing it would have known that the design wasn't done when it was launched. Nope, all of those 40,000 people had to be in on it.
@@NomadSoul76 you’re not getting what I am saying. The rocket still left the launch pad with the astronauts and the engineers did complete it in time however they didn’t land on the moon.
Everyone watched the rocket take off, that’s it. After that we’re watching it on television only. You don’t believe everything you see on television do you?
Television = tell lies through vision.
Look into the first patents for the tv and you will understand why it was made.
Peace ✌️
Here's the problem you create. This wasn't some isolated project that was only worked on by a handful of people "in the know". People who make the argument that you are making can't possibly understand how NASA actually operates. Or how the government operates in general. NASA doesn't own and operate a "spaceship factory". They get funding from the government, and they use that funding to enter into contracts with DOZENS of civilian aerospace companies. NASA doesn't build anything. A company under contract with NASA builds it. NASA provides needs and specifications, etc. and those companies provide the hardware that meets those specifications. If NASA pays a company to develop a space craft capable of landing men on the moon, that company will run its own tests, and design the craft themselves, and will at the very least be CAPABLE of the task. That would NECESSARILY develop something CAPABLE of making the trip and landing men on the moon, returning safely, etc. Either there are WAY more than 10 people "in the know" or the hardware developed by private industry contracted by NASA was actually capable of landing men on the moon and returning them safely to Earth.
There is ZERO chance that a team of expert aerospace engineers, physicists, etc. who are tasked with developing hardware for a specific task would provide such hardware without knowing whether or not it was capable to the task - - - so again, the only two possibilities here are that the hundreds of thousands who worked on various hardware and sub-structures developed for the Apollo program delivered equipment CAPABLE of the task for which they were designed, engineered, and developed for NASA, OR those tasked with their development would necessarily know the missions would have to be faked - - - which would involve FAR more than 10 people. It is patently absurd to insist that a program of this scope could possibly be completely fake.......and that only 10 people know about it. Asinine nonsense.
Explain EASEP, ALSEP and LRRR. Everybody here will be interested.
Why has Joe not seen the NASA LRO images of all 6 Apollo landing sites, its available on TH-cam
And how do you know that those photos are real and not doctored? with the Tech today you can't be sure. But one thing's for sure going outside of Low earth orbit for Humans will kill you from radiation. Everything about the Apollo missions were correct, This gentlemen says hundreds of thousands of people were involved this is Correct. But only 3 people went up in the rocket. You cant see after the rocket left the Pad. The Astronaut's Never left Orbit, they just stayed in Low Earth Orbit for the duration of the Mission doing Secret stuff for the Government splashing down only after the Mission was complete from our point of View. People just Follow the Narrative and if it makes sense they will go along no matter what.
There are So many problems with the Narrative that we went to the Moon. you don't understand how easily people are intimidated to keeping their mouth shut. or you end up in an accident. Like the 3 that died on the pad in the capsule. Come on dude. How many people work in these Secret military programs Groom lake and so on and Nothing comes out. People dont talk when they know men are going to show up at your house when you speak up. 99.99% of people are afraid to talk.
Because they are FAKE!!!!!!!
U should see what gets removed from TH-cam. U won’t learn anything here
lol
the obvious answer from conspiracy nutters is CGI blah blah blah. you cannot penetrate their stupidity
NASA: we can’t go back to the moon because we destroyed the technology to do so.
….the best true answer EVER.
you can't go anywhere if there's no vehicle to get you there anymore. is this a hard concept for you to grasp?
If we don't have the Technology to go to the Moon today, we Sure as hell did not have it back in the 60's and 70's.
@@kevinswinyer3176good thing we do then.
@kevinswinyer3176 it wasn't the tech that was destroyed, it was a basement filled with tape of all the equations and math. It would take years to replace, and since we have had no mission to go back, there is no need to pay for those years of research
@@BartoniusAustinius.. that's really not accurate at all. the calculations required would take minutes, not years to do, nor was any lost in the manner you suggest.
The dust kicking up from the wheels from the moon car follow a ballistic trajectory. Good luck trying that in an atmosphere...
Nobody disputes that various countries have sent spacecraft to the moon. The question is whether they sent men there.
all the tech problems were solved, WHY can't they just go back again ? can someone tell me .
The individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” and have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.
Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. There is also no cold war imperative and no time limit publically placed on it by a president. We also live in much more risk averse times. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.
. . Hey, let's sit at home and get paid to prop up a dead horse . . we "lost the technology" -- needed as well for missile tech and satellites etc . . repetition rather than comprehension is all we need . .
Not working so well these days, even with all the sponsored activity in the forums in desperation to prop up a dead horse . . Did I say prop up a dead horse?. .
I really wanted to say it -- prop up a dead horse . .
Prop up a dead horse .
So we had the technology back then ,but we haven't been back with the technology we have now ?
Imagine if we had gone to the peak of Mount Everest in 1969 but could not or would not go back in 2024.
do you still have the technology to play an 8 track tape ?? Or even a VHS tape ?? Think before you ask. Technology changes. No way NASA would use 60s technology today, and first they would have to re-build everything.
Some people own vintage tech. Surely we could rebuild something that was easily done in the 1960s. @@johnmorrison9758
Some people do own vintage technology. They could easily fund and rebuild Apollo tech. They don't want to do it because we've never been in space. @@johnmorrison9758
Why would we go back? There's nothing useful there and no competition to get there, and no funding or policital motivation.
I'll believe we've actually landed when I can see a statue of the Rosa Mystica on the Moon with my telescope.
If your telescope is any good, maybe you can use it to look at the flags the astronauts planted there. All but one are still standing.
You first@@Sci-Que
Do you believe the dinosaurs are a hoax?
@@SamuelBlack84 Yes. Not to say there weren't any giant beasts. Just not the way we were told. Mud fossils of dragons exist, but not Tyrannosaurus rex. Hope that makes sense.
@derp8575 I just wanted to test how far your delusions went, and I now realise that you shouldn't even be trusted to open a tin of beans that are already open
And so thus us why NASA says they can't send people to the moon and back some 50 yrs plus later...?
Because they're all out of Saturn V rockets & Apollo spacecraft. What exactly do you think they should go in?
It’s called dynamic range! All photographers understand this due to film speed, aperture settings, and camera speed. Flag motion was inertia and rocket exhaust at launch from the moon! I used computers with the same ability as the computers used on Apollo, they worked well for real time work using assembly language but expensive! Anyone could buy equipment to listen in on the transmissions.
so can we photograph the lander NOW, please.
@@naughtyUphillboy We have.
@@naughtyUphillboyyes, from lunar orbit. Already done.
@@mikeb8342 Can I have those pictures/links, please ????????????????????
@@naughtyUphillboy Simply search, “Chandrayaan-2 Apollo photos.”
Have fun.
Normal people: "Pics or it didn't happen!"
Lunar Landing Deniers: "I've seen your pics. It still didn't happen."
Funny label. Reminds me of the label anti-vaxxer.
@@andrewcheshire244 “Moon landing deniers” is an accurate label. An even more accurate label is “conspiracy cultists.”
@@headhunter7616 Oops! You dropped this. 😉
*False Equivalence Fallacy:* a logical fallacy that occurs when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equivalent, simply because they share some characteristics, despite the fact that there are also notable between them. For example, a false equivalence is saying that cats and dogs are the same animal, since they’re both mammals and have a tail.
Do better, learn.
@@headhunter7616 It most certainly is, little one. The Moon landings happened. The other things you listed have no evidence for their existence. Try again? 😉
By your logic the Loch Ness Monster must be real.
The cognitive dissonance in this video is even making my children laugh. Keep it up 😂😂😂
"Radiation resistant boxes.... Radiation shielding! 😂
Just in case. 😊
Proof NASA landed men on the Moon:
1. There are over 8,000 photos available to the public of the moon landing missions.
2. There are thousands of hours of video too.
3. Hundreds of kilograms of lunar material that has been studied and verified by astronomers and geologists all over the world and showed chemical signs of being on the moon.
4. The LRRR data laser retroreflector arrays left by Apollo 11, and other subsequent Apollo missions, can still be interacted with today by using powerful enough lasers here on Earth.
