- I've been to the Moon  - Oh, yeah? How did you do it?  - I don't know  - What do you mean you don't know? Didn't you keep any recordings?  - No, I lost them  - Did you lose the recordings of the greatest feat in the history of mankind?  - Yes  - OK... well, it doesn't matter, you must have brought back other evidence, right?  - Yes, here's a moon rock  - Wait a minute, your moon rock is made of wood, how come?  - I don't know  - well it doesn't matter, at worst you can do it again, can't you?  - No  - Why not?  - I don't know how to do it anymore, and it's expensive, and it's useless  - I see. Are you sure you've been to the Moon?  - What do you mean, are you sure? Do you doubt what I'm saying?  - Well, excuse me, but you're telling me something extraordinary, you've got no proof, you can't do it again, and you're known to have lied about a few important things in the past: Pearl Harbor, Tonkin Bay, Timisoara, the Kuwaiti incubators... 
Debunking the claims made here: Recordings: Only magnetic backup film was destroyed because it degrades quickly over time and is also a backup. The originals still exist and have thousands of copies. This footage here is a copy from an original. Wooden rocks: Your referring to a story where Neil Armstrong gave the former Dutch PM (not even in office anymore at the time) a large moon rock, he kept it in storage, and after his death in the 80’s, the rock was donated to a museum where it was found out to be petrified wood. The problem with that story is that the transaction between Neil and the Dutch PM never happened as the only moon rock samples that were given to the Dutch were a few milligrams for Apollo 11 and about a gram for Apollo 17. Those were the only times the US gave them moon samples. This story was made up by the guy who donated the “moon rock” to the museum since the PM it was “gifted” to wasn’t in power anymore, the US would never give away a rock of that size to someone who has no scientific background in astronomy or geology and was just made up to sell the rock. Going back: Yes. It was expensive. It cost $250B adjusted for inflation today, the US was struggling with Vietnam, the public didn’t care about Apollo anymore and NASA wanted to move to the Shuttle which had nothing in common with the Saturn-V. It doesn’t mean we CAN’T build a Saturn-V, it’s just that it will be more expensive to do so since most, if not all of the manufacturing techniques used are no longer in use, and either training people to use these techniques or modifying the Saturn-V to fit with modern technology would be even more expensive than the SLS. They did go to the moon. If they didn’t, it would have been the Soviets who said they never went instead of fraudsters trying to discredit the greatest achievement in man kind because they just wanted to get popular without caring for how they got popular. The Soviets never said it was faked.
They did take pictures of earth. Hundreds of pictures. Most from orbit but some were from the surface. Not many from the surface because the earth was almost directly above them which made taking photos of earth difficult but not impossible.
- I've been to the Moon  - Oh, yeah? How did you do it?  - I don't know  - What do you mean you don't know? Didn't you keep any recordings?  - No, I lost them  - Did you lose the recordings of the greatest feat in the history of mankind?  - Yes  - OK... well, it doesn't matter, you must have brought back other evidence, right?  - Yes, here's a moon rock  - Wait a minute, your moon rock is made of wood, how come?  - I don't know  - well it doesn't matter, at worst you can do it again, can't you?  - No  - Why not?  - I don't know how to do it anymore, and it's expensive, and it's useless  - I see. Are you sure you've been to the Moon?  - What do you mean, are you sure? Do you doubt what I'm saying?  - Well, excuse me, but you're telling me something extraordinary, you've got no proof, you can't do it again, and you're known to have lied about a few important things in the past: Pearl Harbor, Tonkin Bay, Timisoara, the Kuwaiti incubators... 
The flag fluttering in the AC and fan wind in the studio is definitive proof of the fakery. One can see this throughout the video but specially around the 8:50 to 9:00 mark. Later whistleblowers testified that huge industrial grade fans were used in the Nevada warehouse where this particular video was shot. In the vacuum of space, there should be **absolutely** no waving/fluttering of a flag. There are many tell-tale signs, but this is the most brazen.
It acts way more like a pendulum rather than a flag in the wind. You also miss the fact that theres hours of uncut footage of the flag not moving and even in this video less than a minute later before liftoff, it doesn’t move
Some of the original film was already 24fps... Apollo 14 carried three 16-mm Maurer Data Acquisition Cameras (DAC), one in the CM and two in the LM. The cameras were used for recording engineering data, continuous-sequence terrain photography, and lunar surface photography. They had frame rates of 1, 6, and 12 fps automatic and 24 fps semiautomatic at all lens focal lengths.
Do you have a time stamp for that? I mean, the camera came in the ship with everything else. It was set up by the astronauts. Maybe you mean 4:44 when he it's climbing down the ladder? In that case, understand that there are two men on the surface, so the camera would have been set up by the other man. Also realize that they performed multiple EVAs so they may have set things up on the first EVA and then gone to sleep in the LM and the stuff is already set up when they emerge for the servings EVA.
Their is no wind on the moon.Why does the flag dip up and down like wind is moving it? For that reason alone,i believe this is fake.Furthurmore,springs could have been inserted into the bottom of the boots,that would explain the bounds.
