@@Hatasumi69 It's just disappointing to see the same mindless shit spewed out by someone deluding themselves to think they're clever. My advice to those people: tis bettr to remains silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
@@jonsmith3945 I feel as though you are ironically playing the other side of the coin; the ubiquitous, overly-cynical response to flippant comments - there's nothing new in your response or theirs, just a pair of jesters lacking cleverness and signifying nothing except that they both take the value of comments too seriously for different reasons. Perhaps we should all remain silent and if we do comment, let it at least be positive since it's been consistently proven that negative/mocking comments don't actually change a person's mindset or habits - the joke of the cynic's response is they are creating more of what triggers them in the long run while expecting unrealistic results from such low forms of entertainment, which is admittedly funnier than the original joke here at least!
Hey guys. I am 74 years old . I was a professional photographer at the very time that the moon missions happened. I used the same Hasselblad camera they used. As per Nasa. Nasa has admitted that the camera was not modified in any way. They could not have taken a tenth of those photos without adjusting the time or apertures. The guys not only could not adjust the settings because of their gloves. They also had the camera strapped to their chest. Not to mention that temperatures were incredibly high and somehow the camera and the film was made to work in incredibly bad conditions. I could go on and on about how much they faked. Those photos were taken by professionals in studio conditions. Use your discernment.
Heat and temperature are two different things. And the camera was modified enough in order to work with the gloves, the guy in this video. As for having it on your chest, they would have trained for that. Try duct taping yer cellphone to yer chest and go around taking pics without glancing down at the phone, after 5 mins you’ll find it ain’t hard.
A corollary to the 'no stars visible' argument that I've found is popular sci-fi shows. Such as Star Trek TNG where they sit around the table in the briefing room, fully lit up in normal 'office light' levels. And sure enough, just outside the window we see all the stars perfectly visible. I would argue that if the light levels in the room are typical, then you wouldn't see those stars for the same reasons as them not being visible in Apollo pictures. Only in a darkened room would the stars show up like this. Just another example where pop-culture and science collide. Many folks probably expect visible stars because of such pop-culture.
Same for the recent Artemis images - the live pictures from the real on-board cameras showed no stars due to the limited contrast, while the animated scenes, being unlimited be such constraints, showed stars in the background of moon, earth and the spacecraft, apparently to look more appealing to the public.
You should be able to take a picture of stars out in a dark field at night. You should also be able to park a white car lit up with bright spotlights about 20 feet in front of your camera and still be able to see stars around the side of the car, right? Then if you can still make out any stars change the exposure and lens aperture to make the car focus in and not just be a big blob of light and tell me if you can still see any stars.
Albert Einstein once said, if you can't explain it simply than you don't understand it. This man does exactly that he put it so nice and clear that even a child would understand.
Ok, so what did the Russians stand to gain when they claimed to have tracked Apollo 11 all the way to the moon and back? What did the Japanese, Chinese & Indians stand to gain when they announced their own lunar probes had inspected the landing sites and confirmed the landings happened? Surely they all stood to gain far more from Americans downfall than they'd ever hope to gain from siding with them
@@DaveMcKeegan Who says they had to gain anything? All the space agencies are members of the same exclusive club, so they'll support each other's fakery and lies. What would the Russians, Chinese, Indians, etc. gain from exposing the fakery, and what could they offer as proof? If they were able to expose the fakery, it would seriously undermine public trust in authority, so it's in the ruler's advantage to support the myth.
So you are attempting to use the same woeful logic used all through these comments... the fact it looks fake means it must be real. No, the fact it looks fake means it might be FAKE. The reason they did not add fake stars to the moon soundstage is because it would have been too difficult to reproduce accurately. It would have been possible for anyone on earth to do the calculations and check that the position of the stars in the pics. They would have had to project the whole sky and had it moving in synch with their claimed timings. It would have added a substantial layer of complexity with a chance of giving the game away
@@trueriverking1976It does look real though, you might just not have a good enough grasp of how reality works. But who knows, maybe one day you'll go up to the moon and confirm this for yourself
I had just turned eight. Watching the landing live with my seven siblings and parents is still the greatest birthday present I’ve received. Almost all of us sitting around our black and white console TV cried from happiness after seeing that human miracle. I later became a tech teacher because without (the proper) use of technology and highly educated and dedicated people the landing would not have happened.
I was born in 1972, but I knew about Astronomy from a young age and knew that the Moon landings happened because everyone else did, too. But decades later, to see a new generation of ignorant young people and older people deceived by the Internet defiantly state that the Moon landings were FAKE, all of a sudden, was extremely galling to me and most other people. No wonder Buzz Aldrin punched that young Moon landing denier in the face when accosted in the street, who claimed that his greatest achievement in life never actually happened DESPITE PHOTOGRAPHIC and FILM EVIDENCE to the CONTRARY!
You are a schill as you only discuss lighting and shadow issues when there are plenty of other issues that prove these photos are NOT taken from the Moon. Why don't you discuss the problem with the temperature and x-rays that would totally destroy the film?
Firstly as I explained in the opening - this is a photography channel, so I wanted to keep the video in the context of photography principles which can still be applied elsewhere However I am now already planning another video which will look into the other camera related aspects such as the film and why they wouldn't be totally destroyed. Reasons such as the special emulsion coatings that Kodak put on the film's to help reduce damage from such elements The fact that the radiation exposure on the moon is only around 10x greater than Earth and film lasts years on Earth - so a week in space won't be a problem Or that the cameras were specially modified to be silver coloured rather than the standard black to reflect light and control temperature (in exactly the same way as why the astronauts suits are white, the CSM is silver and the LEM is covered in reflective foil)
@@DaveMcKeegan regardless why not cover everything ? There's way more flaw's then just lighting It never happened we both know it By the way Nasa gets billions and billions of our tax money so don't go thinking it was not worth them lying
@@johnshaw359 Reported by who? Hasselblad themselves openly state that the cameras were heavily modified (and they should know given it was them who modified it) And Kodak's records show that film was specifically designed for NASA, based on a series of film they produced especially for high altitude cameras
Mobile phones, that do incredibly difficult thinks using computational photography (HDR, luminosity masks, focus stacking, ...) have made a lot of people think that they're "experts" in photography. Gave them and old medium format camera and some 120mm film and let's try what they can do with it. :)
That is precisely why I question the results. The photos are too perfect! The quality of the images in terms of focus, aperture, are just bang on. The amount of time, energy, and expertise required to accomplish the quality obtained is mind-boggling, which is not even factoring in the environment and astronaut gear! Not to mention, this was all done on film, and there was no ability for retakes
@yobro-eg3ic Really, the photos you just saw on this video aren't considered perfect? You have never used a film-based camera before. Have you ever made aperture and focus adjustments to a manual lens? Now, try doing that with oven mitts, and tell me how easy that is! We take photography for granted because of our cell phones. Try adjusting for focus, aperture, and scene without live feedback, and tell me how well that works out for you. I will send you my mailing address so you can send me a copy of the photos! I won't hold my breath. And when you take the photos, be sure to have a fishbowl over your head to simulate the astronaut's helmets. Everything is easy when you are not the one that needs to do it.
@yobro-eg3ic I don't think you need to convince me, I am already convinced you're talking out of your hat! I bet you couldn't take a photo with oven mitts and a modern cell phone, let alone a Hasselblad 500El.
The fact that in 2017-18 with all our modern filmmaking tech, they still couldn’t create a perfectly realistic moon landing video, shows that back in the day it would have been impossible. Also the photo cameras they used were special made for the mission, to quell any theories about how they were able to change settings.
A lot of the supposed discrepancies in the astronauts answers about seeing stars or not comes down to the basketball passing effect. There's a famous video that asks you to count the number of times a basketball is passed by one team in a basketball game- then asks a question about the game that catches people completely off guard. This is a demonstration of the effect of ignoring seemingly obvious distractions when focused on doing a job. Keep in mind that at this point there had several disasters or near disasters in the Apollo program. The Three astronauts on the moon landing missions had to be incredibly focused on what they were doing- they had a near 0 margin of error with regard to everything they did. Simply stepping into a small crater or missing the ring of the ladder as they were climbing in and out of the lander could have resulted in a fall and a damaged suit that could have killed them almost instantly. To say that YOU know you would have acted in that situation is ludicrous. There's a reason there were so few early astronauts. Those men had intense training, specialized skills, and a focus on the job at hand that bordered on superhuman. Any mistake made by them could be their last, including the men left behind on the orbiter as he was the ride home for the guys on the ground. One mistake in attitude control and the orbiter would out of position to dock with return module. If you think they had time for stargazing or playing tourist in space you are a moron. I'll listen to any of your dumb theories when YOU qualify to be a NASA astronaut. Until then you are not worth my or anyone else's time.
One of the missions had their on-board computer fail. Requiring the crew to land the mooner lander by hand. The irony was that in the panic of having to deal with their on-board computer failing, they completely overlooked the fact that they apparently had a backup computer they could have used...
@@hanro50 Because the computer was ‘blind’ and couldn’t compensate for sudden increases in gravity fields, it could put the lunar module down in a crater or on a steep slope, so the commander always took manual control in the last minute or so to ensure a safe landing area. Also, no self-respecting test pilot would let a computer do his job.
It has been pointed out that while walking on the Moon in direct sunlight, astronauts could not make out even the brightest stars, because their pupils were constricted in reaction to the bright sun, and this is partially true. The Sun’s radiation is very harmful to eyesight outside of our protective atmosphere and the astronaut’s EVA helmet that was worn over the ‘bubble’ helmet of the pressure suit had two moveable visors. The outer visor was gold coated to protect them from this radiation and also filtered out relatively dim light sources such as stars. Several Apollo astronauts reported that when they stood in the shadow of the lunar module and lifted their visors, they could easily see stars. But with the combination of both bright sunlight and the visors, it was impossible.
@@Ruda-n4h good point. It's like driving at night. Oncoming headlights- especially driver who drive with their brights on (a-holes!) make it hard to see anything due to glare and pupil contraction.
@@Ruda-n4h the astronauts had to be looking through the equivalent of arc welding shields in the harsh light of the sun which was like a bright carbon arc light. Try looking through a welding shield at the night sky and let me know how many stars you see.
Do t try to proof they ,,landed,,... even a child will understand they had no bathroom, no diapers, for a WEEK!!!! they would be covered with SHIT up to their ears!😂😂😂
@JUNGLE SURFER what do you mean the moon aint solid. If the moon aint solid how is there a reflector that was placed on its surface that you can find the coordinates of online and with a laser you can calculate the distance by shooting the laser at this one spot on the moon and counting the time it takes to get back. Then with some simple math you can calculate how far away the moon is. This really exists on the moon you can’t beam a laser just anywhere and have it returned it’s only on this one location where they put this reflector so that they could verify the distance of the moon from the earth and many amateur astronomers have used it. So if the moon wasn’t solid how the hell did they put that there
I have a question for you Brit lefty...Why does the Artemis 1 rocket have male and female dummies to check radiation and atmospheric conditions in order to determine if it's safe for human beings? Don't we "already" send about a dozen men to the Lunar orbit and surface for over 3 days in one instant?
Why do new cars go through crash tests with dummies when we've had safe cars for years? 🤦🏻♂️ That's before you even get into the fact that Apollo missions were less than 2 weeks long, where as Orion is slated to be carrying humans much further into space (i.e. Mars) so they need to make sure the crew will be safe given they'll be in space for much longer time periods
@@DaveMcKeegan crash test dummies aren’t done over and over test the effects of hitting a brick wall… they test the cars durability. They used the space dummies to test the amount of radiation and it’s effects. Newsflash we have actual humans that “did it already”.
@@DaveMcKeegan Spoken like a true liberal. There's absolutely no comparison between those two. One is impact testing and the other is radiation and atmospheric conditions. If we had sent people to the moon for only one hour, we would have enough data to make calculations for months or even years of how to human body world react or be affected by these conditions. According to the Apollo missions, human beings landed for and spent time on the lunar surface for over 3 days in one mission.
@@AishaShaw-cl6wc Which moon? The white house spokesman just said the reason China found no trace of Apollo is because they landed on a different moon. Im serious, go check. So which moon?
@@deanhall6045 There's an AFP Fact Check article about that. It's titled "Chinese social media posts share fabricated White House press exchange about Moon missions".
@@deanhall6045 - Quote "In fact the maps are detailed enough that Chinese scientists were able to detect traces of the Apollo landers, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China’s lunar exploration project."
@@deanhall6045 the LRO captured all six Apollo sites about ten years ago during its mapping mission of the whole lunar surface. Also, the Indian orbiter, Chandrayaan2, recently captured images of the Apollo 11 & 12 sites.
It's a shame that no matter how you explain the facts, there will be those who refuse to be swayed. I find the deniers usually have a political agenda or personal objection/dislike of the entity who accomplished the task. I like your approach to this topic. Just the facts.
Single, hard edge shadows are physically impossible from close up studio lights Shadows appearing to travel in different directions are perfectly plausible on uneven surfaces 🤦🏻♂️
Yes the source determines the direction but the terrain determines how the shadows lands - uneven terrain means the light has to travel further to reach some parts than others That coupled with perspective determines how it appears to be cast from the viewers perspective Hence it's possible for shadows from a single light source to appear to travel in varying directions It's not possible in any relm for a single light source to produce single, harsh shadows on an evenly illuminated large area with a light source that is anywhere close to the subjects And it's impossible for multiple lights to have been used yet only produce 1 set of shadows on an evenly lit landscape
@@DaveMcKeegan Terrain may change the size and shape of a shadow, but they should all line up, and consistent with the source of the light. So the shadows might cast longer, but still consistent with the source. On the Moon there is only one light source. So all the shadows must line up with the source, regardless of perspective. Other than the moon, can you please provide a demonstration of what you're trying to say?
@@swervedriver5260 On a sunny day stand in front of an iron fence (or similar) with the sun to your back - the shadows will not appear to run parallel from your standpoint because of the perspective shift
yeah like photographing stars during a full moon with the same exposure as daylight shots that the astronauts used! funny how conspiratards never mention trying that as a debunking proof!
@@jetpond7904 I have to say THANK YOU WHOEVER CONSTRICTED SUCH A BIG STUDIO TO FOOL EVERYBODY ...THEY PROBABLY SPEND A LOT OF MONEY FOR THE BLACK PAINT..?!😀😎👋
Maybe learn some history. The popularity of the space program fell after Apollo 11. Congress saw there were votes to be gained by cutting NASA's budget, so they did so. NASA's budget fell from 4.5% of the federal budget in 1966 to less than 1% in 1975. Lacking money to do all the things it wanted to do, NASA cancelled Apollo. With no one else buying Saturn V components, the contractors shut down their production lines. It's that simple.
69. Not 66. And no they didnt lose the tech. They lost the "ingredients" and the "chefs" as a little analogy. They could easily remake the saturn v rockets if they wanted to by looking at the one down in Houston which is a full flight capable Saturn V. There's just no need to go back
It's light pollution basically, when you're In a city with a bunch lights, you can't see nearly as many stars as you can In the country, but on the moon during the moon's daytime, the surface is just too bright. Even on earth when the moon is full, it is bouncing so much light back to us, that its hard to see certain stars and planets and galaxys with a telescope.
Spot on. I lived in a small town and now in a big city, wandered through completely illuminated streets and pitch dark forests, and I have a telescope, too. Light pollution is a big hindrance for star gazing.
@nightmareTomek I live in a very small town and I still have problems with the 1 single light on the eclectic pole going to my house. It's so bright, I can't see anything in that direction!
@@ekojar3047 xD Kick that thing! I have that idea that cities should turn off all lights between 3 and 4am. So the nerds can see nice things. I guess that's not going to happen because everyone's too worried...
Exactly why people say if you wanna see milky way. Do it far away and at no moon. You can than see it with your own eyes. Cuz there is no light source that big.
Sorry the Moons sky has no atmosphere to light the sky or distort the darkness of space, stars would be visible on the Moon on many of the shots, City lights will light up the molecules in the atmosphere on Earth, hence no stars visible in Cities, all they would have to do for a clearer immage of the sky is point the camera to the stars a little more so as to not allow too much moonlight to interfere with the image exposure to moon surface light
As someone with no interest in being a photographer at any level I am definitely hoping for more videos of a similar flavor I.e. Applying your expertise to topics that touch on broader social phenomena. I have rewatched all the moon/flat earth videos multiple times and will multiple times more. Love the channel’s style, solid epistemology & entertaining delivery..can’t ask for more.
10,000 pound thrust rocket on bottom of this tin can craft and no blast crater under it???? No blast dust on legs or feet of craft??? Where on this craft is enough space for that 150 million dollar land rover??? I'm not buying any of it......