5. The SELENE photos which show the damage to the lunar surface where we landed the Apollo missions.
6. The Chang'e 2 photos, which show the lander base.
7. Chandrayaan-2, which managed to photograph another Apollo lander base.
8. A group at Kettering Grammar School, using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits.
9. Pic du Midi Observatory, which watched Apollo missions all the way to the moon.
10. The Lick Observatory observations during the return coast to Earth produced live television pictures broadcast to United States west coast viewers via KQED-TV in San Francisco
11. Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and the Lunar Module. He could only detect messages FROM the lunar vehicles and not to them, cause the earth was between him and Huston. Also, backyard amateurs all around the world were able to tune in on the Apollo audio (not the video, that would have taken bigger hardware, but, the audio was easy) by pointing their Yagi and/or dishes at the moon. Hundreds (or maybe thousands?) of people in many countries did exactly that.
12. The Soviet Union, who monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, who's leader Vasily Mishin, in an interview for the article "The Moon Programme That Faltered", describes how the Soviet Moon programme dwindled after the Apollo landing.
13. The absurdity that thousands of people who worked on the Apollo missions would have to be kept silent for years and years without a single person coming forward to claim it was a fraud.
14. In October-November 1977, the Soviet radio telescope RATAN-600 observed all five transmitters of ALSEP scientific packages placed on the Moon surface by all Apollo landing missions excluding Apollo 11. Their selenographic coordinates and the transmitter power outputs (20 W were in agreement with the NASA reports).
15. Images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories. Although this probe was indeed launched by NASA, the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of an academic group - the LROC Science Operations Center at Arizona State University, along with many other academic groups. At least some of these groups, such as the German Aerospace Center, Berlin, are not located in the US, and are not funded by the US government.
16. After the images shown here were taken, the LRO mission moved into a lower orbit for higher resolution camera work. All of the sites have since been re-imaged at higher resolution. Comparison of the original 16 mm
17. Apollo 17 LM camera footage during ascent to the 2011 LRO photos of the landing site show an almost exact match of the rover tracks.
18. Further imaging in 2012 shows the shadows cast by the flags planted by the astronauts on all Apollo landing sites. The exception is that of Apollo 11, which matches Buzz Aldrin's account of the flag being blown over by the lander's rocket exhaust on leaving the Moon.
19. Spain and Australia were 2/3rds of the DSN that received all of the TV broadcasts from the moon.
20. Dozens of tracking stations around the world (including from enemies) used radar and radio telescopes to track all of the missions. You can find more info about this on MIT's site. The tracking was accurate to within 1 mile.
21. Spain had the largest telescope on Earth at the time, and used it to photograph the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon (which spanned out for miles, thus were visible to a large enough telescope), as well as the Apollo 13 debris and gas field (same dynamic).
22. There are more than 100,000 photos taken from lunar orbit.
23. The Jodrell Bank Observatory tracked the movements of the Eagle Lunar Module from the beginning of its descent clear down to the lunar surface by monitoring the doppler shift in its telemetry signal.
Do better, learn.
@@spputty2127 Sulu....raise shields!
Ha ha, has he mentioned the stars aren't visible and the sky is black?🤣
Your children are probably laughing at the footage...
and the fact that you believe it.
We Never Went To The Moon.
You didn't. 24 astronauts did.
“Joe Rogan explained…”
So let’s hear HIM explain it….
Nooooo!
@@Superstupid1 Let’s hear _you_ explain it, little one. You strike me as the type of person who knows which Crayon tastes best. 😉
Do better, learn.
. . Hey, let's sit at home and get paid to prop up a dead horse . . we "lost the technology" -- needed as well for missile tech and satellites etc . . repetition rather than comprehension is all we need . .
Not working so well these days, even with all the sponsored activity in the forums in desperation to prop up a dead horse . . Did I say prop up a dead horse?. .
I really wanted to say it -- prop up a dead horse . .
Prop up a dead horse
The only thing that that makes me question it is why did they record the live footage from a screen and degrade the quality? And how is it that the live footage was so smooth and didn't cut out or have connection problems back then? Modern trips to the moon we have had live footage problems and disconnections. Also the footage of rovers going onto the moon is always super slow FPS. Why? Why not a nice smooth video? Why has tech gotten worse for recording on the moon?
Too much detail will make people figure it out that it is fake.
The 1969 landing was filmed in a studio to give (us) a real "looking" visual . That was public !
If I had $1 for every time this bloke says "Moon landing", I'd be a wealthy man.
The talk of the Saturn V power was amazing as the Space Shuttle launch is shown.