10,000lb engine which by landing time was idling at 10% throttle - so only 1,000lb thrust Then the contact lights came on when the LEM was 5ft above the surface, at that point the engine was shut off ... They intentionally didn't want dust kicking up because that would also mean exhaust gases from the engine would be kicking up as well and risked damaging the LEM
@@DaveMcKeegan Actually it was closer to about 2650 lbs, but either way it's nowhere near the full rating of the engine. Adding to that, given the size of the engine bell, the pressure at its end was about 1.5 psi, which is less than an adult man's footprint pressure. Even if it had been a full 10,000 lbs, that's only about 1/3 of the thrust of a Harrier jump jet, and they have no problem landing on the ground, and that's even with the atmosphere keeping the exhaust in a column, rather than spreading out as it does in a vacuum. @truthjester: The rovers were only in the later missions (15, 16, and 17), folded up in an external equipment bay. You can find video of them unfolding it here on YT - th-cam.com/video/VpqhVKwByZY/w-d-xo.html
Because for you it a matter of belief not science or technology - I don't why that is, perhaps because of the collapse of organised religion in the post war period. Back in the real world the lunar surface is hard rock beneath dust; the LEM used a low pressure (for reliability) rocket engine that was firing at only 3,000 pounds thrust before landing so along with the very thin atmosphere and low gravity there was not enough pressure to produce a crater; if you look closely at some pictures of landing sites e.g. Apollo 11 you can see some disturbance under the engine. Because there is no air resistance on the moon, the blast deflected the dust sideways in a straight line at high speed - far too fast to settle on the LEM’S feet. The rover was held in the empty quadrant 1 bay in the lunar module descent stage. It was deployed by a system of pulleys and braked reels using ropes and cloth tapes. The rover was folded and stored in the bay with the underside of the chassis facing out. One astronaut would climb the egress ladder on the LM and release the rover, which would then be slowly tilted out by the second astronaut on the ground through the use of reels and tapes. As the rover was let down from the bay, most of the deployment was automatic. The rear wheels folded out and locked in place. When they touched the ground, the front of the rover could be unfolded, the wheels deployed, and the entire frame let down to the surface by pulleys.
@@aemrt5745 Maybe you visited there on a dusty space day. Still miles of atmosphere and light diffusion. Don Pettit said it was amazing high on ISS. Whatever WHY not bother? Folks still bother plenty down here, *A TRIPOD !!!!* DEAR O DEAR ! 🥶 HEAVY TOO!!!!* 🥵 Yeah those thing weight a Ton. - well there goes an other amazing nasa scientific explanation.🤯 (Hey kids👶: the Lander could of been used as tripod, already one heavy arm camera just for a step) (or one of those not heavy Rovers😜) (etc) (Long-exposure photos were taken with the Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph by Apollo 16 on April 21, 1972, from the surface of the Moon) (and research >>> Hubble Telescope. Since its 1990 launch, Hubble has changed our fundamental understanding of the universe, with space photos!!!)
@@aemrt5745 SIR thank you *very much* for your logical rations Science, I am sharing with all who just lamely say they didnt have the proper film :( Apollo play toys (aside flags & buggy rovers); golf club with 3 heavy balls, statue, metals, hammer, ceremonial objects, and more! "All of these objects were extras, so to speak, not part of the Apollo necessities." (competent mission planner approved it. And not) STARS = "scientifically worthless" ASTRO : relating to the stars, celestial objects, or outer space. A good average weight for a travel tripod should be 3 lbs (1.3 kg). 1) Fun on the Moon (links removed to allow posting) 2) Real Video of NASA Apollo Astronauts Playing Golf on the Moon More justified precious EVA time >> 3) Astronaut Eugene Cernan runs and jumps on the Moon - Daily Mail
@@aemrt5745 Again you worthy Sir You have not stated when specificly you were on the Moon, explaining how scientificly YOU know same thing? ☹ Know that if you actually understood this stuff SIR, I know not the value but presume different then from Earth. Now it is GAIN? I though it was why not! O I have a *gotcha* ?? 😃 Weight man please what Science is learned by Lunar Rover rooster tails ? [1](mass of 210 kg. The $38 million dollar Lunar Rover weighed in at 460 pounds) (greatest range from the LM was 7.6 km) .....now I am smarter than thousands of scientists 😁because I have reservations on a camera tripod issue??? 🤔(....some hysterics🥵) Personal experience in photography: first camera with an internal timer was produced in 1956, allows to place camera on the ground turned upwards without tripod 😲 (for all anti stars photographer!) If you Search >> can you see different stars from moon = all you get is excuses why none are ever seen. [1] *Astronauts on the Moon, Throwing Stuff & Falling Down, Lunar Rover, Moon Buggy* : Raw video from the NASA archive of Astronauts on the Moon. A funny complication of objects being thrown, slips and falls, Lunar Rover rooster tails, and having a good time on the Moon. What is the Gain? note: the Brain is good the Brain is *friend* USE BRAIN ! 🧠👍
*AH* seems I broke a record again! Looks a little desperate to home on that tirade not really specified as "toy", Many consider Eagle contraption as a toy that can not fly, never seen on Earth, all wonders up in Space.... Very sensitive these Winners are, on their APOLLO faith, small minds unable to think outside the box and bold enough to phantom using the steady fixed Lander (for one) as a Tripod.😲 - Very strange a Space fan, a Amateur Astronomer, visual Deep Sky observer, has so little interest in view of Stars outside our VABs bubble. Such lack of interest is due to denial, revealing impossible to fake moon sky photo existence? Those really dedicated with worship of APOLLO will know so many no gain extras were carried there and time done, as a javelin(2lbs), what is the gain for that? Again total ignoring, served only with teenage deflection of issue. 😃WELL I do love when not actually understanding this stuff *me* is asked for *Credentials* 🙃by these fairplay intelligent educated rational Lollers. I guess I just dont understood Apollo..............😜
People don't realize that the video of Armstrong giving his famous speech, being recorded from a camera on the LEM is the first footage of someone setting foot on the moon. They always seem to think that photo is.. Same as they don't understand that the video of the LEM taking off was done by remote control by a camera left on the surface, which is why the pan doesn't follow the LEM very well, someone on Earth had to time it right.
The remote control on the rover camera was operated by a guy in mission control named Ed Fendell. Due to the approximately 2 second delay, Fendell didn't get the first two launches very well (Apollo 15 and 16). He practiced a lot for the final Apollo mission and when it came time for the launch, he got it. Third time's a charm.
@@Castlelong333 What makes you think luck was involved? Obviously you have never been involved in an engineering project, And why do you think it was #11 that actually landed?
Where was the rover stored with those big tires on that little landing craft. How did they get through the deadly radiation belt, how did they communicate from the moon surface live to the earth they couldn't do it today,why are they saying they loss the technology to go back to the moon when we're far more Advanced today
1) Rover folded up into a box and went into a compartment in the base of the LEM - The LEM was designed with this compartment from the start 2) Only the inner radiation belt is dangerous, they flew around that and stuck to the outer belt 3) They communicated via radio waves - it's how they were still talking to the Voyager probes after they'd left the solar system - and they could do it today if there was anyone on the moon 4) They didn't lose the technology, they lost the ability to make that technology because it's 50 years old - none of the companies that produced the components could easily remake those components today - it would be like phoning Ford and asking them to rebuild an original Model T Yes we have far more advanced technology which is why they've developed a whole new rocket system from scratch based on the new technology
@@DaveMcKeegan 2) they actually didn’t know what was dangerous and what was not. Even today they are trying to assess whether they can cross through safely.
@@DaveMcKeegan 4) again, no one has said this… you are adding a context to the quotes that no one gave. You are literally explaining away with whatever excuse you could think of
They knew because they'd sent Apollo 4 & 6 as unnamed rockets with instruments to measure radiation, way out beyond the belts It wasn't until Apollo 8 that they sent humans out through the belts so they knew how much exposure they would face before the left Today isn't trying to assess if they can pass through safely, Orion is going to hang around in the belts so they can get a measure of weather the craft can protect crew for months at a time
As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
As I recall, the two places you showed with the mountains in the background are actually quite far apart. However, the moon has no atmosphere to speak of and there is no haze to indicate distance. The mountains are in reality quite some distance away, hence the great similarity in the silhouette as seen from those two sites. The other thing I would point out is that stars are actually visible in some of the photos, but it requires increasing the brightness of the shots to see them - they are very underexposed (as one would expect for shots exposed for the lunar surface).
@@jonsmith3945 "the mountains would also look similar from different positions if they were a backdrop" Well no, because they would be 2D if they were a backdrop and so there would be no parallax at all so there would be no difference. Unless you are going to suggest that they used a 3D background, though then you would need to also have a huge place to film it all because you also have the added complication that all of this was also shown on live TV footage.
@@kylie_h1978 By measuring the parallax of objects in the foreground, you can determine how far away are objects in the background. A Russian scientist did this and determined the backdrop was about 100 ft or so distant. I believe the landings were faked and years of debating with landing believers has not uncovered any new evidence or made a new argument to change my mind. So, save your breath.
@@chorianafricaltd.1835It’s incredibly expensive for little reward, we already know much of what we need to know about the moon. Only reason we would go back is to colonize and establish bases and that is extremely extremely expensive and intensive.
@@nino88881 Because it’s prestigious to say you can put man on the moon. But we also might have the technology to begin to inhabit the moon, so they’re likely seeing how far we’ve come.
Why reinvent the wheel, when it's sits in the Kennedy spaces centre, convenience is they key! How conveniently lose the telemetry data, how conveniently lose the footage (sorry Sir, but I couldn't miss another episode of Emmerdale, only had these cassettes, the VHS was broken). Apollo sister Artemis is a no show, not once but twice. Hell the 747 took longer to get off the ground, yet 1960's tech Apollo just works!!! Why the Saturn rockets were discontinued, but Soviets helped by selling their rocket tech to the enemy US! Never mind the bogg😂wood, 🤣🤣🤣
Apollo tech came straight off the back of 10 years of Mercury and Gemini programs ... And it begun with a crew burning to death on the launch pad What use is using the one on display? So they can do 1 more 3 man trip to the moon as a last hoorah?
@@DaveMcKeegan Chinese the technology, replicate everything bit for bit. The fuel is the same, the mission is the same. Are you claiming the vehicles in each Apollo mission is the same!!!😂😂😂
"Replicate it bit for bit" How long do you think it would take to completely document and dismantle 3 million components, then work out how to re-fabricate them, then document and rebuild the entire rocket? That's all inefficient, 60's tech ... More time and money than it would take to design a whole new rocket from scratch, a new rocket that can be designed better and more efficiently than the Saturn But all of which requires money to do - money which lots of was being pumped into launching Space Shuttles up until 2011 ... Funny that the shuttle program ended the same year development of the SLS rocket began
@@DaveMcKeegan £150 billion spent in today's money and not to mention all those years. NASA's Don Pettit state, we destroyed that technology and it would be a difficult process to build again, schematics included. Easy, it sits right there, easier to disassemble that reinvent! Do you think Tesla electrical vehicles needed to reinvent the car, or the wheel. If you shall disassemble and replicate, they shall return to the moon. Possibly Jo Biden can make that hotline call to Astronauts on the moon😂😂😂
If Tesla don't need to reinvent the car then why did they need 5 years of development before launching their roadster? When does a car manufacturer ever go from blank paper to launched car in less than a few years? Yes NASA spent 150 billion developing the Saturn, 150 billion which came from the government, who need to justify that spending to the public Each mission cost a 1 billion to build and launch By Apollo 18 the public had no interest in moon missions, so why would the government keep pumping money into missions and make themselves unpopular with the electorate? Hence NASA shifted focus away from travelling to the moon and towards cheaper, resusbale space flights
@@dogwalker666 the funny thing is that it's an experiment they can do themselves another thing they can do is track the ISS the ISS even rotating around the earth proves the existence of globe and gravity... They claim gravity doesn't exist then how is the sun even in the sky how is it rotating none of them can give an equation or scientific theory to how this even happens and just say well "God" God is what they think is a scientific theory
@@Jan_Strzelecki they tried that however when I explain that "Retro" Reflectors rotate the polarised laser light 90 Degrees which is why they are used in Industrial sensors, They spit out their dummies and run away.
They had aperture and focus control on the lens - it also had shutter speed control on the camera There wasn't a viewfinder but it was fixed on a holder on the front of their suit, which means the camera always looked where ever their chest was pointing - and look through the full archive and you'll find plenty of bad shots, they just don't get shared much for obvious reasons
@@FFE-js2zp You don't need feedback when there are markers written clearly to see - There are lenses still sold today with aperture & focus control without feedback, they still work ... All cine lenses work like this And I'll repeat my previous suggestion, go and look at the Apollo Lunar Surface achieves, most shots are boring, mundane things and many with mistakes - Buzz had 4 attempts trying to photograph the plaque that they left behind to try and make sure there was a good one
But the lack of viewfinders and no control over composition or exposure isn’t the big problem. The big problem is a half dozen photos with occluded registration marks. Plus 250F film that melts at 150F, dropping to -250F that cracks in shade, also exposed to the raw solar wind of radiation so intense it disintegrated NASA’s metal probes into dust. That’s a little more than an airport X-ray, which erases film.
I love how they credit the Hollywood producers and directors with doing such an AMAZING job of faking the landings ... yet they somehow forgot to put in the stars!!! LMAO 🤣🤣🤣
Yeah the Kubrick claim kills me when you look at 2001 it's obvious he would have been outed as a fake in less than a year. Any surface examination shows dozens of mistakes that would definitely have shown it was all wrong.
I really appreciate how well you explain all of the different aspects of this as well as also making the point that all of the arguments made in an attempt to disprove the reality of the moon landing, actually prove the reality of it.
@@johndough9020 What, you don't like repetetivity, redundunancy, and repetitiousnessess?? Then you probably don't like saying the same thing twice or saying the same thing twice and you probably also don't like saying the same thing twice or saying the same thing twice also... 🥴
You think that video and the laughable collection of comments under it prove the moon landings were real?? The only thing they "prove" to me is that 60 years after the event you still haven't come up with a half way feasible story
@@trueriverking1976 Your ignorance and your confidence in your ignorance are truly astounding. How someone can be SO WRONG and yet believe they're so right to the point of mocking others who actually know the truth, is truly amazing. And just for the record, it was a little less than 54 years ago.
No, let's talk about the actual LM, which had a pressure hull made from aircraft-grade aluminium, covered in sheets of very thin aluminium that served as a micrometeorite shield. The LM whose descent module was covered in sheets of metallized mylar, which served as heat insulation. Underneath that, you had honeycomb sandwich panels that formed the structure. The LM was built to function in an environment with 1/6 G gravity and no atmosphere. Every part of it was purpose-built for the lunar landing. The LM had to be as light as possible, which drove every aspect of the design. Only the uninformed will look at it and complain about how it looks.
Are you that guy with the aluminum lawn chair and weather balloons that took a joyride through Los Angeles' most congested airspace? I congratulate you on your engineering and navigational acumen! Seriously though, you may want to look at these: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html This stuff is just not that hard to find if you would just take a little time to do some research.
All the naysayers are free to think what they want to think. I, on the other hand, DO believe we landed on the moon. Our astronauts are HEROES....AND ALWAYS WILL BE, FOR WHAT THEY ACCOMPLISHED.
As a cinematographer / director / photographer .... it's beyond laughable that anyone can conceive that there are meant to be stars when you expose for an image on the moon. You would have to have likely a 5 minute exposure on a tripod on 160 ASA 65mm E6 Slide film to get ANYTHING close to even bringing out any detail beyond the lunar surface. Secondly the cameras were fixed to 5.6 or f11 from memory, which is what nasa predicted the exposure compensation would need to be to shoot the LUNAR SURFACE, not the stars beyond as they can do that from earth. Go grab some 160 ISO medium format film, stick it on a tripod, point it up at the sky, open the shutter, see how long it takes you to expose for the sky with the same rated film. Earth or moon ,Saturn or Jupiter, makes no difference.
To put it into perspective.. Stars and galaxies put out around 25 lumens when viewed from Earth. In Space that number is around 40 lumens. The sun puts out 13 Quintillion lumens of light. When you think about your average street light being bright enough to wash out starlight, what do they expect when you've got brightest object in our solar system lighting things up.
Lighting things up? What do you mean? Like how, here on Earth, the Sun causes the atmosphere to glow blue, on a clear day? Except there is no Earth-like atmosphere on the Moon. So, your comment about your average street light being bright enough to wash out starlight, does not apply, because that is also dependent on the presence of the Earth's atmosphere. Nah, the argument is misrepresented and presented as a strawman argument here, yet again. It has nothing to do with photography. WE KNOW, using regular camera settings, stars won't appear on film. It's been established a long time ago. No need to keep recycling the same old, tired strawman argument. The issue is SEEING stars from the surface of the Moon, by Apollo astronauts allegedly standing there. And not one of them mentioned seeing what would have been a lunar sky filled with the brightest, sharpest points of light. No atmosphere means no twinkling. This guy, in this video, is conceding that the stars would have, should have, been there to see, but just wouldn't show up in the photographs. Fine. Except, as I said, no astronaut has mentioned ever seeing any. After Neil Armstrong said stars could not be seen, at the Apollo 11 press conference, that had to become the official word on the matter and, ever since, the issue of seeing stars in outer space, not just on the Moon, became problematic for NASA. Cue the excuses... _The astronauts had tinted visors._ Tinted visors that could be retracted up into the helmet. We have photos and video of that. _The Sun was blinding._ For every mission, the Sun was within a few degrees of 15 degrees above horizon. That is relatively low. Meaning, it would have been easy for an astronaut to turn their back to it. _The reflection off the surface was too bright._ Nope. The Moon's surface has an albedo of about 15. Meaning, it's about as reflective as worn asphalt. Not white as snow, as some Apollo imagery depicts it as. Go ahead and find the photo of Buzz Aldrin saluting the flag and try to tell me what is supposed to be the lunar surface, would be blindingly bright. Aldrin has his visor in the upright position, in that photo, by the way. _The astronauts were too busy to notice._ Yeah, sure.
@@FakeMoonRocks Even with the tint eliminated, They still had transparent solid glass or plastic over their faces, and sunlight lighting up the surface of the Moon. Turn the lights off in your house and try to look through a glass window and see stars in the sky. You might can see Jupiter or Venus (bright planets) but virtually no stars. Sirius might be bright enough to see.
Another reason for the direction of shadows not appearing parallel is the topography of the moon. Mythbusters did a good recreation of it using a model so good that it made yours look like a Lego figure stood net to a ball of tin foil!
Another factor in play with the images of Buzz Aldrin exiting the LM and descending the ladder: Neil Armstrong's suit. It acts as a reflector, backfilling the shot. Nvidia simulated the graphics of the shot and couldn't match it up until they realized the direction the extra illumination was coming from. There's a TH-cam video covering their efforts.
@@williammcconnell2576 Interesting comment, which I've heard variations of for the past 50 years or so. But I'm not sure which side of the discussion you're on, just from that. (Oh, and the ALL CAPS mode is only required if you intended to be "shouting" the comment, FYI.)
Another point about the "fill light" is that I suspect Armstrong is standing in full sunlight to take the picture and blasting Aldrin with reflected sunlight from his lily-white spacesuit. Armstrong constitutes a HUGE fill-light reflector.
Indeed he is. When NVidia tried to recreate the "Aldrin on the ladder" photo, they couldn't get it right _until_ they've realized that they haven't accounted for the light reflecting off the Armstrong.
In fact, if you look at the photo of Aldrin coming down the ladder of the LM, on his boot overshoes, you can actually see the reflection of Armstrong's white EVA suit. Look at the heels of Aldrin's boots and you will "see" Armstrong. The reflection is directed right at the position of the camera (Armstrong).
@@narajuna Are you suggesting that Armstrong should have waited for better lighting to take this iconic photo? Or that Buzz should have waited inside the LM? Or that they should have moved the LM to face the Sun?
@@johnguilfoyle3073 That is thee Question! Am I or not.... far as I gather he is creating the Lighting ( standing in full sunlight to take the picture and blasting Aldrin with reflected sunlight), so if shaded would not be any "fill light" right? Lord o Apollo who knows what I am suggesting. ps: abnormal (or retarded?) to take a surface photo directly facing (low) SUN (no atmosphere= morning full blast SUNRAYS)
@@ghassangebrail2495 No, you just have to follow the evidence, and apply the laws of physics. And those tell you that these photos cannot be taken on Earth.
Why does it require gravity? Flags on Earth don't move because of gravity, they move because of wind There is no wind on the moon which is why it's on a spring loaded arm along the top that holds it outwards
@@DaveMcKeegan gravity is force. The only reason anything moves. Force=g m1m2/d2. The moon is in earths orbit due to the fact it weighs less than the earth and its pull of earth keeps it in orbit. With out the pull of the earth gravity objects do not move at all.
To take the pictures, they would have to use the most insane flood light ever created. Baseball stadiums use dozens of lights to make it like daytime for the players to see. They also have 4 or more shadows following them on the field.
@@bodvarson1933 The fact that there are no stars in the Apollo photographs simply shows that NASA knew how to work a camera, because of the short exposure times required to take pictures, given the brightness of the Moon's surface in daylight. Photographic techniques of the type required to hoax a moon landing did not exist then.
It still remains odd to me that USA didn't go back after 1975, no-one else went there after, and non of us can as yet go there now (give me a long range space drone (/^v^)/...) and as such both sides are conjecture, but why has no-one visited there since? :-Y ...
Space drones - a.k.a probes, have been back China, Japan & India each set their own probes that examined the landing sites, all 3 acknowledged that there is hardware left on the moon by Apollo and that the landings happened
@@DaveMcKeegan no I really meant a drone like ordinary ppl have, but could go where ordinary ppl can't, to investigate these flag and footprint sites non of us can investigate, because we don't have space equipment. It's alright for ppl to say THEY'VE seen these sites, but we cannot, is my point. China would never confirm USA landings, as they threatened to land there just before lockdown, and NASA panicked :-y
@@finjay21fj So you're completely ignoring what Dave said, as well as the fact that 3 different countries have all photographed the sites and confirmed what's there. Why?
@@critthought2866 maybe I'm wrong, but you asked why. I keep saying that non of us have anything to go on but what we're told, I can't blame anyone for assuming what hey are told is correct as they see it. But we don't see it, we merely hear what ever they tell us. Religious believe "this meat is unclean" all the way to accepting their righteous leaders can freely burn so-called "witches" at the stakes. We were happy to let them do that as we believed the propaganda they told us, we had nothing to go on, we believed what they said, innocent ppl burned. Today we still believe whatever they tell us - from lockdown to "dangerous ecigarettes" to things we can't confirm, like lunar landings. We simply believe what we are told, unquestioning, like willing lambs to the slaughter. Foolish tho it was, we went into not one but TWO world wars, willingly, like lambs to the slaughter. We simply believe what they tell us so willingly - now believe what you want, you'll believe exactly and fully what they tell you, as is their want.
We have at least three light sources in studios and only one shadow... It's called "cinematography"... The art of faking reality. An easy task for even a beginner DP. You're ignoring hot spots clearly visible in many photos and you're not taking into account the type of cameras used vs their gloves which made changing aperture virtually impossible.
3 light sources will produce 3 shadows - just that the key light will produce the most dominant shadow However seems you're ignoring the fact that those additional lights would lighten the main shadow so it wouldn't be solid black You're also ignoring the 25m2 of reflective surfaces on the LM next to where the 'hotspots' appear - and the adaptations made to the cameras to facilitate the astronauts using gloves
@@DaveMcKeegan you don't know much about studio lighting it seems... It's all about position and direction. I can position fill lights to splash onto a subject without affecting shadows. I can keyhole barn doors on a light to prevent splash from hitting anything BUT the subject. Camera adjustment was virtually impossible by the astronauts according to NASA. That was one of their first excuses as to why there were no star pictures ever taken. They claimed to have preset the exposures on the cameras.
@@MississippiDan1 Yes but those would still impact the shadows on the subject 🤦🏻♂️ The adjustments were done via the control rings on the lens - Zeiss installed large levers on each ring so they could be changed with just 1 finger pushing against it - settings remained for the most part unchanged, with the only thing the astronauts having to do with is change the aperture between f5.6 and f11 depending on if they were shooting at a sunlit part of the moon or a shaded part
@@DaveMcKeegan No, they wouldn't if they're positioned correctly... have you ever used barn doors or silks? I can put a slice of light through a scene without affecting visible shadows. The shadow cast by the fill is up and not down, making it invisible to the viewer and camera. (Low light pointed upward) You can see a clear tell as the astronaut descends the ladder in shadow, there is a hotspot on his boot momentarily... As far as camera adjustment, with no way to look through the view finder... 8000 pics exposed and focused perfectly. So clearly you can see a letter "C" on one rock? Nonsense... That's impossible with a digital camera that has auto focus and a built in light meter.
@@MississippiDan1 You think you can put light through a barn door that throws light on a subject without affecting the shadows on that subject - seems you've found a way to defy physics As for 8000 photos perfectly exposed and focused - have you even looked at the original film scans? The most famous photo from Apollo (the full length shot of Buzz) is underexposed, misfocused and badly composed to the extent of cutting off part of his suit Cameras were fixed ridged to their chest with the equivalent of a 35mm full frame focal length lens - it's fairly easy to get a subject in frame holding such a camera against your chest - i've done it Maybe take a look at some of the 360° panaromas taken during the missions and show us where the extra light sources are placed
Yup. But even funnier is the fact that these denier blockheads 'think' (loose term) that white dots on a black background are impossible to fake for some reason.
There aren't any. Geologists all over the world have examined lunar samples and not one has concluded anything but that they were not of terrestrial origin. And before you or anyone else brings up the Netherlands and their supposed moon rock, that story has been debunked for quite a long time.
@@jonsmith3945 That's true. But it does show that, unlike the initial claim, they were not "regular rocks," nor were they somehow found as pieces of meteorites that fell to Earth, another claim made by landing deniers. Their structure is consistent with having formed in a near-vacuum under low gravity conditions, and having been bombarded with micro-meteorites and radiation as is found in the solar system.
@@critthought2866 The point is that all those attributes you list could be true of rocks formed elsewhere in space. There is nothing in there identifying the rock as specifically lunar. Furthermore, the rocks could have come from meteorites. Remove the crust and voila! NASA had a device to simulate micrometeor strikes. It wasn't until after Apollo that Scientists could identify lunar meteorites. Because they had the same attributes as the samples they were previously given by NASA. Then again, the Moon rocks are said to be remarkably similar in composition to Earth Rocks.
Makes me laugh as not one person who worked in NASA has ever said it was fake over the years and surely someone would have said before now....give it a rest
What proof could that person offer? You think their word is sufficient and they would be believed without question? Most people at NASA wouldn't even know it was faked. Only those in 'need-to-know' positions. Even the guys in the control room woulddn't know. Flight director Gene Kranz has said the training simulations were so realistic, that the control room guys wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a practice run and the real thing.
@@jonsmith3945 Experts spanning the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, and photography all say we’ve been to the Moon, and it’s usually a good idea to defer to experts on matters in which you are, in fact, not one. It was one of the most public events of the 20th century viewed around the world and would have to have been a conspiracy involving hundreds of different people from many different countries over decades, including Great Britain, the former Soviet Union, France, Australia, Italy, Germany, China, Japan and India, from which not one credible witness has ever emerged. It would also have been impossible to cover up for such a length of time; the Watergate conspirators couldn’t keep their escapade silent for more than a few months. Photographic techniques of the type required to hoax a moon landing did not exist then. The dust thrown up by the rover lands in a way impossible in an atmosphere as on earth and there is so much third-party corroboration; for example, the spacecraft were tracked to the moon, the rock and soil samples have been authenticated by many different scientists around the world for decades. Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes have also photographed and or observed the equipment left behind at various Apollo landing sites.
@@Ruda-n4h Thanks, I 've heard that all before and find it wholly unconvincing. I believe your faith in experts is misguided. After all, the experts told us the C19 vx was safe and effective. You still believe that?
"surely someone would have said before now." that's a completely baseless assertion, so an invalid argument. Most of the NASA workers were tricked along with the public. Only a few needed to be in on the ruse. But keep laughing...it's good for you.
So just tell me . If you were going to tell me the Biggest Lie and want it to last / 1st you would have as many people involved in it as possible / 2nd You will also have more than one conclusion covered if a question is asked about it / 3rd Make sure the chain of command is strictly enforced and hold people accountable for just their job in the story and make sure that they ask no questions on anyone else's job in it / 4th Last but not least -later if someone asks about why you have not done it again just tell the you lost your home work and can not figure out how to recreate it again . I SAY IT IS ALL B.S.
@@thunderstorm6616 "fake it never took place and never will" This is wrong! 7 missions, 6 moonlandings and, 12 men walked on the lunar surface. deal with it shortbus.
I'm really enjoying your videos. You directly address them and steelman their arguments, just to proceed to explain + show how it works in real life, with well crafted explanations and footage. If I ever made a video on this topic, this is the kind of video I'd like to make. Thank you so much.
Don't bother with logic and demonstrated truth with deniers - they don't use them in their religion. The parallels with religious delusion are many; note the way that when one sound argument which explodes their idiocy is given, they simply ignore it as though it had never even been given, and move on to the next bad argument without even an apology, acknowledgement that they were wrong, or even a pause! Just like the religious, and the 'flat earth' mob.
You are correct to an extent but the difference here is that we can prove the moon landings happened but none of us can prove or disprove the existence of God. Religious people believe because they choose to believe.
The only thing proven here is the answer of this question... How can you reveal an idiot in less than 17 minutes? Sorry. But in the autumn of my life I have no patience for someone who has no clue what they speak of but pretend otherwise.
As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology. No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
@@DaveMcKeegan You can film in sunlight on Earth. Or you can 'doge' the exposure in the darkroom to make the terrain look evenly lit. Some photos show clear signs of light pooling.
@@jonsmith3945 You don't get jet black shadows from sunlight on Earth though because there is no atmosphere, which normally refracts light and makes the shadows appear brighter
This guy didm't want to talk about about the other questionable pictures that would be hard to explain, like the one with the letter "C" on a boulder, or the one where you can see the Earth on the moon's sky. That one picture was proven to be photoshopped and NASA took it down on their official website .
So, you say that you're more knowledgeable than the entire branches of science such as astrophysics and geology in addition to related specialist fields and cognate disciplines such as aerospace engineering, rocketry and orbital mechanics. That you have more thorough knowledge than Nobel prize winning physicists, More critical thinking skills than Pulitzer awarded investigative journalists. More understanding than historians worldwide. That you have some 'insider' information that negates the accumulative knowledge of entire independent nations and their 76 space agencies, and who have worked for in excess of half a century, all collectively co-opted and coerced by NASA? Meanwhile a random nobody on the comments section of a TH-cam video such as yourself, decrees them to be morons and claims to know better. Perhaps you should visit some of them and put them right - don't forget the let them know that the University of You Tube sent you. 🤣
They are only questionable photos to those that do not understand what they are looking at. Lacking in the understanding of optics, light, exposure, film does not help either. Questions are valid, but making up answers shows a few lacks.
@@UnstableNucleus Yes, and that as well. But during all SIX Apollo Moon Landings, especially Apollos 15 16 and 17, a considerable amount of science activities were carried out.
*A FUNNY THING HAPPENED* WHEN NASA SENT NINE APOLLO MISSIONS OUT TO THE MOON eight successfully completed their missions, six of which landed two of their crew on the Lunar surface. Those were Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 Now how about that !
@@TimeMasterOG Yes. All the Apollo Missions had a considerable level of risk. They had a real tragedy with Apollo 1 and a near disaster with Apollo 13. All the Apollo Astronauts and those of the Mercury and Gemini test orbit missions were crazy and foolhardy individuals who knew the risks and took them. Nearly all of them were military personnel anyway.
It took only 1 min and 32 seconds before the words conspiracy theorist was spoken. His body language and tone told me from the start that this was not going to be a fair impartial review, that would resolve any questions. Within the first minute he states that "in this day in age why would anyone dispute the facts" and also "thousands of digital pics are on multiple government sites for us to view". As if giving people accessibility to these pics, enforced the idea that they are legitimate. I have a family member that is a professional photographer, with 20 years experience. Those pics were not possible due to the available technology available for the equipment, the heat on the surface of the moon, the limitations of the space suite and gloves. They were not able to adjust settings or focus the lens due to the suit and gloves, and the cameras had no view finder. The factual list goes on and on. Do your own investigation and keep an open mind.
Anyone who believes an official statement is a lie to deceive and hide the truth is by definition posing a theory of a conspiracy - it's only not a theory once it can be undoubtedly proven as true As for "fair impartial review" - this is off the back of many years listening to the claims of people who believe it was faked, and systemically looking into them with an open mind - and every argument ends up being based on either misrepresentation or misinterpretation For example in your own statements about heat on the surface of the moon - people take the values of 250°C to -130°C and immediately dismiss the landings as impossible, which is not being open minded it impartial because it completely overlooking the fact the moon doesn't go through 24hr day/night cycles like the Earth does, it goes through 28 day cycles which means with the sun sitting fairly low in the sky at the time of the landings, the temperatures would have been absolutely no where near either of those figures and was instead somewhere just below 0°C The other points you raise also have glaring flaws in them (despite you portraying them as facts) such as how much control they could have on the cameras when taking pictures These I will be covering in a further video because there are lots more points people have since raised that I want to address
@@DaveMcKeegan They're not likely lying, I'm accused of it all the time, yet I never post anything I know to be false. If something is false, then it's simply because I'm wrong. There's no motive to lie here.
The camera bodies and the magazines protected the film against most of the radiation, but they weren't able to fully protect them and so some of the film does show some damage from radiation. People have this idea that all radiation requires lead shielding - indeed someone the other day tried to tell me he'd been taught in the armed forces that four feet of lead was needed to shield from the Van Allen belts - but that is not the case. The shielding provided by the craft and the spacesuits was enough to protect the astronauts (and the film) from most of the radiation.
or from the vacuum, a fact about the Hexagon Spy Satellite: "The whole camera system operated in a vacuum, except for the film which was in a pressurized container," explained Pressel.
Ran into a guy that thinks that light needs a medium or an atmosphere for things to be seen. Literally thinks that without an atmosphere there would be only darkness.