I had the pleasure of visiting with Gene cernan for a couple of hours, at a small air show in Montana. you get a little different perspective when you can look in a man's eyes and get the story right from his mouth . I made sure and shake his hand twice just in case there was a little moondust still working its way out of him.🚀
Cernan, as with all "Astronots" who claim they went to the Moon are frauds, liars and deceivers. Remember, these guys are military men, NASA is an agency within the Dept of Defense, these people keep secrets and will lie.
Considering that moondust is notorious for getting into everything, i wouldn't even be surprised. Oh yeah, also, it smells like burnt gunpowder, AND you can be allergic to it.
It never happened. It should’ve easily been proven by the best proof in the world… video. A video during travel time or from earth as they traveled should’ve suffice. Even a photograph from a university as they entered orbit would’ve been a must do.
@@The713Sonic There's literally hundreds of hours of audio footage, hundreds of images and tons of videos from each mission and from each part of them too.
@@ok.6539Many of them "lost" or taped over. Funny coming from the greatest achievement of mankind.
White reflects light and you can actually get shadows forming away from a white fabric such as the white space suits.
Any artist can tell you that little bit of trivia.
Everybody's an expert everybody's after the 10 seconds of fame. Except how many death bed confessions have there been from NASA employees? The answer is zero.
Come on Joe don't let the deniers conn you, there were hundreds of full action rehearsals to promote realism and these were filmed, it is called practice or rehearsals.
Re. Van Allen belts... you forgot to mention that Carl Sagan was replaced on the project after his analysis of the telemetry from the van Allen belt probes proved that it wasn't possible for a human being to survive traversing it
And yet we still went.
@@kitcanyon658 we went in 1969 but we don't have the technology to do it today? how do you explain that?
@@Tokinjester : We went in 1968 through 1972 over 9 different missions to the lunar surface as well as lunar orbit.
Do we have the technology? Of course. Do you have fully designed integrated systems using new technology fully tested? No. That's under development.
Would you pull out a 60 year piece of hardware and launch yourself in it? Doubtful.
Please explain why you think going to the moon is easy or cheap. This should be good.
@@kitcanyon658 there's also documentary evidence that Apollo 11 was actually in low earth orbit when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon...you can see this for yourself in the documentary film, "a funny thing happened on the way to the moon"
Feel free to share your thoughts on those
@@Tokinjester Ignorance, feelings, and fallacious logic aren’t valid pieces of evidence. Try compelling, substantial evidence, like we have to prove NASA landed men on the Moon; works much better. 😊
Do better, learn.
What happened to the rockets after they blasted off the launch pads?? Was that somehow faked too?
this is going to blow your mind, why aren't the astronauts who went to the moon in hundreds of interviews talking about it?
they landed in the Bermuda triangle like every rocket does ,
No one said they weren't in the rockets and they didn't fly into space. Ppl simply believe they were unable to land on the moon in 1969.
@@stuart6478 They are.
Hard to say because we weren't there. Those rockets are equipped with escape hatches. The astronots slide down a slide out of the rocket into a safe room. In theory they can use the escape hatches before the launch. Then the rocket could be launched and land in the ocean, out of our view. The average tell-a-vision consumer would believe that the astronots are on-board.
Ah yes Joe Rogan the astrophysicist
Lol, I know right?
With all this technology we could actually send a rover and stream a video from the moon. "the Moon is 384,400 km from Earth and communications take 2,5 seconds; Mars is between 55,7 million to 401,3 million kilometres" Give me a break with this garbage moon landing.
The Laser Reflectors left by Apollo 11 team are still there on the Moon, working to this day. They didn't place themselves on the Moon.
So you say, but you've proved nothing except repeated an empty claim.
@@DavidLoveMore Those that worked Project Apollo know, scientists on Earth know, it's remarkably easy to verify that all the landings took place. In this case, many scientists shoot at the Laser Reflectors on the Moon as they still work to this day, although they have eroded a bit.
@@JROrg2009 Well I've not been able to confirm this by shooting a laser at the moon. And given the moon is reflective anyway, what would it prove?
@@DavidLoveMore It's an accurate way to measure exact lunar distance, and has also played a fairly major role in communications and other sciences.
@@JROrg2009 So you say.
Well. That's good enough for me and my friend, the Easter bunny.