The guy you ran into was wrong but actually the worlds best physicists were thinking along those lines in the 18-hundreds. Therefore they postulated the ether as a medium for light and radio waves to travel through. Einstein and many others resolved the matter in the early 19-hundreds and showed that light indeed can travel in a vacuum. There is also the possibility that your friend is confusing light and sound ...
What’s really impressive is how well the pictures are framed, taking into account that the cameras were strapped to their chest and they didn’t have a viewfinder.
Sinclair J Lots of photos were not perfectly framed. In fact one of the most iconic photos from Apollo 11 of Alden has the top of the PLSS cut off. Also they practiced with the cameras during all Lunar EVA training. They got pretty good at aiming for the most part. They also used a 60mm lends which on a Hasselblad is a bit of a wide angle lens so that helped in framing the photos as well.
no they don't have to jump anywhere.. they just edit it today.. and say it's an original when it's clearly not. and no one can prove or deny.. same thing with watching a nasa live feed. it's all bullshit cgi animation
and again.. that aren't going to let anyone try to prove it or deny. they'll be quick to call you crazy though.. and argue with you like a bunch of 16 years olds.. lol
@@kylegroenewald8341 Do you want to challenge my story telling capabilities? There are two time machines. One built by Tesla (the man not the car). The other was brought by Little Green Men to area 51.
If all you spend is "one look", you only have a superficial first impression. Dig deeper, and you'll see there are excellent reasons for the way the LM looks. This is a machine that is built for one purpose: to land on the moon, and take off into lunar orbit. The weight limits they had to work with meant everything had to be optimized for that one purpose. The LM wouldn't work in an atmosphere. It could barely stand on its own feet in Earth gravity. But none of that matters because it didn't have to do those things.
Another " expert" who tries to make a name for himself, attempting a debunk, but fails. Personally, I still doubt that the ground can illuminate well enough, when the subject is in shadow. Now if there were reflectors of some description that were placed outside the shadow area..... Maybe. Then there's the poxy little aerial, 20 watts, receiving and transmitting quarter of a million miles, not even a hint of loss or interference, just no.
Claim I'm failing as an 'expert' Then asserts a bunch of opinions based on no actual science 🤣 The radio transmissions were far from clear, and what exactly is there in that quarter of a million miles that would cause that much interference?
There was a poxy little aerial with a 20W transmitter on one end, and a 70 meter dish antenna with a cryogenic receiver and tens of kW of transmitter power on the other end. This gave an excellent link budget which allowed TV transmission along with audio and telemetry. They still had regular trouble with transmissions - this is especially noticeable for comms to the CM, which was moving so it had to adjust its antenna. The LM was stationary after landing, so its link was more stable. Next time, read up before commenting.
You'll see some of the very bright stars occasionally but not lots If you look at the high resolution copies of the moon photos there are occasional stars which appear
@@DaveMcKeegan I don't think so, Venus does just about manage to appear in some photos. What some think are stars are merely defects in the emulsion appearing as bright specks. I was told that somebody had identified some real stars in photos taken on the surface but I remain doubtful. If you have information confirming real stars (in photos taken from the surface and not from the Apollo 16 UV camera) then I would be very interested.
Have you ever tried to photograph stars? try it. and in space, with sun thats always there? you can only see stars in the morning before sunrise, never afterwards. But like i said, try photgraphing stars when another light source is present. You wont be able to
It's all hypothesis and conjectures done on a chair with a dog in your lap. The proper way is to use the top of the line equipment of that era to reproduce the scenario and compare the differences quantitatively. Publish and peer review
Which is why I've used experiments in the video which show the fundamental behaviour of light The camera being used doesn't change that, it's behaviour that you can witness yourself on a daily basis It just gets ignored by deniers though because it doesn't suite their argument
Unless you have access to a vacuum chamber, it would not be possible to reproduce the scenario, even if you could somehow replicate the way the light of the sun at that distance would work. But physics is physics.
Dave: *_"If you are imagine that you are standing on a railway track, preferably not when there's a train nearby..."_* In the case individuals from the _Apollo Moon Landing Hoax_ crowd, I would respectfully disagree...😉
Because why? Getting to the moon was the goal in 1969 Now that we've been then what's the point sending 2 men back for 3 days with hardly any equipment ... What would they manage to achieve that can't be done with rovers? Hence the focus is now on craft that can sustain larger crews for longer periods
It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. So NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS). Making the Space Shuttle reusable meant it became a large, heavy spacecraft, which couldn't carry enough fuel to escape from Earth orbit for lunar missions. That doesn't mean we "lost the technology" to do manned lunar missions, it just means we chose not to do manned lunar missions for a while. NASA's budget these days is 30% science (Earth observation, planetary science, astronomy), 30% human exploration (SLS, Orion, Artemis), 15% R&D and operations, 15% ISS.
Chernobyl 1986 on the roof of reactor number workers or ‘liquidators’ as they were better known, toiled for 40 seconds, radiation exposure as high as 80 msg per second, thousands died. How do we know this, there are still photographs taken with a camera. And there is a photograph of the most radioactive object on earth, the ‘elephants foot’ the man who took the first photograph died but the picture survived
@@jonsmith3945 it’s like what Jong said. But there is further evidence, the fact that radioactive fallout from the explosion at Chernobyl was found on the hills of northern England, which led to a three month ban on eating beef, lamb and dairy from local farms in the area. With this in mind it wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine that such photographs exist. And furthermore, why would you fake pictures of men on a roof of whom thousands died? The Russians tried to cover up as much of the effects of the Chernobyl accident as possible, which could explain why the Russian soldiers who took over the Chernobyl power plant during the early days of the invasion of Ukraine possessed maps that predated the explosion. They dug trenches in the Red forest, the most contaminated area in the exclusion zone. So again why the photographs? Of course, one could argue that the Russians, who supposedly were involved in the moon fakery from day one, did fake these photographs in order to bolster the idea that it was possible for NASA to take photographs on the moon….?
@@ReValveiT_01 If you studied the subject, you'd know the real ones are all connected. The rest are 'fake' conspiracies like Flat Earth, promulgated by the Intelligence Agencies to muddy the waters and keep you from examining the real ones like the New World Order, now rebranded as the Great Reset. Yes the real conspiracies run far, far wider and deeper than you can even imagine. But I'd advse you to stay away frrom conspiracy theories. Instead, enjoy your bliss while it lasts.
Dave: *_"Now, there are countless arguments that people put forward as proof that the landings were a hoax. I'm not going into all of them."_* *SPOILER ALERT:* Dave eventually goes into all of them...😉
11:43 There is no atmosphere and large mountains can appear close by, because there is no natural haze that we get on earth that helps us gauge the distance. Hence the photos can be taken at different places but the mountains looks the same because they are actually further back and bigger.
There's an interesting video from one of the landings where the two astronauts see what they think is a small hill nearby and decide to go check it out. They are hopping over there for a minute or two while chatting before realizing they aren't getting any closer. It was at that point that they realized the small hill nearby was actually a large mountain far in the distance. We are adapted to using atmospheric haze when gauging distance, and the lack of atmosphere really messes with that ability.
We're missing a trick here, forget that for ages 11+ tin can lego rubbish, just take those hassleblad containers the camera reel went and came through Van Allen 'Morrisons' belt 😅😅😅
@@cocobeware9442 You're arguing from ignorance. In 1958, James van Allen and his team at the University of Iowa discovered the belts that were later named after him, using measurements from the NASA missions Explorer 1. With Explorer 3 and 4 and Pioneer 3 he measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels. Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy). More details in this video from Scott Manley: th-cam.com/video/h9YN50xXFJY/w-d-xo.html
Corridor digital and Nvidia did a video on this showing that with their latest ray tracing the pictures are accurate. They built a complete 3D copy of the lunar surface, lander and astronaut then lit it with a single light source and got identical pictures.
really.... do you 'think' or do you have irrefutable evidence that the 9 Apollo missions to the moon and back were all faked... if so please show us.. something like this.. 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 and the flags. 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.
@@AintMadAtIt 1. No, I didn't, and I still remain the only person in my entire family that has yet to receive the COVID jab (I refuse to get it) 2. What does the COVID jab have to do with the Apollo missions?
Beautiful. Simple, fact based description of why this is obvious to anyone who cares to learn about the way this stuff works. Just doing a dive into this channel after your conversation with MCToon. Such fun and entertaining vids, while being packed with information. 👍
Stanley Kubrick directed the moon landing. He was such a perfectionist that he insisted on doing it on location.
An oldie but a goodie.
Wow, first time I ever hears that! Did you make it up yourself, or did you have help?
@@jonsmith3945 Acting like everyone writes their own jokes and expecting original comedy material in a comment section. 💀
@@Hatasumi69 It's just disappointing to see the same mindless shit spewed out by someone deluding themselves to think they're clever.
My advice to those people:
tis bettr to remains silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.
@@jonsmith3945 I feel as though you are ironically playing the other side of the coin; the ubiquitous, overly-cynical response to flippant comments - there's nothing new in your response or theirs, just a pair of jesters lacking cleverness and signifying nothing except that they both take the value of comments too seriously for different reasons. Perhaps we should all remain silent and if we do comment, let it at least be positive since it's been consistently proven that negative/mocking comments don't actually change a person's mindset or habits - the joke of the cynic's response is they are creating more of what triggers them in the long run while expecting unrealistic results from such low forms of entertainment, which is admittedly funnier than the original joke here at least!
Hey guys. I am 74 years old .
I was a professional photographer at the very time that the moon missions happened. I used the same Hasselblad camera they used. As per Nasa. Nasa has admitted that the camera was not modified in any way. They could not have taken a tenth of those photos without adjusting the time or apertures. The guys not only could not adjust the settings because of their gloves. They also had the camera strapped to their chest. Not to mention that temperatures were incredibly high and somehow the camera and the film was made to work in incredibly bad conditions. I could go on and on about how much they faked. Those photos were taken by professionals in studio conditions.
Use your discernment.
agree. this dave is not a photographer. this dave is try to debunk with obvious arguments that don't prove anything.
You're dense af
@@Iserate truth hurts
Heat and temperature are two different things. And the camera was modified enough in order to work with the gloves, the guy in this video. As for having it on your chest, they would have trained for that. Try duct taping yer cellphone to yer chest and go around taking pics without glancing down at the phone, after 5 mins you’ll find it ain’t hard.
@@niksandy7125 easy to say that.
A corollary to the 'no stars visible' argument that I've found is popular sci-fi shows. Such as Star Trek TNG where they sit around the table in the briefing room, fully lit up in normal 'office light' levels. And sure enough, just outside the window we see all the stars perfectly visible. I would argue that if the light levels in the room are typical, then you wouldn't see those stars for the same reasons as them not being visible in Apollo pictures. Only in a darkened room would the stars show up like this.
Just another example where pop-culture and science collide. Many folks probably expect visible stars because of such pop-culture.
You hit it right on the head.
Same for the recent Artemis images - the live pictures from the real on-board cameras showed no stars due to the limited contrast, while the animated scenes, being unlimited be such constraints, showed stars in the background of moon, earth and the spacecraft, apparently to look more appealing to the public.
th-cam.com/video/IkqW5y4g4AU/w-d-xo.html why not the earth being pasted into this moon image from nasa?
You should be able to take a picture of stars out in a dark field at night.
You should also be able to park a white car lit up with bright spotlights about 20 feet in front of your camera and still be able to see stars around the side of the car, right?
Then if you can still make out any stars change the exposure and lens aperture to make the car focus in and not just be a big blob of light and tell me if you can still see any stars.
Very good point. I have always argued that pop culture has overtaken science.
Albert Einstein once said, if you can't explain it simply than you don't understand it. This man does exactly that he put it so nice and clear that even a child would understand.
Just because one can explain something doesn't mean it can be executed. Einstein himself was all theory and no show.
@@dst1311 You should've googled the true meaning of the word theory before posting your reply.
@@dst1311 I'd say he's pissed on the nutters theories
@@TimeHunter2305 Try banging rocks together. That's about the level of his understanding.
@@dst1311 The words theory and hypothesis aren't synonyms.
Research has shown that bullshit tastes better with a British accent.
And that's the most in depth research that a conspiracy theorist has ever managed to do 😂
Ok, so what did the Russians stand to gain when they claimed to have tracked Apollo 11 all the way to the moon and back?
What did the Japanese, Chinese & Indians stand to gain when they announced their own lunar probes had inspected the landing sites and confirmed the landings happened?
Surely they all stood to gain far more from Americans downfall than they'd ever hope to gain from siding with them
@@DaveMcKeegan Who says they had to gain anything? All the space agencies are members of the same exclusive club, so they'll support each other's fakery and lies.
What would the Russians, Chinese, Indians, etc. gain from exposing the fakery, and what could they offer as proof?
If they were able to expose the fakery, it would seriously undermine public trust in authority, so it's in the ruler's advantage to support the myth.
th-cam.com/video/fvxw_OKQWDg/w-d-xo.html For expert british research.
Research has shown flattards are idiots
This Moon "hoax" thing is getting very tired. But apparently there's still money to be made off of it.
There will always be money in denying what other people say. Check out conservatives in America. Tons of money selling Trump merch.
@@SECONDQUEST you are stupide mixing science and politics, but non Wonder grom a probable leftist science denier
Agreed; these points are easily debunked. However, he did not address the more compelling oddities.
__
When they didn't get to the moon they had all this failed rocket science to dispose of so they invented leaf blowers. --Thor
Yea, like the money this guy is paid to lie to you. This is an actor with a script. Wake tf up!
Imagine some Hollywood producers and editors seeing the released moon landing photos and being like "YO WE FORGOT THE STARS"
So you are attempting to use the same woeful logic used all through these comments... the fact it looks fake means it must be real. No, the fact it looks fake means it might be FAKE. The reason they did not add fake stars to the moon soundstage is because it would have been too difficult to reproduce accurately. It would have been possible for anyone on earth to do the calculations and check that the position of the stars in the pics. They would have had to project the whole sky and had it moving in synch with their claimed timings. It would have added a substantial layer of complexity with a chance of giving the game away
@@trueriverking1976It does look real though, you might just not have a good enough grasp of how reality works. But who knows, maybe one day you'll go up to the moon and confirm this for yourself
@@Antigen__ Wow, powerful stuff. You've really got me there. You fake moon landing shills don't have anything, do you? So how does reality work, then?
Oh dear
@@trueriverking1976 Interesting. So anyone on the Earth could do the calculations... except NASA. Hmmm
On the moon shadows only work if a light source was let's say about 93 million miles away
"On the moon shadows only work if a light source was let's say about 93 million miles away"
Proof?
@@jonsmith3945 excuse me sir, DID YOU WATCH THE FUCKING VIDEO?
@@dr.cheeze5382 Yes, I watched the fucking video.
@@jonsmith3945clearly you didn't actually watch the video since it completely disproves your claims.
@@5peciesunkn0wn Which of my claims is disproved ?
I had just turned eight. Watching the landing live with my seven siblings and parents is still the greatest birthday present I’ve received. Almost all of us sitting around our black and white console TV cried from happiness after seeing that human miracle. I later became a tech teacher because without (the proper) use of technology and highly educated and dedicated people the landing would not have happened.
I was born in 1972, but I knew about Astronomy from a young age and knew that the Moon landings happened because everyone else did, too. But decades later, to see a new generation of ignorant young people and older people deceived by the Internet defiantly state that the Moon landings were FAKE, all of a sudden, was extremely galling to me and most other people. No wonder Buzz Aldrin punched that young Moon landing denier in the face when accosted in the street, who claimed that his greatest achievement in life never actually happened DESPITE PHOTOGRAPHIC and FILM EVIDENCE to the CONTRARY!
You habt to wach morgen pictures they
You got hoodwinked!
@@johndough9020 Do you know that the Freemasons have a lot of Flat Earth Signs in thereTempels ?
@@eliot1625 I don’t know what you mean. Is English your first language? What are you trying to say because I am interested.
You are a schill as you only discuss lighting and shadow issues when there are plenty of other issues that prove these photos are NOT taken from the Moon. Why don't you discuss the problem with the temperature and x-rays that would totally destroy the film?
Firstly as I explained in the opening - this is a photography channel, so I wanted to keep the video in the context of photography principles which can still be applied elsewhere
However I am now already planning another video which will look into the other camera related aspects such as the film and why they wouldn't be totally destroyed.
Reasons such as the special emulsion coatings that Kodak put on the film's to help reduce damage from such elements
The fact that the radiation exposure on the moon is only around 10x greater than Earth and film lasts years on Earth - so a week in space won't be a problem
Or that the cameras were specially modified to be silver coloured rather than the standard black to reflect light and control temperature (in exactly the same way as why the astronauts suits are white, the CSM is silver and the LEM is covered in reflective foil)
@@DaveMcKeegan regardless why not cover everything ?
There's way more flaw's then just lighting
It never happened we both know it
By the way Nasa gets billions and billions of our tax money so don't go thinking it was not worth them lying
@@DaveMcKeegan The film and the camera were both reported as being normal.