IMMA and the Moon,
I was a part of a primary Lunar material analysis team using the Ion Microprobe Mass Analyzer (IMMA)
The IMMA system was capable of projecting a powerful Ion beam of only 3um x 6um any where on a petrographic sample section. The back scattered sample ions were then extracted by a pickup electrode and analyzed by the high resolution, electromagnetic spectrometer capable of detecting single arriving events (Ions).
The spectrometer is capable of displaying very high resolution elemental and isotopic profiles allowing the study of isotopic ratios and age dating by using known isotopic ratio decay rates.
One of the most compelling characteristics of the Lunar material we analyzed was a very high level of H3 trapped in the interstitial spaces (between crystal structures).
H3 is very rare here on Earth. The Earth, which is protected by its magnetic field, and has essentially no H3.
However, the Moon is bombarded with large quantities of Helium-3 by the solar wind.
I prepped those Lunar samples myself. And then watched the results come out on the plotter...So much for the "we didn't really go to the Moon" B.S.
It is well known that the H3 isotope could provide a safe and far more efficient nuclear energy source (initiator) in a fusion reactor. It is not radioactive and would not produce dangerous waste products."
Also, according to a recent study, mining it could be a very profitable undertaking. The energy produced by the helium-3 would be 250 times greater than that needed to extract this resource from the Moon and transport it to Earth, where the lunar reserves of helium-3 could supply human energy needs for centuries.
We're going back to the Moon. And it's not just for the view folks.
Take care out there..kunkprime
😂
Having read the comments here, you lost them after the second sentence. If they understood what you were doing, they would grasp the physics of the moon landings.
. . are you sure it wasn't your uncle or your cousin? . . next door neighbor? . .
. . Hey, let's sit at home and get paid to prop up a dead horse . . we "lost the technology" -- needed as well for missile tech and satellites etc . . repetition rather than comprehension is all we need . .
Not working so well these days, even with all the sponsored activity in the forums in desperation to prop up a dead horse . . Did I say prop up a dead horse?. .
I really wanted to say it -- prop up a dead horse . .
Prop up a dead horse .
I'm outa here...too many ignorant assholes...
If they landed on the moon, what was the need for faking it with fake photos? They couldn’t wait for the astronauts return back on earth?
I love how everything said in this video is started by "according to Joe Rogan" or "according to deniers" like those are reputable sources.
at least he's citing his sources which is better than the sources themselves lmao
@@davros_adl8155 well the malicious thing in this video is that he is citing wrongly. I cannot remember Joe Rogan saying in an episode he thinks the moonlanding is fake. He has talked about it for sure (that's where some citations come from, a completely different context) but I never heard him say he thinks it's fake, and I doubt he ever has said that, otherwise that exact sentence was used in this video, which it isn't.
If Joe supported the official narrative you wouldn't be complaining.
. . Hey, let's sit at home and get paid to prop up a dead horse . . we "lost the technology" -- needed as well for missile tech and satellites etc . . repetition rather than comprehension is all we need . .
Not working so well these days, even with all the sponsored activity in the forums in desperation to prop up a dead horse . . Did I say prop up a dead horse?. .
I really wanted to say it -- prop up a dead horse . .
Prop up a dead horse .
The biggest proof that we DID go to the moon is the fact that the Russians NEVER claimed we didnt!
The world's a stage. Everyone is in cahoots. You can't fear monger if everyone knows you're best friends, and you can't tax the living fuck out of your countrymen to fund your space agency's budget if nobody believes you can land on the Moon.
Why would they? Then their people would know they were lying too
Around 70 thousand people worked for NASA at the time and NO ONE leaked that this was all fake. If it was fake at least ONE of them who was in the know, would have come forward covertly by now. This crap show segment is such a slap in the face to Armstrong and the miracle hard work all these guys went through. You should be ashamed.
Right on.
If they leaked anything remotely opposing the landings they would most likely disappear off the face of the earth
Actually it was around 400,000 people in the USA who worked on the space program. Hundreds of 3rd party suppliers made millions of components for the program. And yes, how would you even get 10 people in a room to commit to a 'hoax'?