@@johnshaw359 Reported by who?
Hasselblad themselves openly state that the cameras were heavily modified (and they should know given it was them who modified it)
And Kodak's records show that film was specifically designed for NASA, based on a series of film they produced especially for high altitude cameras
Ask and you shall receive:
th-cam.com/video/hLXHrQ1Keac/w-d-xo.html
Mobile phones, that do incredibly difficult thinks using computational photography (HDR, luminosity masks, focus stacking, ...) have made a lot of people think that they're "experts" in photography.
Gave them and old medium format camera and some 120mm film and let's try what they can do with it. :)
lacking the basics. that applies to anything else in life ;)
That is precisely why I question the results. The photos are too perfect! The quality of the images in terms of focus, aperture, are just bang on. The amount of time, energy, and expertise required to accomplish the quality obtained is mind-boggling, which is not even factoring in the environment and astronaut gear! Not to mention, this was all done on film, and there was no ability for retakes
@yobro-eg3ic Really, the photos you just saw on this video aren't considered perfect? You have never used a film-based camera before. Have you ever made aperture and focus adjustments to a manual lens? Now, try doing that with oven mitts, and tell me how easy that is! We take photography for granted because of our cell phones. Try adjusting for focus, aperture, and scene without live feedback, and tell me how well that works out for you. I will send you my mailing address so you can send me a copy of the photos! I won't hold my breath. And when you take the photos, be sure to have a fishbowl over your head to simulate the astronaut's helmets. Everything is easy when you are not the one that needs to do it.
@yobro-eg3ic I don't think you need to convince me, I am already convinced you're talking out of your hat! I bet you couldn't take a photo with oven mitts and a modern cell phone, let alone a Hasselblad 500El.
Bullshit.
The people, who claim the moon landing and the shape of the earth are conspiracies are all running around with old Nikon cameras.
The fact that in 2017-18 with all our modern filmmaking tech, they still couldn’t create a perfectly realistic moon landing video, shows that back in the day it would have been impossible.
Also the photo cameras they used were special made for the mission, to quell any theories about how they were able to change settings.
A lot of the supposed discrepancies in the astronauts answers about seeing stars or not comes down to the basketball passing effect. There's a famous video that asks you to count the number of times a basketball is passed by one team in a basketball game- then asks a question about the game that catches people completely off guard. This is a demonstration of the effect of ignoring seemingly obvious distractions when focused on doing a job. Keep in mind that at this point there had several disasters or near disasters in the Apollo program. The Three astronauts on the moon landing missions had to be incredibly focused on what they were doing- they had a near 0 margin of error with regard to everything they did. Simply stepping into a small crater or missing the ring of the ladder as they were climbing in and out of the lander could have resulted in a fall and a damaged suit that could have killed them almost instantly. To say that YOU know you would have acted in that situation is ludicrous. There's a reason there were so few early astronauts. Those men had intense training, specialized skills, and a focus on the job at hand that bordered on superhuman. Any mistake made by them could be their last, including the men left behind on the orbiter as he was the ride home for the guys on the ground. One mistake in attitude control and the orbiter would out of position to dock with return module. If you think they had time for stargazing or playing tourist in space you are a moron. I'll listen to any of your dumb theories when YOU qualify to be a NASA astronaut. Until then you are not worth my or anyone else's time.
One of the missions had their on-board computer fail. Requiring the crew to land the mooner lander by hand.
The irony was that in the panic of having to deal with their on-board computer failing, they completely overlooked the fact that they apparently had a backup computer they could have used...
@@hanro50 Because the computer was ‘blind’ and couldn’t compensate for sudden increases in gravity fields, it could put the lunar module down in a crater or on a steep slope, so the commander always took manual control in the last minute or so to ensure a safe landing area. Also, no self-respecting test pilot would let a computer do his job.
It has been pointed out that while walking on the Moon in direct sunlight, astronauts could not make out even the brightest stars, because their pupils were constricted in reaction to the bright sun, and this is partially true. The Sun’s radiation is very harmful to eyesight outside of our protective atmosphere and the astronaut’s EVA helmet that was worn over the ‘bubble’ helmet of the pressure suit had two moveable visors. The outer visor was gold coated to protect them from this radiation and also filtered out relatively dim light sources such as stars. Several Apollo astronauts reported that when they stood in the shadow of the lunar module and lifted their visors, they could easily see stars. But with the combination of both bright sunlight and the visors, it was impossible.
@@Ruda-n4h good point. It's like driving at night. Oncoming headlights- especially driver who drive with their brights on (a-holes!) make it hard to see anything due to glare and pupil contraction.
@@Ruda-n4h the astronauts had to be looking through the equivalent of arc welding shields in the harsh light of the sun which was like a bright carbon arc light.
Try looking through a welding shield at the night sky and let me know how many stars you see.
Do t try to proof they ,,landed,,... even a child will understand they had no bathroom, no diapers, for a WEEK!!!! they would be covered with SHIT up to their ears!😂😂😂
Really? That’s your best evidence, the lack of toilet facilities? Bish, please....
@@corneliuscrewe677 yes , REALLY! THINK OF EVERYTHING BUT TOILET...THAT MEAN THEY WERE NOT SERIOUS, JUST ,,FLY,, TO A NEXT ROOM AND BACK!😂😂😂👋
@@mikeches7992 All caps, yeah that really makes your argument plausible. What do you think ended up getting chucked out of the LM, Bright Lad?
@JUNGLE SURFER Oh, you’re on of those “rockets don’t work in space, the moon is a luminary” special needs head cases, aren’t you? How adorable...
@JUNGLE SURFER what do you mean the moon aint solid. If the moon aint solid how is there a reflector that was placed on its surface that you can find the coordinates of online and with a laser you can calculate the distance by shooting the laser at this one spot on the moon and counting the time it takes to get back. Then with some simple math you can calculate how far away the moon is. This really exists on the moon you can’t beam a laser just anywhere and have it returned it’s only on this one location where they put this reflector so that they could verify the distance of the moon from the earth and many amateur astronomers have used it. So if the moon wasn’t solid how the hell did they put that there
I have a question for you Brit lefty...Why does the Artemis 1 rocket have male and female dummies to check radiation and atmospheric conditions in order to determine if it's safe for human beings? Don't we "already" send about a dozen men to the Lunar orbit and surface for over 3 days in one instant?
Why do new cars go through crash tests with dummies when we've had safe cars for years? 🤦🏻♂️
That's before you even get into the fact that Apollo missions were less than 2 weeks long, where as Orion is slated to be carrying humans much further into space (i.e. Mars) so they need to make sure the crew will be safe given they'll be in space for much longer time periods
@@DaveMcKeegan crash test dummies aren’t done over and over test the effects of hitting a brick wall… they test the cars durability. They used the space dummies to test the amount of radiation and it’s effects. Newsflash we have actual humans that “did it already”.
@@DaveMcKeegan Spoken like a true liberal. There's absolutely no comparison between those two. One is impact testing and the other is radiation and atmospheric conditions. If we had sent people to the moon for only one hour, we would have enough data to make calculations for months or even years of how to human body world react or be affected by these conditions. According to the Apollo missions, human beings landed for and spent time on the lunar surface for over 3 days in one mission.
@@DaveMcKeegan cry more groomer
Why is he a lefty?
As an Amateur Astronomer, I know all too much that a full moon in the sky ruins a good night of viewing.
@@AishaShaw-cl6wc Which moon? The white house spokesman just said the reason China found no trace of Apollo is because they landed on a different moon. Im serious, go check. So which moon?
@@deanhall6045 There's an AFP Fact Check article about that. It's titled "Chinese social media posts share fabricated White House press exchange about Moon missions".
@@deanhall6045Bullshit!
You fell for a silly, stupid hoax. 🤦♂️
(Are you a Trump-voter?)
@@deanhall6045 - Quote "In fact the maps are detailed enough that Chinese scientists were able to detect traces of the Apollo landers, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China’s lunar exploration project."
@@deanhall6045 the LRO captured all six Apollo sites about ten years ago during its mapping mission of the whole lunar surface. Also, the Indian orbiter, Chandrayaan2, recently captured images of the Apollo 11 & 12 sites.
It's a shame that no matter how you explain the facts, there will be those who refuse to be swayed. I find the deniers usually have a political agenda or personal objection/dislike of the entity who accomplished the task. I like your approach to this topic. Just the facts.
Your very first picture has shadows going in 4 directions! Lol game over! Your phone is buzzing because you didn’t hang it up correctly!
Single, hard edge shadows are physically impossible from close up studio lights
Shadows appearing to travel in different directions are perfectly plausible on uneven surfaces 🤦🏻♂️
@@DaveMcKeegan
The source of the light determines the direction of the shadows, not the shape of the terrain.
Yes the source determines the direction but the terrain determines how the shadows lands - uneven terrain means the light has to travel further to reach some parts than others
That coupled with perspective determines how it appears to be cast from the viewers perspective
Hence it's possible for shadows from a single light source to appear to travel in varying directions
It's not possible in any relm for a single light source to produce single, harsh shadows on an evenly illuminated large area with a light source that is anywhere close to the subjects
And it's impossible for multiple lights to have been used yet only produce 1 set of shadows on an evenly lit landscape
@@DaveMcKeegan
Terrain may change the size and shape of a shadow, but they should all line up, and consistent with the source of the light.
So the shadows might cast longer, but still consistent with the source.
On the Moon there is only one light source. So all the shadows must line up with the source, regardless of perspective.
Other than the moon, can you please provide a demonstration of what you're trying to say?
@@swervedriver5260 On a sunny day stand in front of an iron fence (or similar) with the sun to your back - the shadows will not appear to run parallel from your standpoint because of the perspective shift
For all those who think the photos are fake, recreate them with film today.
Even better, if they think the video was faked, they could try recreating *that*.
yeah like photographing stars during a full moon with the same exposure as daylight shots that the astronauts used! funny how conspiratards never mention trying that as a debunking proof!
We are not on the moon
@@gowdsake7103 That's true! We haven't been there since December 14, 1972.
@@gowdsake7103 any other bleeding obvious pearls of wisdom you would like to share ?
.,,black sky,, Is nothing but walls painted in BLACK FLAT PAINT!!!
Ah yes black walls that have to extend millions of miles away
100% possible
@@jetpond7904 wow, sounds like a very big STUDIO..😀
@@mikeches7992 exactly you have nothing to say about that do you?
@@jetpond7904 I have to say THANK YOU WHOEVER CONSTRICTED SUCH A BIG STUDIO TO FOOL EVERYBODY ...THEY PROBABLY SPEND A LOT OF MONEY FOR THE BLACK PAINT..?!😀😎👋
@@mikeches7992 and you just proved my point. Congrats! JT. GNTRN HR NYMRJYMYRJRRYJMRYYJRMG
The earth is flat and no one has been to the moon
Ah someone who's sane in the comments
Why does the shape of the earth matter? Why would any one want to fake it?
Yes; technology they had to take us to the moon in 1966, has been "lost" and they don't know how to take us back in 2024!?!
They do.
Maybe learn some history. The popularity of the space program fell after Apollo 11. Congress saw there were votes to be gained by cutting NASA's budget, so they did so. NASA's budget fell from 4.5% of the federal budget in 1966 to less than 1% in 1975. Lacking money to do all the things it wanted to do, NASA cancelled Apollo. With no one else buying Saturn V components, the contractors shut down their production lines. It's that simple.
69. Not 66. And no they didnt lose the tech. They lost the "ingredients" and the "chefs" as a little analogy. They could easily remake the saturn v rockets if they wanted to by looking at the one down in Houston which is a full flight capable Saturn V. There's just no need to go back
@@TimeMasterOG of course. I believe you.
It's light pollution basically, when you're In a city with a bunch lights, you can't see nearly as many stars as you can In the country, but on the moon during the moon's daytime, the surface is just too bright. Even on earth when the moon is full, it is bouncing so much light back to us, that its hard to see certain stars and planets and galaxys with a telescope.
Spot on. I lived in a small town and now in a big city, wandered through completely illuminated streets and pitch dark forests, and I have a telescope, too. Light pollution is a big hindrance for star gazing.
@nightmareTomek I live in a very small town and I still have problems with the 1 single light on the eclectic pole going to my house. It's so bright, I can't see anything in that direction!
@@ekojar3047 xD
Kick that thing!
I have that idea that cities should turn off all lights between 3 and 4am. So the nerds can see nice things. I guess that's not going to happen because everyone's too worried...
Exactly why people say if you wanna see milky way. Do it far away and at no moon. You can than see it with your own eyes. Cuz there is no light source that big.
Sorry the Moons sky has no atmosphere to light the sky or distort the darkness of space, stars would be visible on the Moon on many of the shots, City lights will light up the molecules in the atmosphere on Earth, hence no stars visible in Cities, all they would have to do for a clearer immage of the sky is point the camera to the stars a little more so as to not allow too much moonlight to interfere with the image exposure to moon surface light
As someone with no interest in being a photographer at any level I am definitely hoping for more videos of a similar flavor I.e. Applying your expertise to topics that touch on broader social phenomena. I have rewatched all the moon/flat earth videos multiple times and will multiple times more. Love the channel’s style, solid epistemology & entertaining delivery..can’t ask for more.
Your comment could have come from the algorithm itself. Broader reach etc.
10,000 pound thrust rocket on bottom of this tin can craft and no blast crater under it???? No blast dust on legs or feet of craft??? Where on this craft is enough space for that 150 million dollar land rover??? I'm not buying any of it......
10,000lb engine which by landing time was idling at 10% throttle - so only 1,000lb thrust
Then the contact lights came on when the LEM was 5ft above the surface, at that point the engine was shut off ...
They intentionally didn't want dust kicking up because that would also mean exhaust gases from the engine would be kicking up as well and risked damaging the LEM
@@DaveMcKeegan Actually it was closer to about 2650 lbs, but either way it's nowhere near the full rating of the engine.
Adding to that, given the size of the engine bell, the pressure at its end was about 1.5 psi, which is less than an adult man's footprint pressure. Even if it had been a full 10,000 lbs, that's only about 1/3 of the thrust of a Harrier jump jet, and they have no problem landing on the ground, and that's even with the atmosphere keeping the exhaust in a column, rather than spreading out as it does in a vacuum.
@truthjester: The rovers were only in the later missions (15, 16, and 17), folded up in an external equipment bay. You can find video of them unfolding it here on YT - th-cam.com/video/VpqhVKwByZY/w-d-xo.html
Because for you it a matter of belief not science or technology - I don't why that is, perhaps because of the collapse of organised religion in the post war period. Back in the real world the lunar surface is hard rock beneath dust; the LEM used a low pressure (for reliability) rocket engine that was firing at only 3,000 pounds thrust before landing so along with the very thin atmosphere and low gravity there was not enough pressure to produce a crater; if you look closely at some pictures of landing sites e.g. Apollo 11 you can see some disturbance under the engine.
Because there is no air resistance on the moon, the blast deflected the dust sideways in a straight line at high speed - far too fast to settle on the LEM’S feet.
The rover was held in the empty quadrant 1 bay in the lunar module descent stage. It was deployed by a system of pulleys and braked reels using ropes and cloth tapes. The rover was folded and stored in the bay with the underside of the chassis facing out. One astronaut would climb the egress ladder on the LM and release the rover, which would then be slowly tilted out by the second astronaut on the ground through the use of reels and tapes. As the rover was let down from the bay, most of the deployment was automatic. The rear wheels folded out and locked in place. When they touched the ground, the front of the rover could be unfolded, the wheels deployed, and the entire frame let down to the surface by pulleys.
Your right even F35 or Harrier blast a crater on the ground, especially on the USS nuclear George Bush.
Look at the Chinese photo: nos dust either.
The fact that there are no stars in the Apollo photographs simply shows that NASA knew how to work a camera.
No, they would have ONE photo of that wonderful sky.
@@aemrt5745 Maybe you visited there on a dusty space day. Still miles of atmosphere and light diffusion. Don Pettit said it was amazing high on ISS. Whatever WHY not bother? Folks still bother plenty down here, *A TRIPOD !!!!* DEAR O DEAR ! 🥶 HEAVY TOO!!!!* 🥵 Yeah those thing weight a Ton.
- well there goes an other amazing nasa scientific explanation.🤯
(Hey kids👶: the Lander could of been used as tripod, already one heavy arm camera just for a step) (or one of those not heavy Rovers😜) (etc) (Long-exposure photos were taken with the Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph by Apollo 16 on April 21, 1972, from the surface of the Moon)
(and research >>> Hubble Telescope. Since its 1990 launch, Hubble has changed our fundamental understanding of the universe, with space photos!!!)
@@aemrt5745 SIR thank you *very much* for your logical rations Science, I am sharing with all who just lamely say they didnt have the proper film :(
Apollo play toys (aside flags & buggy rovers); golf club with 3 heavy balls, statue, metals, hammer, ceremonial objects, and more!
"All of these objects were extras, so to speak, not part of the Apollo necessities." (competent mission planner approved it. And not)
STARS = "scientifically worthless"
ASTRO : relating to the stars, celestial objects, or outer space.
A good average weight for a travel tripod should be 3 lbs (1.3 kg).
1) Fun on the Moon (links removed to allow posting)
2) Real Video of NASA Apollo Astronauts Playing Golf on the Moon
More justified precious EVA time >>
3) Astronaut Eugene Cernan runs and jumps on the Moon - Daily Mail
@@aemrt5745 Again you worthy Sir You have not stated when specificly you were on the Moon, explaining how scientificly YOU know same thing? ☹
Know that if you actually understood this stuff SIR, I know not the value but presume different then from Earth. Now it is GAIN? I though it was why not! O I have a *gotcha* ?? 😃 Weight man please what Science is learned by Lunar Rover rooster tails ? [1](mass of 210 kg. The $38 million dollar Lunar Rover weighed in at 460 pounds) (greatest range from the LM was 7.6 km)
.....now I am smarter than thousands of scientists 😁because I have reservations on a camera tripod issue??? 🤔(....some hysterics🥵)
Personal experience in photography: first camera with an internal timer was produced in 1956, allows to place camera on the ground turned upwards without tripod 😲 (for all anti stars photographer!)
If you Search >> can you see different stars from moon = all you get is excuses why none are ever seen.
[1] *Astronauts on the Moon, Throwing Stuff & Falling Down, Lunar Rover, Moon Buggy* : Raw video from the NASA archive of Astronauts on the Moon. A funny complication of objects being thrown, slips and falls, Lunar Rover rooster tails, and having a good time on the Moon. What is the Gain?
note: the Brain is good the Brain is *friend* USE BRAIN ! 🧠👍
*AH* seems I broke a record again! Looks a little desperate to home on that tirade not really specified as "toy", Many consider Eagle contraption as a toy that can not fly, never seen on Earth, all wonders up in Space....
Very sensitive these Winners are, on their APOLLO faith, small minds unable to think outside the box and bold enough to phantom using the steady fixed Lander (for one) as a Tripod.😲
- Very strange a Space fan, a Amateur Astronomer, visual Deep Sky observer, has so little interest in view of Stars outside our VABs bubble. Such lack of interest is due to denial, revealing impossible to fake moon sky photo existence?
Those really dedicated with worship of APOLLO will know so many no gain extras were carried there and time done, as a javelin(2lbs), what is the gain for that? Again total ignoring, served only with teenage deflection of issue.
😃WELL I do love when not actually understanding this stuff *me* is asked for *Credentials* 🙃by these fairplay intelligent educated rational Lollers.
I guess I just dont understood Apollo..............😜
People don't realize that the video of Armstrong giving his famous speech, being recorded from a camera on the LEM is the first footage of someone setting foot on the moon. They always seem to think that photo is.. Same as they don't understand that the video of the LEM taking off was done by remote control by a camera left on the surface, which is why the pan doesn't follow the LEM very well, someone on Earth had to time it right.
Indeed the camera was mounted on the rover. And it was only luck they got it right on the second attempt.
The remote control on the rover camera was operated by a guy in mission control named Ed Fendell. Due to the approximately 2 second delay, Fendell didn't get the first two launches very well (Apollo 15 and 16). He practiced a lot for the final Apollo mission and when it came time for the launch, he got it. Third time's a charm.
@@brabanthallen - That's some fantastic info, thank you!
@@dogwalker666ah luck , they got lucky on alot of things , first time around
@@Castlelong333 What makes you think luck was involved? Obviously you have never been involved in an engineering project, And why do you think it was #11 that actually landed?
Where was the rover stored with those big tires on that little landing craft. How did they get through the deadly radiation belt, how did they communicate from the moon surface live to the earth they couldn't do it today,why are they saying they loss the technology to go back to the moon when we're far more Advanced today
1) Rover folded up into a box and went into a compartment in the base of the LEM - The LEM was designed with this compartment from the start
2) Only the inner radiation belt is dangerous, they flew around that and stuck to the outer belt
3) They communicated via radio waves - it's how they were still talking to the Voyager probes after they'd left the solar system - and they could do it today if there was anyone on the moon
4) They didn't lose the technology, they lost the ability to make that technology because it's 50 years old - none of the companies that produced the components could easily remake those components today - it would be like phoning Ford and asking them to rebuild an original Model T
Yes we have far more advanced technology which is why they've developed a whole new rocket system from scratch based on the new technology
@@DaveMcKeegan 2) they actually didn’t know what was dangerous and what was not. Even today they are trying to assess whether they can cross through safely.
@@DaveMcKeegan 4) again, no one has said this… you are adding a context to the quotes that no one gave. You are literally explaining away with whatever excuse you could think of
They knew because they'd sent Apollo 4 & 6 as unnamed rockets with instruments to measure radiation, way out beyond the belts
It wasn't until Apollo 8 that they sent humans out through the belts so they knew how much exposure they would face before the left
Today isn't trying to assess if they can pass through safely, Orion is going to hang around in the belts so they can get a measure of weather the craft can protect crew for months at a time
@@DaveMcKeegan again adding context and pretext. Here is the quote:
th-cam.com/video/5PaW0pPkHVU/w-d-xo.html
FAKE
As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology.
No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
As I recall, the two places you showed with the mountains in the background are actually quite far apart. However, the moon has no atmosphere to speak of and there is no haze to indicate distance. The mountains are in reality quite some distance away, hence the great similarity in the silhouette as seen from those two sites. The other thing I would point out is that stars are actually visible in some of the photos, but it requires increasing the brightness of the shots to see them - they are very underexposed (as one would expect for shots exposed for the lunar surface).
"As I recall, the two places you showed with the mountains in the background are actually quite far apart."
About 1.5 Km
@@Jim_Jones_Guyana oh thank you, that's really interesting. I hadn't heard about that before!
the mountains would also look similar from different positions if they were a backdrop, which I believe is the case.
@@jonsmith3945 "the mountains would also look similar from different positions if they were a backdrop"
Well no, because they would be 2D if they were a backdrop and so there would be no parallax at all so there would be no difference. Unless you are going to suggest that they used a 3D background, though then you would need to also have a huge place to film it all because you also have the added complication that all of this was also shown on live TV footage.
@@kylie_h1978 By measuring the parallax of objects in the foreground, you can determine how far away are objects in the background. A Russian scientist did this and determined the backdrop was about 100 ft or so distant.
I believe the landings were faked and years of debating with landing believers has not uncovered any new evidence or made a new argument to change my mind. So, save your breath.
Armstrong died being called a liar and a fake. Extremely brave man is what he was. RIP Neil Armstrong 🙏
Just surprised there're no more Armstrongs born nowadays to repeat this feat. Or NASA lost the manuscript to return to the Moon?
@@chorianafricaltd.1835It’s incredibly expensive for little reward, we already know much of what we need to know about the moon. Only reason we would go back is to colonize and establish bases and that is extremely extremely expensive and intensive.
Not by all. Only some but I wonder if he had the choice would he have done it again
@@tex-mex4082then why many countries are trying to go there now if it is incredilbly expensive w little reward? Convinient excuse?
@@nino88881 Because it’s prestigious to say you can put man on the moon. But we also might have the technology to begin to inhabit the moon, so they’re likely seeing how far we’ve come.
Why reinvent the wheel, when it's sits in the Kennedy spaces centre, convenience is they key!
How conveniently lose the telemetry data, how conveniently lose the footage (sorry Sir, but I couldn't miss another episode of Emmerdale, only had these cassettes, the VHS was broken). Apollo sister Artemis is a no show, not once but twice. Hell the 747 took longer to get off the ground, yet 1960's tech Apollo just works!!!
Why the Saturn rockets were discontinued, but Soviets helped by selling their rocket tech to the enemy US!
Never mind the bogg😂wood, 🤣🤣🤣
Apollo tech came straight off the back of 10 years of Mercury and Gemini programs ... And it begun with a crew burning to death on the launch pad
What use is using the one on display?
So they can do 1 more 3 man trip to the moon as a last hoorah?
@@DaveMcKeegan
Chinese the technology, replicate everything bit for bit. The fuel is the same, the mission is the same.
Are you claiming the vehicles in each Apollo mission is the same!!!😂😂😂
"Replicate it bit for bit"
How long do you think it would take to completely document and dismantle 3 million components, then work out how to re-fabricate them, then document and rebuild the entire rocket?
That's all inefficient, 60's tech ...
More time and money than it would take to design a whole new rocket from scratch, a new rocket that can be designed better and more efficiently than the Saturn
But all of which requires money to do - money which lots of was being pumped into launching Space Shuttles up until 2011 ... Funny that the shuttle program ended the same year development of the SLS rocket began
@@DaveMcKeegan
£150 billion spent in today's money and not to mention all those years. NASA's Don Pettit state, we destroyed that technology and it would be a difficult process to build again, schematics included. Easy, it sits right there, easier to disassemble that reinvent!
Do you think Tesla electrical vehicles needed to reinvent the car, or the wheel. If you shall disassemble and replicate, they shall return to the moon. Possibly Jo Biden can make that hotline call to Astronauts on the moon😂😂😂
If Tesla don't need to reinvent the car then why did they need 5 years of development before launching their roadster?
When does a car manufacturer ever go from blank paper to launched car in less than a few years?
Yes NASA spent 150 billion developing the Saturn, 150 billion which came from the government, who need to justify that spending to the public
Each mission cost a 1 billion to build and launch
By Apollo 18 the public had no interest in moon missions, so why would the government keep pumping money into missions and make themselves unpopular with the electorate?
Hence NASA shifted focus away from travelling to the moon and towards cheaper, resusbale space flights
Imagine believing we never landed on the moon when we can literally shoot a laser at it and it would reflect off of a mirror we put their...
Exactly non of the deniers can handle the retro-reflectors it always shuts them up.
@@dogwalker666 the funny thing is that it's an experiment they can do themselves another thing they can do is track the ISS the ISS even rotating around the earth proves the existence of globe and gravity... They claim gravity doesn't exist then how is the sun even in the sky how is it rotating none of them can give an equation or scientific theory to how this even happens and just say well "God" God is what they think is a scientific theory
@@dogwalker666 Nah. They usually claim that "we can bounce lasers off the bare surface of the Moon!", unfortunately.
@@Jan_Strzelecki they tried that however when I explain that "Retro" Reflectors rotate the polarised laser light 90 Degrees which is why they are used in Industrial sensors, They spit out their dummies and run away.
@@dogwalker666 Ah, okay. Fair enough. I'll need to remember that for the inevitable next time 🙂
No aperture control, no focus, no shutter speed, no viewfinder, no bad shots.
They had aperture and focus control on the lens - it also had shutter speed control on the camera
There wasn't a viewfinder but it was fixed on a holder on the front of their suit, which means the camera always looked where ever their chest was pointing - and look through the full archive and you'll find plenty of bad shots, they just don't get shared much for obvious reasons
@@DaveMcKeegan
That’s no control. Dials without feedback offer zero control. Not one bad shot was taken. All are masterpieces. Complete sham.
@@FFE-js2zp You don't need feedback when there are markers written clearly to see - There are lenses still sold today with aperture & focus control without feedback, they still work ... All cine lenses work like this
And I'll repeat my previous suggestion, go and look at the Apollo Lunar Surface achieves, most shots are boring, mundane things and many with mistakes - Buzz had 4 attempts trying to photograph the plaque that they left behind to try and make sure there was a good one
@@DaveMcKeegan
No cine lenses work without viewfinders. That’s absurd.
But the lack of viewfinders and no control over composition or exposure isn’t the big problem. The big problem is a half dozen photos with occluded registration marks. Plus 250F film that melts at 150F, dropping to -250F that cracks in shade, also exposed to the raw solar wind of radiation so intense it disintegrated NASA’s metal probes into dust. That’s a little more than an airport X-ray, which erases film.
I love how they credit the Hollywood producers and directors with doing such an AMAZING job of faking the landings ... yet they somehow forgot to put in the stars!!! LMAO 🤣🤣🤣
Yeah the Kubrick claim kills me when you look at 2001 it's obvious he would have been outed as a fake in less than a year.
Any surface examination shows dozens of mistakes that would definitely have shown it was all wrong.
I really appreciate how well you explain all of the different aspects of this as well as also making the point that all of the arguments made in an attempt to disprove the reality of the moon landing, actually prove the reality of it.
“As well as also”?
@@johndough9020 What, you don't like repetetivity, redundunancy, and repetitiousnessess?? Then you probably don't like saying the same thing twice or saying the same thing twice and you probably also don't like saying the same thing twice or saying the same thing twice also... 🥴
You think that video and the laughable collection of comments under it prove the moon landings were real?? The only thing they "prove" to me is that 60 years after the event you still haven't come up with a half way feasible story
@@trueriverking1976 Your ignorance and your confidence in your ignorance are truly astounding. How someone can be SO WRONG and yet believe they're so right to the point of mocking others who actually know the truth, is truly amazing.
And just for the record, it was a little less than 54 years ago.
Only an Indoctrinated Monkey would believe we landed on a Light bulb.
The SUN IS NOT A flashlight...but I like you BS...
Let's talk about the module made from aluminum lawn chairs and tar paper
Sure. If you find such a thing, let us know.
I think spaceflight enthusiasts have made one or two full scale models of the _Apollo_ Lunar Module here on Earth, yes.
No, let's talk about the actual LM, which had a pressure hull made from aircraft-grade aluminium, covered in sheets of very thin aluminium that served as a micrometeorite shield. The LM whose descent module was covered in sheets of metallized mylar, which served as heat insulation. Underneath that, you had honeycomb sandwich panels that formed the structure. The LM was built to function in an environment with 1/6 G gravity and no atmosphere. Every part of it was purpose-built for the lunar landing. The LM had to be as light as possible, which drove every aspect of the design. Only the uninformed will look at it and complain about how it looks.
Are you that guy with the aluminum lawn chair and weather balloons that took a joyride through Los Angeles' most congested airspace? I congratulate you on your engineering and navigational acumen! Seriously though, you may want to look at these: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html This stuff is just not that hard to find if you would just take a little time to do some research.
@@starroger I hope your comment survives, but TH-cam is usually pretty quick to nuke comments that contain links.
I like your explanation, but please pet the dog more! the dog deserves
Agreed, My first dog was a Springer like that one.
Stanley Kubrick................
There is zero credible evidence that Kubrick was involved.
All the naysayers are free to think what they want to think. I, on the other hand, DO believe we landed on the moon. Our astronauts are HEROES....AND ALWAYS WILL BE, FOR WHAT THEY ACCOMPLISHED.
How stunning and brave of you. Not.
Reality is hard, and when reality is hard, it must be fake. Because that's an easier explanation to deal with.
This sums it up ,th-cam.com/video/9UYKdwNtUn4/w-d-xo.html
Spot on.
As a cinematographer / director / photographer .... it's beyond laughable that anyone can conceive that there are meant to be stars when you expose for an image on the moon. You would have to have likely a 5 minute exposure on a tripod on 160 ASA 65mm E6 Slide film to get ANYTHING close to even bringing out any detail beyond the lunar surface.
Secondly the cameras were fixed to 5.6 or f11 from memory, which is what nasa predicted the exposure compensation would need to be to shoot the LUNAR SURFACE, not the stars beyond as they can do that from earth.
Go grab some 160 ISO medium format film, stick it on a tripod, point it up at the sky, open the shutter, see how long it takes you to expose for the sky with the same rated film.
Earth or moon ,Saturn or Jupiter, makes no difference.
To put it into perspective.. Stars and galaxies put out around 25 lumens when viewed from Earth. In Space that number is around 40 lumens. The sun puts out 13 Quintillion lumens of light. When you think about your average street light being bright enough to wash out starlight, what do they expect when you've got brightest object in our solar system lighting things up.
Great comment although I don't think that deniers know what a lumen is or can comprehend quintillion .
@@peterharris38 good point, I probably should have included all the 0s. lol
Lighting things up? What do you mean? Like how, here on Earth, the Sun causes the atmosphere to glow blue, on a clear day?
Except there is no Earth-like atmosphere on the Moon. So, your comment about your average street light being bright enough to wash out starlight, does not apply, because that is also dependent on the presence of the Earth's atmosphere.
Nah, the argument is misrepresented and presented as a strawman argument here, yet again. It has nothing to do with photography. WE KNOW, using regular camera settings, stars won't appear on film. It's been established a long time ago. No need to keep recycling the same old, tired strawman argument.
The issue is SEEING stars from the surface of the Moon, by Apollo astronauts allegedly standing there. And not one of them mentioned seeing what would have been a lunar sky filled with the brightest, sharpest points of light. No atmosphere means no twinkling.
This guy, in this video, is conceding that the stars would have, should have, been there to see, but just wouldn't show up in the photographs. Fine. Except, as I said, no astronaut has mentioned ever seeing any.
After Neil Armstrong said stars could not be seen, at the Apollo 11 press conference, that had to become the official word on the matter and, ever since, the issue of seeing stars in outer space, not just on the Moon, became problematic for NASA.
Cue the excuses...
_The astronauts had tinted visors._
Tinted visors that could be retracted up into the helmet. We have photos and video of that.