This is ridiculous, the 400000 people would not know about the deseption. The equipment was all real, they really built the rockets, but that doesn't mean the government and cia wouldn't have a backup plan incase something in this very long complex chain of tech broke at some late stage or found out they got something wrong. Only a handful of guys at the top levels would know its being faked the kind of guys that lie and keep secrets for a living, the guys working on the suits or the camaras etc would have no idea. So yes it could have been faked and very convincingly. For the record I do not believe it was a hoax.
compartmentalization tactics. if you think "NASA" wasn't/isn't capable of it you're simply wrong...
NASA destroyed the construction plans of the Saturn V rocket. I guess that proves how good the astronauts were shielded from radiation and how easy it is to fly the moon lander.
This is a lie, flat out. You have been misled.
No they didn’t?
Cover it up would be more difficult than the feat itself.
For some folks. . . . not for us, right?
Create a simulation, supply the data they're expecting.
The astronauts walk differently because they’re mission was to enjoy the moment. Put up an American flag.
Just look at the time Sam Shepard hit a golf ball, he was hoping around just like the 1st landing astronauts.
These men we’re truly brave men. Don’t let anyone take that away.
ffs
@@PositiveVibesVids “They” being conspiracy cultists?
Facts take that away mate, sorry.
@@deanhall6045 What facts?
@@DemonDrummer again, nice try, you fcking troll.
Astronauts also left a mirror on the moon, which is still there and you can bounce lasers off it....
Watched the landing here in Australia in late 60’s at school. Asked teacher is this real cause of strange things. Like if Armstrong was first first person on the moon .. who then filmed him on ground, as he descended down ladder ? Other thing why was flag flapping around ?
And did you get those answers? Have you looked them up yourself?
Wouldn’t astronauts comment on having seen an abundance of stars factors greater than they’d ever seen before?
No, because the sun’s full brightness experienced on the Moon (with no filtering by an atmosphere) drowns out all the stars.
Nobody questions why we can’t see most stars in daylight on Earth.
@@oscarleijontoft Telescopes are heavy and why would they want one anyway?
They did photograph the stars, go see for yourself.
@@oscarleijontoftyou’re embarrassing yourself
@@fredbloggs5902 The fact that the sky is blue during the day on Earth and black during the day on the Moon goes against what you're saying.
Yes, Sunlight is less obstructed on the Moon than on Earth, but this increased brightness is only a visual interference for deep space observation if you're looking close to or directly at the Sun. The air particles in our atmosphere scatters light particles such that there are no black portions of the daytime sky no matter what direction you look, whereas from the Moon's surface you can actually see the blackness of space when not looking in the direction of the Sun.
@@quincylee2276 You’re right except for the fact that people take photographs of things (like each other) and the astronauts wore white spacesuits. The bright sunlight reflected off the objects in the photo means the camera aperture has to adjusted to avoid overexposure. This reduces the light from the stars below the level of being seen in the photo.
Go learn something before you embarrass yourself any further.
Take a shot for every time he says radiation
you´ll die of alcohol poisoning
Ussr was beating the US in the space race in every way before the moon How many times is he gonna say according to joe rogan.
You are correct - the Soviets beat the U.S. to every milestone, but when it came to the highest tech required to actually land humans on the moon, the USSR couldn't get it done with their budget and technology. The Saturn V worked every time, while Russia's N1 failed every time. Also, the Soviet lander wouldn't have had nearly the sophistication of the Apollo Guidance Computer to navigate and automate much of the landing. It would have been interesting to see if the Soviets could have landed men on the moon if the N1 rocket worked.
@@ohger1 so why did Elon buy Twitter. That’s a extreme amount of money to spend and he is still getting bashed in the media. I still can’t think of what the bigger picture is on that move.
There is a great vid on the NR1 you want go see shy russia lost watch it
Yeah , but we beat em in hockey in 1980 and that's all that matters . Sports and entertainment is everything , and don't you forget it . Play ball ! ☺️
@@huntncover yeah but we paid a lot of money to win that game. A win is a win though
They are jumping and running and bouncing around like a bunch of drunken ducks. I would think that 250,000 miles away from earth without any treatment for broken bones or other injuries, they would be moving carefully and not taking risks.
I know of at least two people that walked on the moon Michael Jackson and Sting
This is one of the worst "Science" videos I've ever heard !
"the film was developed on earth eliminating any damage from radiation" Nonsensical BS
What thick walls? It was wrapped in aluminum foil