_The Sun was blinding._
For every mission, the Sun was within a few degrees of 15 degrees above horizon. That is relatively low. Meaning, it would have been easy for an astronaut to turn their back to it.
_The reflection off the surface was too bright._
Nope. The Moon's surface has an albedo of about 15. Meaning, it's about as reflective as worn asphalt. Not white as snow, as some Apollo imagery depicts it as.
Go ahead and find the photo of Buzz Aldrin saluting the flag and try to tell me what is supposed to be the lunar surface, would be blindingly bright. Aldrin has his visor in the upright position, in that photo, by the way.
_The astronauts were too busy to notice._
Yeah, sure.
@FakeMoonRocks - I'm happy to address this as soon as I get in the door. It's a it too much to go through over mobile.
@@FakeMoonRocks
Even with the tint eliminated, They still had transparent solid glass or plastic over their faces, and sunlight lighting up the surface of the Moon. Turn the lights off in your house and try to look through a glass window and see stars in the sky. You might can see Jupiter or Venus (bright planets) but virtually no stars. Sirius might be bright enough to see.
Another reason for the direction of shadows not appearing parallel is the topography of the moon. Mythbusters did a good recreation of it using a model so good that it made yours look like a Lego figure stood net to a ball of tin foil!
Another factor in play with the images of Buzz Aldrin exiting the LM and descending the ladder: Neil Armstrong's suit. It acts as a reflector, backfilling the shot.
Nvidia simulated the graphics of the shot and couldn't match it up until they realized the direction the extra illumination was coming from. There's a TH-cam video covering their efforts.
Thanks for the extra details Bob, much appreciated :)
@@DaveMcKeegan You're welcome!
IF YOU CANT DAZZLE THEM WITH SCIENCE BAFFLE THEM WITH BULLSHIT
@@williammcconnell2576 Interesting comment, which I've heard variations of for the past 50 years or so. But I'm not sure which side of the discussion you're on, just from that. (Oh, and the ALL CAPS mode is only required if you intended to be "shouting" the comment, FYI.)
@@williammcconnell2576 yup
Another point about the "fill light" is that I suspect Armstrong is standing in full sunlight to take the picture and blasting Aldrin with reflected sunlight from his lily-white spacesuit. Armstrong constitutes a HUGE fill-light reflector.
Indeed he is. When NVidia tried to recreate the "Aldrin on the ladder" photo, they couldn't get it right _until_ they've realized that they haven't accounted for the light reflecting off the Armstrong.
In fact, if you look at the photo of Aldrin coming down the ladder of the LM, on his boot overshoes, you can actually see the reflection of Armstrong's white EVA suit. Look at the heels of Aldrin's boots and you will "see" Armstrong. The reflection is directed right at the position of the camera (Armstrong).
....suspecting he if facing the SUN to take a photograph? On MOON where she is very strong? Very strange behaviour with a LOW Sun.
@@narajuna Are you suggesting that Armstrong should have waited for better lighting to take this iconic photo? Or that Buzz should have waited inside the LM? Or that they should have moved the LM to face the Sun?
@@johnguilfoyle3073 That is thee Question! Am I or not.... far as I gather he is creating the Lighting ( standing in full sunlight to take the picture and blasting Aldrin with reflected sunlight), so if shaded would not be any "fill light" right?
Lord o Apollo who knows what I am suggesting.
ps: abnormal (or retarded?) to take a surface photo directly facing (low) SUN (no atmosphere= morning full blast SUNRAYS)
Are the photos of the lunar rover with no wheel tracks around it fake as well? (lol)
Dave did a great job but the NVDIA video put it to rest once and for all. Search for it and watch it. They are the experts. End of discussion.
Yeah, I like watching that video and listen for the faint whistling as its point goes over hoax believer's heads.
The only place they walked on is a studio
A hell of a studio considering it has lights that break the laws of physics
@@DaveMcKeegan you have to open your eyes and mind
@@ghassangebrail2495 I have to open my mind and my eyes to see that what you're saying is complete bullshit? Lol you people
@@ghassangebrail2495 No, you just have to follow the evidence, and apply the laws of physics. And those tell you that these photos cannot be taken on Earth.
The flag waving at speed of earth gravity is dead giveaway
Except it doesn't wave - it bounces around from the shakes of them putting it in the ground
@@DaveMcKeegan shakes or not requires gravity though
Why does it require gravity?
Flags on Earth don't move because of gravity, they move because of wind
There is no wind on the moon which is why it's on a spring loaded arm along the top that holds it outwards
@@DaveMcKeegan gravity is force. The only reason anything moves. Force=g m1m2/d2. The moon is in earths orbit due to the fact it weighs less than the earth and its pull of earth keeps it in orbit. With out the pull of the earth gravity objects do not move at all.
@@DaveMcKeegan no they move do due the pull of earths gravity.
To take the pictures, they would have to use the most insane flood light ever created. Baseball stadiums use dozens of lights to make it like daytime for the players to see. They also have 4 or more shadows following them on the field.
Bodvarson They were there at Lunar morning. The sun is shinning. No need for secondary lighting.
@@williammann9176 I meant if it was faked on a studio
@@bodvarson1933 Baseball stadiums don't aim for making it look like it's the sun shining.
@@bodvarson1933 The fact that there are no stars in the Apollo photographs simply shows that NASA knew how to work a camera, because of the short exposure times required to take pictures, given the brightness of the Moon's surface in daylight.
Photographic techniques of the type required to hoax a moon landing did not exist then.
It still remains odd to me that USA didn't go back after 1975, no-one else went there after, and non of us can as yet go there now (give me a long range space drone (/^v^)/...) and as such both sides are conjecture, but why has no-one visited there since? :-Y ...
Space drones - a.k.a probes, have been back
China, Japan & India each set their own probes that examined the landing sites, all 3 acknowledged that there is hardware left on the moon by Apollo and that the landings happened
@@DaveMcKeegan no I really meant a drone like ordinary ppl have, but could go where ordinary ppl can't, to investigate these flag and footprint sites non of us can investigate, because we don't have space equipment. It's alright for ppl to say THEY'VE seen these sites, but we cannot, is my point. China would never confirm USA landings, as they threatened to land there just before lockdown, and NASA panicked :-y
@@finjay21fj So you're completely ignoring what Dave said, as well as the fact that 3 different countries have all photographed the sites and confirmed what's there. Why?
@@critthought2866 maybe I'm wrong, but you asked why. I keep saying that non of us have anything to go on but what we're told, I can't blame anyone for assuming what hey are told is correct as they see it. But we don't see it, we merely hear what ever they tell us. Religious believe "this meat is unclean" all the way to accepting their righteous leaders can freely burn so-called "witches" at the stakes. We were happy to let them do that as we believed the propaganda they told us, we had nothing to go on, we believed what they said, innocent ppl burned. Today we still believe whatever they tell us - from lockdown to "dangerous ecigarettes" to things we can't confirm, like lunar landings. We simply believe what we are told, unquestioning, like willing lambs to the slaughter. Foolish tho it was, we went into not one but TWO world wars, willingly, like lambs to the slaughter. We simply believe what they tell us so willingly - now believe what you want, you'll believe exactly and fully what they tell you, as is their want.
@@finjay21fj Solipsism may be interesting in philosophy, but it's a terrible way to live life.
We have at least three light sources in studios and only one shadow... It's called "cinematography"... The art of faking reality. An easy task for even a beginner DP. You're ignoring hot spots clearly visible in many photos and you're not taking into account the type of cameras used vs their gloves which made changing aperture virtually impossible.
3 light sources will produce 3 shadows - just that the key light will produce the most dominant shadow
However seems you're ignoring the fact that those additional lights would lighten the main shadow so it wouldn't be solid black
You're also ignoring the 25m2 of reflective surfaces on the LM next to where the 'hotspots' appear - and the adaptations made to the cameras to facilitate the astronauts using gloves
@@DaveMcKeegan you don't know much about studio lighting it seems... It's all about position and direction. I can position fill lights to splash onto a subject without affecting shadows. I can keyhole barn doors on a light to prevent splash from hitting anything BUT the subject.
Camera adjustment was virtually impossible by the astronauts according to NASA. That was one of their first excuses as to why there were no star pictures ever taken. They claimed to have preset the exposures on the cameras.
@@MississippiDan1 Yes but those would still impact the shadows on the subject 🤦🏻♂️
The adjustments were done via the control rings on the lens - Zeiss installed large levers on each ring so they could be changed with just 1 finger pushing against it - settings remained for the most part unchanged, with the only thing the astronauts having to do with is change the aperture between f5.6 and f11 depending on if they were shooting at a sunlit part of the moon or a shaded part
@@DaveMcKeegan No, they wouldn't if they're positioned correctly... have you ever used barn doors or silks? I can put a slice of light through a scene without affecting visible shadows. The shadow cast by the fill is up and not down, making it invisible to the viewer and camera. (Low light pointed upward) You can see a clear tell as the astronaut descends the ladder in shadow, there is a hotspot on his boot momentarily... As far as camera adjustment, with no way to look through the view finder... 8000 pics exposed and focused perfectly. So clearly you can see a letter "C" on one rock? Nonsense... That's impossible with a digital camera that has auto focus and a built in light meter.
@@MississippiDan1 You think you can put light through a barn door that throws light on a subject without affecting the shadows on that subject - seems you've found a way to defy physics
As for 8000 photos perfectly exposed and focused - have you even looked at the original film scans?
The most famous photo from Apollo (the full length shot of Buzz) is underexposed, misfocused and badly composed to the extent of cutting off part of his suit
Cameras were fixed ridged to their chest with the equivalent of a 35mm full frame focal length lens - it's fairly easy to get a subject in frame holding such a camera against your chest - i've done it
Maybe take a look at some of the 360° panaromas taken during the missions and show us where the extra light sources are placed
Stars in a daylight photo on the moon would actually prove the photo to be fake. But it would actually fly in a dumbed down universe.
Yup. But even funnier is the fact that these denier blockheads 'think' (loose term) that white dots on a black background are impossible to fake for some reason.
@Andre Doesn't surprise me. YT algo's are extremely snowflakey these days.
What about the moon rocks that they have are those just regular rocks
There aren't any. Geologists all over the world have examined lunar samples and not one has concluded anything but that they were not of terrestrial origin.
And before you or anyone else brings up the Netherlands and their supposed moon rock, that story has been debunked for quite a long time.
@@critthought2866 "they were not of terrestrial origin." Yes, but that doesn't prove they came from the Moon.
@@jonsmith3945 That's true. But it does show that, unlike the initial claim, they were not "regular rocks," nor were they somehow found as pieces of meteorites that fell to Earth, another claim made by landing deniers. Their structure is consistent with having formed in a near-vacuum under low gravity conditions, and having been bombarded with micro-meteorites and radiation as is found in the solar system.
@@critthought2866 The point is that all those attributes you list could be true of rocks formed elsewhere in space. There is nothing in there identifying the rock as specifically lunar.
Furthermore, the rocks could have come from meteorites. Remove the crust and voila! NASA had a device to simulate micrometeor strikes.
It wasn't until after Apollo that Scientists could identify lunar meteorites. Because they had the same attributes as the samples they were previously given by NASA.
Then again, the Moon rocks are said to be remarkably similar in composition to Earth Rocks.
Man on the moon?.........cmon man
Makes me laugh as not one person who worked in NASA has ever said it was fake over the years and surely someone would have said before now....give it a rest
What proof could that person offer? You think their word is sufficient and they would be believed without question? Most people at NASA wouldn't even know it was faked. Only those in 'need-to-know' positions. Even the guys in the control room woulddn't know. Flight director Gene Kranz has said the training simulations were so realistic, that the control room guys wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a practice run and the real thing.
@@jonsmith3945 Experts spanning the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, and photography all say we’ve been to the Moon, and it’s usually a good idea to defer to experts on matters in which you are, in fact, not one.
It was one of the most public events of the 20th century viewed around the world and would have to have been a conspiracy involving hundreds of different people from many different countries over decades, including Great Britain, the former Soviet Union, France, Australia, Italy, Germany, China, Japan and India, from which not one credible witness has ever emerged. It would also have been impossible to cover up for such a length of time; the Watergate conspirators couldn’t keep their escapade silent for more than a few months.
Photographic techniques of the type required to hoax a moon landing did not exist then.
The dust thrown up by the rover lands in a way impossible in an atmosphere as on earth and there is so much third-party corroboration; for example, the spacecraft were tracked to the moon, the rock and soil samples have been authenticated by many different scientists around the world for decades. Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes have also photographed and or observed the equipment left behind at various Apollo landing sites.
@@Ruda-n4h Thanks, I 've heard that all before and find it wholly unconvincing.
I believe your faith in experts is misguided. After all, the experts told us the C19 vx was safe and effective.
You still believe that?
"surely someone would have said before now."
that's a completely baseless assertion, so an invalid argument.
Most of the NASA workers were tricked along with the public. Only a few needed to be in on the ruse. But keep laughing...it's good for you.
@@Ruda-n4h Experts can be fooled, corrupted, bought or simply wrong.
So just tell me . If you were going to tell me the Biggest Lie and want it to last / 1st you would have as many people involved in it as possible / 2nd You will also have more than one conclusion covered if a question is asked about it / 3rd Make sure the chain of command is strictly enforced and hold people accountable for just their job in the story and make sure that they ask no questions on anyone else's job in it / 4th Last but not least -later if someone asks about why you have not done it again just tell the you lost your home work and can not figure out how to recreate it again . I SAY IT IS ALL B.S.
Murdering a few Doubter's helps too.
True. Making it look like a ton of people are actively involved does give it a lot of fake credit
That's a beautiful dog. Lovely breed.
Otherwise, no. Not even close friend 👇
It is so simple to understand that it was fake it never took place and never will
Wrong
@@Iserate what is wrong
@@thunderstorm6616 "fake it never took place and never will" This is wrong!
7 missions, 6 moonlandings and, 12 men walked on the lunar surface. deal with it shortbus.
@@Iserate you must be living in dreamland
@@thunderstorm6616 you're the one that refuses reality shortbus rider
I'm really enjoying your videos. You directly address them and steelman their arguments, just to proceed to explain + show how it works in real life, with well crafted explanations and footage.
If I ever made a video on this topic, this is the kind of video I'd like to make. Thank you so much.
Don't bother with logic and demonstrated truth with deniers - they don't use them in their religion.
The parallels with religious delusion are many; note the way that when one sound argument which explodes their idiocy is given, they simply ignore it as though it had never even been given, and move on to the next bad argument without even an apology, acknowledgement that they were wrong, or even a pause! Just like the religious, and the 'flat earth' mob.
You are correct to an extent but the difference here is that we can prove the moon landings happened but none of us can prove or disprove the existence of God. Religious people believe because they choose to believe.
@@Ruda-n4h No, it's correct completely - the similarities are perfect. You just added an unnecessary truism.
@@1977ajax Rationalisation only takes you as far as agnosticism, then if you believe or don't believe it's a leap of faith either way.
@@Ruda-n4h Not to believe because there is no indication you try to rename as 'a leap of faith'? Ridiculous.
@@1977ajax It must be faith as what you do can't be proven.
The only thing proven here is the answer of this question... How can you reveal an idiot in less than 17 minutes? Sorry. But in the autumn of my life I have no patience for someone who has no clue what they speak of but pretend otherwise.
So you should have no problem showing how you can get a large, evenly lit landscape with single sets of hard shadows in a studio then 🤔
@@DaveMcKeegan Plenty of photos with double shadows. They had early photoshop at NASa too.
As evidence for the moon landings, we have 382 kg of moon rock, hours of live TV, hours of film, thousands of photos, stacks of measurements and scientific results, eyewitness accounts, and photos of the landing sites made by later lunar orbiters. Detailed analysis of the physics and engineering required shows that it is possible to land on the moon with 1960s technology.
No moon landing denier has ever produced convincing evidence of his claims. Every single argument they make turns out to be based on a basic lack of understanding of physics, misinterpretation of words, pareidoilia or flat-out lies.
@@DaveMcKeegan You can film in sunlight on Earth. Or you can 'doge' the exposure in the darkroom to make the terrain look evenly lit. Some photos show clear signs of light pooling.
@@jonsmith3945 You don't get jet black shadows from sunlight on Earth though because there is no atmosphere, which normally refracts light and makes the shadows appear brighter
This guy didm't want to talk about about the other questionable pictures that would be hard to explain, like the one with the letter "C" on a boulder, or the one where you can see the Earth on the moon's sky. That one picture was proven to be photoshopped and NASA took it down on their official website .
Complete bullshit. Moon hoax believers getting over excited by JPEG compression artifacts.
So, you say that you're more knowledgeable than the entire branches of science such as astrophysics and geology in addition to related specialist fields and cognate disciplines such as aerospace engineering, rocketry and orbital mechanics. That you have more thorough knowledge than Nobel prize winning physicists, More critical thinking skills than Pulitzer awarded investigative journalists. More understanding than historians worldwide. That you have some 'insider' information that negates the accumulative knowledge of entire independent nations and their 76 space agencies, and who have worked for in excess of half a century, all collectively co-opted and coerced by NASA? Meanwhile a random nobody on the comments section of a TH-cam video such as yourself, decrees them to be morons and claims to know better. Perhaps you should visit some of them and put them right - don't forget the let them know that the University of You Tube sent you. 🤣
They are only questionable photos to those that do not understand what they are looking at. Lacking in the understanding of optics, light, exposure, film does not help either. Questions are valid, but making up answers shows a few lacks.
@@WilliamMann-co8un ✔
@@UnstableNucleus Yes, and that as well. But during all SIX Apollo Moon Landings, especially Apollos 15 16 and 17, a considerable amount of science activities were carried out.
*A FUNNY THING HAPPENED* WHEN NASA SENT NINE APOLLO MISSIONS OUT TO THE MOON eight successfully completed their missions, six of which landed two of their crew on the Lunar surface. Those were Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 Now how about that !
They barely did it successfully
@@TimeMasterOG Yes. All the Apollo Missions had a considerable level of risk. They had a real tragedy with Apollo 1 and a near disaster with Apollo 13. All the Apollo Astronauts and those of the Mercury and Gemini test orbit missions were crazy and foolhardy individuals who knew the risks and took them. Nearly all of them were military personnel anyway.
It took only 1 min and 32 seconds before the words conspiracy theorist was spoken. His body language and tone told me from the start that this was not going to be a fair impartial review, that would resolve any questions. Within the first minute he states that "in this day in age why would anyone dispute the facts" and also "thousands of digital pics are on multiple government sites for us to view". As if giving people accessibility to these pics, enforced the idea that they are legitimate. I have a family member that is a professional photographer, with 20 years experience. Those pics were not possible due to the available technology available for the equipment, the heat on the surface of the moon, the limitations of the space suite and gloves. They were not able to adjust settings or focus the lens due to the suit and gloves, and the cameras had no view finder. The factual list goes on and on. Do your own investigation and keep an open mind.
Anyone who believes an official statement is a lie to deceive and hide the truth is by definition posing a theory of a conspiracy - it's only not a theory once it can be undoubtedly proven as true
As for "fair impartial review" - this is off the back of many years listening to the claims of people who believe it was faked, and systemically looking into them with an open mind - and every argument ends up being based on either misrepresentation or misinterpretation
For example in your own statements about heat on the surface of the moon - people take the values of 250°C to -130°C and immediately dismiss the landings as impossible, which is not being open minded it impartial because it completely overlooking the fact the moon doesn't go through 24hr day/night cycles like the Earth does, it goes through 28 day cycles which means with the sun sitting fairly low in the sky at the time of the landings, the temperatures would have been absolutely no where near either of those figures and was instead somewhere just below 0°C
The other points you raise also have glaring flaws in them (despite you portraying them as facts) such as how much control they could have on the cameras when taking pictures
These I will be covering in a further video because there are lots more points people have since raised that I want to address
Hahahahahahaha you are a psychic man 👏
@@DaveMcKeegan Deceiving the public is standard practice for gov't and corporations.
@@jonsmith3945 It also appears to be standard practice for the sceptics given some of the evidence I've seen them put forward
@@DaveMcKeegan They're not likely lying, I'm accused of it all the time, yet I never post anything I know to be false. If something is false, then it's simply because I'm wrong.
There's no motive to lie here.
Thanks for the video explanation. Can you also explain how the camera film was protected from X-rays, Gamma Rays and Ultraviolet radiation?
The camera bodies and the magazines protected the film against most of the radiation, but they weren't able to fully protect them and so some of the film does show some damage from radiation. People have this idea that all radiation requires lead shielding - indeed someone the other day tried to tell me he'd been taught in the armed forces that four feet of lead was needed to shield from the Van Allen belts - but that is not the case. The shielding provided by the craft and the spacesuits was enough to protect the astronauts (and the film) from most of the radiation.
I've did a follow up video which addresses many aspects of the film & cameras including radiation:
th-cam.com/video/hLXHrQ1Keac/w-d-xo.html
or from the vacuum, a fact about the Hexagon Spy Satellite: "The whole camera system operated in a vacuum, except for the film which was in a pressurized container," explained Pressel.
Dog: C’mon man, tell them the twuth….and give me a dog bone treat. 😂
Hahahahahahaha 😀
do you know how hard it would be to fake it there so much paper work you would have to fake
Nonsense. Everything was real except the walking on the Moon part. They didn't fake the paper work or the technology.
Where's the paid sponsor disclosure from NASA?
George Soros is paying you to leave these false comments
Oh, come on, Eileen. Everyone says that you're paranoid.
Ran into a guy that thinks that light needs a medium or an atmosphere for things to be seen.
Literally thinks that without an atmosphere there would be only darkness.
You didn't run into him hard enough.
The guy you ran into was wrong but actually the worlds best physicists were thinking along those lines in the 18-hundreds. Therefore they postulated the ether as a medium for light and radio waves to travel through. Einstein and many others resolved the matter in the early 19-hundreds and showed that light indeed can travel in a vacuum.
There is also the possibility that your friend is confusing light and sound ...
What’s really impressive is how well the pictures are framed, taking into account that the cameras were strapped to their chest and they didn’t have a viewfinder.
Sinclair J Lots of photos were not perfectly framed. In fact one of the most iconic photos from Apollo 11 of Alden has the top of the PLSS cut off. Also they practiced with the cameras during all Lunar EVA training. They got pretty good at aiming for the most part. They also used a 60mm lends which on a Hasselblad is a bit of a wide angle lens so that helped in framing the photos as well.
It must've happend it was on t.v. 🤣
The missions were tracked by radioamateurs.
@@quinlan1977 well that settles it.
__
When they didn't get to the moon they had all this failed rocket science to dispose of so they invented leaf blowers. --Thor
LMAO WHO PAID THIS GUY TO MAKE THIS VIDEO?
They jumped to the future and edited the photos with AI program.
Haha, I think just going to the moon would be easier ;-)
no they don't have to jump anywhere.. they just edit it today.. and say it's an original when it's clearly not. and no one can prove or deny.. same thing with watching a nasa live feed. it's all bullshit cgi animation
and again.. that aren't going to let anyone try to prove it or deny. they'll be quick to call you crazy though.. and argue with you like a bunch of 16 years olds.. lol
image retouching was the term they used in those days. So it was possible. But........ They did land on the mood...... And the earth is a sphere.
@@kylegroenewald8341 Do you want to challenge my story telling capabilities? There are two time machines. One built by Tesla (the man not the car). The other was brought by Little Green Men to area 51.
I smell bullshit 😂
Get your nose out of the skeptics arse then 🤣
Just another paid for propaganda video
Backed with proof? 🤦🏻♂️
And they say they've lost the technology of the 60's which is why they didn't return since. 🤣
No, one astronaut said they destroyed the technology, not lost it.
IM OLD AND I JUST FOUND OUT A FEW YEARS AGO THAT YOU CAN'T TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT AND CAN'T PUT ANYTHING PAST THEM GOD BLESS AMERICA
Another shill!
But enough about you.
One look at that lunar module is all it takes to realize that thing didn't land on the Moon.
One look and you realise it wouldn't have flown in a thick atmosphere
But why wouldn't it be able to land in a vacuum in low gravity?
If all you spend is "one look", you only have a superficial first impression. Dig deeper, and you'll see there are excellent reasons for the way the LM looks. This is a machine that is built for one purpose: to land on the moon, and take off into lunar orbit. The weight limits they had to work with meant everything had to be optimized for that one purpose.
The LM wouldn't work in an atmosphere. It could barely stand on its own feet in Earth gravity. But none of that matters because it didn't have to do those things.
Another " expert" who tries to make a name for himself, attempting a debunk, but fails. Personally, I still doubt that the ground can illuminate well enough, when the subject is in shadow. Now if there were reflectors of some description that were placed outside the shadow area..... Maybe. Then there's the poxy little aerial, 20 watts, receiving and transmitting quarter of a million miles, not even a hint of loss or interference, just no.
Claim I'm failing as an 'expert'
Then asserts a bunch of opinions based on no actual science 🤣
The radio transmissions were far from clear, and what exactly is there in that quarter of a million miles that would cause that much interference?
There was a poxy little aerial with a 20W transmitter on one end, and a 70 meter dish antenna with a cryogenic receiver and tens of kW of transmitter power on the other end. This gave an excellent link budget which allowed TV transmission along with audio and telemetry. They still had regular trouble with transmissions - this is especially noticeable for comms to the CM, which was moving so it had to adjust its antenna. The LM was stationary after landing, so its link was more stable. Next time, read up before commenting.
You've let it slip - 'You personally doubt it' because you've already made your mind up. Not very scientific.
Wow, I guess I’m weird. I see stars sometimes even in the morning time when the sun is coming up.
You'll see some of the very bright stars occasionally but not lots
If you look at the high resolution copies of the moon photos there are occasional stars which appear
@@DaveMcKeegan I don't think so, Venus does just about manage to appear in some photos. What some think are stars are merely defects in the emulsion appearing as bright specks. I was told that somebody had identified some real stars in photos taken on the surface but I remain doubtful. If you have information confirming real stars (in photos taken from the surface and not from the Apollo 16 UV camera) then I would be very interested.
Have you ever tried to photograph stars? try it. and in space, with sun thats always there? you can only see stars in the morning before sunrise, never afterwards. But like i said, try photgraphing stars when another light source is present. You wont be able to
That’s fine but you know much about night photography with a film camera.
@@CLERIC_58 is your name humorous or are you an actual cleric?
The fun thing about conspiracists is that they think NASA couldnt even set up a camera trick if they wanted to
They are good at CGI , th-cam.com/video/T_Xbpg14mcQ/w-d-xo.html
@@jmatasomo2660 that video is so bad it hurts, literally every point he said is wrong
It's all hypothesis and conjectures done on a chair with a dog in your lap. The proper way is to use the top of the line equipment of that era to reproduce the scenario and compare the differences quantitatively. Publish and peer review
Equipment of the day doesn't change the fundamental of how light falls across a scene
@@DaveMcKeegan a conducted experiment is better than any argument
Which is why I've used experiments in the video which show the fundamental behaviour of light
The camera being used doesn't change that, it's behaviour that you can witness yourself on a daily basis
It just gets ignored by deniers though because it doesn't suite their argument
Unless you have access to a vacuum chamber, it would not be possible to reproduce the scenario, even if you could somehow replicate the way the light of the sun at that distance would work. But physics is physics.
No man has ever been to the Moon.. don't be silly! there eyes would pop out of their head like in total recall! lol seriously!
Dave: *_"If you are imagine that you are standing on a railway track, preferably not when there's a train nearby..."_*
In the case individuals from the _Apollo Moon Landing Hoax_ crowd, I would respectfully disagree...😉
60 Million dollars a day, Nasa can't get humans more than 400 miles away from Earth in 2022. Yet in 1969 they went 238,000 miles to the moon. Right 🤔🙄
Because why?
Getting to the moon was the goal in 1969
Now that we've been then what's the point sending 2 men back for 3 days with hardly any equipment ... What would they manage to achieve that can't be done with rovers?
Hence the focus is now on craft that can sustain larger crews for longer periods
It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. So NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS).
Making the Space Shuttle reusable meant it became a large, heavy spacecraft, which couldn't carry enough fuel to escape from Earth orbit for lunar missions. That doesn't mean we "lost the technology" to do manned lunar missions, it just means we chose not to do manned lunar missions for a while.
NASA's budget these days is 30% science (Earth observation, planetary science, astronomy), 30% human exploration (SLS, Orion, Artemis), 15% R&D and operations, 15% ISS.
Chernobyl 1986 on the roof of reactor number workers or ‘liquidators’ as they were better known, toiled for 40 seconds, radiation exposure as high as 80 msg per second, thousands died. How do we know this, there are still photographs taken with a camera.
And there is a photograph of the most radioactive object on earth, the ‘elephants foot’ the man who took the first photograph died but the picture survived
And.. you know the photo is not a fake because....?
@@jonsmith3945 Because there's no evidence that the picture is a fake.
@@jonsmith3945 it’s like what Jong said. But there is further evidence, the fact that radioactive fallout from the explosion at Chernobyl was found on the hills of northern England, which led to a three month ban on eating beef, lamb and dairy from local farms in the area. With this in mind it wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine that such photographs exist.
And furthermore, why would you fake pictures of men on a roof of whom thousands died? The Russians tried to cover up as much of the effects of the Chernobyl accident as possible, which could explain why the Russian soldiers who took over the Chernobyl power plant during the early days of the invasion of Ukraine possessed maps that predated the explosion. They dug trenches in the Red forest, the most contaminated area in the exclusion zone. So again why the photographs?
Of course, one could argue that the Russians, who supposedly were involved in the moon fakery from day one, did fake these photographs in order to bolster the idea that it was possible for NASA to take photographs on the moon….?
@@jonsmith3945 Ah, the answer to every conspiracy ---> just keep adding more conspiracy.
@@ReValveiT_01 If you studied the subject, you'd know the real ones are all connected.
The rest are 'fake' conspiracies like Flat Earth, promulgated by the Intelligence Agencies to muddy the waters and keep you from examining the real ones like the New World Order, now rebranded as the Great Reset.
Yes the real conspiracies run far, far wider and deeper than you can even imagine.
But I'd advse you to stay away frrom conspiracy theories. Instead, enjoy your bliss while it lasts.
Looks like South Park.
Dave: *_"Now, there are countless arguments that people put forward as proof that the landings were a hoax. I'm not going into all of them."_*
*SPOILER ALERT:* Dave eventually goes into all of them...😉
11:43 There is no atmosphere and large mountains can appear close by, because there is no natural haze that we get on earth that helps us gauge the distance. Hence the photos can be taken at different places but the mountains looks the same because they are actually further back and bigger.
There's an interesting video from one of the landings where the two astronauts see what they think is a small hill nearby and decide to go check it out. They are hopping over there for a minute or two while chatting before realizing they aren't getting any closer. It was at that point that they realized the small hill nearby was actually a large mountain far in the distance. We are adapted to using atmospheric haze when gauging distance, and the lack of atmosphere really messes with that ability.
Complete garbage
So sad that adults even have to be taught these matters of perspective that many children have learned by 7yo.
I can hear them now they are saying NASA shill 😂
Makes a change from being called a bot :D
We're missing a trick here, forget that for ages 11+ tin can lego rubbish, just take those hassleblad containers the camera reel went and came through Van Allen 'Morrisons' belt 😅😅😅
The radiation intensity in the VA belts or on the lunar surface is far too low to fog film in a few days.
@@h.dejong2531
1960's making a return, VA belts didn't have shit on dead-tech 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@cocobeware9442 You're arguing from ignorance. In 1958, James van Allen and his team at the University of Iowa discovered the belts that were later named after him, using measurements from the NASA missions Explorer 1. With Explorer 3 and 4 and Pioneer 3 he measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. The Apollo astronauts flew through the belts in about 3 hours, while avoiding the part with the highest levels entirely. The hull thickness of the CSM was more than enough to reduce the radiation level inside to manageable levels.
Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission-to-mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy).
More details in this video from Scott Manley: th-cam.com/video/h9YN50xXFJY/w-d-xo.html
@@h.dejong2531
But they were worse than 1st expected, but no problem for dead-tech 🤣
Corridor digital and Nvidia did a video on this showing that with their latest ray tracing the pictures are accurate. They built a complete 3D copy of the lunar surface, lander and astronaut then lit it with a single light source and got identical pictures.
Yeah, with technology from 2023, not from 1960s technology. Also I'm still sure that their are differences in it, even if they are very small.
Imagine thinking that the moon landing was real.
really.... do you 'think' or do you have irrefutable evidence that the 9 Apollo missions to the moon and back were all faked... if so please show us.. something like this..
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 and the flags.
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.
That's because they were. All 6 of them. You not understanding how the Apollo missions worked is not evidence for them being faked.
@@dkart96 haha you prob believe fauci when he said the science was settled.
@@AintMadAtIt 1. No, I didn't, and I still remain the only person in my entire family that has yet to receive the COVID jab (I refuse to get it)
2. What does the COVID jab have to do with the Apollo missions?
Imagine having examined the evidence. You should try it sometime.
Beautiful. Simple, fact based description of why this is obvious to anyone who cares to learn about the way this stuff works. Just doing a dive into this channel after your conversation with MCToon. Such fun and entertaining vids, while being packed with information. 👍
NASA landed on the moon and equally true is I swam the Pacific Ocean round trip in 2 days.
"Truther" in YT name ✅
Posting infantile nonsense ✅
Nothing new here.
Are you an id10t in real life, or do you just play one on the internet?
If we've been to the moon was it so hard to go back to the Moon
Nixon and Congress cut the program and the funding, so no more Saturn V rockets were made. No big rocket = no trips to the moon. It's that simple.
Crickets…. 😂
Because we never went in the first place
Hahahahahahaha they destroyed the tech to get there again
@@mpirokajosephmgcokoca2355 They quit building the Saturn V after landing six times. After that NASA spent its budget on the space shuttle.