Does anyone know what happened to Ed White's wife, Pat White (nee. Patricia Finegan, and later remarried to carry the surname Davis), after his untimely death in the Apollo 1 disaster? I find conflicting reports on Pat, one from UPI says she died as a result of complications after a cancer surgery in 1983, but other reports, including PBS and NYP, claimed that she committed suicide in 1991 just before her annual Astronaut's Wife Club reunion, I mean what is going on here?
I’m just going to guess your from Japan because you’re typing in Japanese so: A Japanese lunar orbiter took a topographical survey near the Apollo 15 landing site and put that data into a 3D software and then checked Apollo 15 photos taken by astronauts on the surface. The geography matched perfectly
Wow - so many comments from people who can't spot a fake video! Freeze the vid at 4:25. See the shadow of the lm leg. Tell me 'how' can a rocket blast be UNDER the shadow? The shadow is supposed to be on the ground, the dust should obscure the shadow - not the shadow obscure the dust. And, while we're at it, how come all those 'exhaust' beams are showing they all come from a fine-point source somewhere under the viewing point. So for a rocket with a 3 ft diameter nozzle, how can you get a 'fine-point' source? Just go look at the vid of this motor being tested and see if blowing the desert apart at more than 100 ft distance. The smell of rat is everywhere! rofl!
"blowing the desert apart" Well, there's air in the desert, so it's not surprising if the exhaust pattern looks different on the moon. And as far as your shadow question... how do you think dust can hide a shadow? As soon as the dust, that dust becomes dark like the regolith beneath. Maybe I'm not understanding you, though.
@@gives_bad_advice Oh boy, you are very good at 'missing the point'. What difference does air make to the scenario" We are talking about an exhaust nozzle, which, if you look closely, expands the jet blast. To get patterns as depicted in this (and other landing vids), you would need to have a converging nozzle - large-to-small. I'm not sure what planet you are from, but where I come from, you can only get radial beams of wind - from a tiny nozzle, and underneath a rocket with a 3ft diameter nozzle, you are NEVER going to get radial beams of a few inches in width, You only get those from tiny nozzles. As for your 'shadow' theory, that's about as disconnected from reality as your first comment. If you blow dust OVER a shadow, it will disrupt the shadow, either fully or partially obscuring it. The shadow will not remain clear and distinct .. The shadow will fade or disappear. Just go outside on a partially cloudy day. What happens to the shadows when a cloud obscures the sun? Yep, they all disappear.
@@apxpandy4965 "what difference does air make" Well, in a vacuum, the exhaust is going to expand very very rapidly the moment it exits the nozzle, compared to the situation on earth under 1 atm of air pressure. Your idea here is interesting but it's just that-- an idea that hasn't been tested under lunar conditions. What you have is a hypothesis, not a conclusion. As far as your shadow idea, i admit that i really don't understand what you're saying. I don't know how it's possible for dust to be over or under a shadow. Have you ever seen a shadow cast through dusty air? It's not just a 2 dimensional strip along the floor. Dust in the air reveals it to be a 3 dimensional shape cast through the depth of the air and ending on the floor, if you know what i mean. It's not a pancake laying on the floor that anything can go above or below. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
@@gives_bad_advice Wow, you are so good at arguing - you have answered your own argument. Just have a look at any of the apollo launches - flames, smoke are clearly visible from the vehicle well above the 60 mile altitude mark. If what you said were true, how could that happen? And, if you note from the mission flight journals, they all indicate the LM 'kicking up dust' whilst they are still 100ft above the surface. If what you said was true - How could that happen? But, back to the shadow. The shadow is cast upon the surface. That's how you see it, you can't see a shadow 'mid air'. Sooo, just think and then tell me HOW the dust can be blown UNDER the shadow - which is what the video clearly shows to be happening? We'll make a hoax believer out of you yet! rofl!
@@apxpandy4965 Smoke is made from particles, it's not a gas and doesn't obey pv = nrt. And the amount of exhaust from the Saturn V is no comparable to the decent module, anyway. As far as kicking up dust at 100 ft--I doubt any such thing is said in the flight journals, but if so, then yes the exhaust would be forming a much tighter jet than i expect. But i just don't think that's true. If you can point me to the flight journal where that appears, I'd be obliged. That's not a challenge, just a genuine interest.
I'd like to believe this incredible accomplishment as much as anybody else but ... who got out of the lunar module and assembled the lighting rig pictured in the left part of shot at 4:45 to illuminate the "eagle" sitting on the moon's surface? it has a bright light, tripod stand, light directing umbrella & wires leading thru the dust to the right out of shot where it's presumably energized. the only source of electricity would be the lunar module itself right? so, the guy descending ladder at 5:30 isn't the first man out bc someone (if this were real, true, reliable video footage) has to erect a lighting rig and camera before johnny 7 makes his big entrance. also, the "flag pole" is already installed in "this" video at 5:30 beyond the lunar module's shadow, reflecting light off it. besides all that, we're generally expected to naively swallow this aluminum foil/curtain rod tree fort, controlled with microwave technology, then blasts off to re-dock with the stationary/orbiting "space craft" that the men are inside when they "splash down" in the Indian ocean two days later? how the phuck did they do that? how do you even practice that zero gravity maneuver? curious, there is no footage of the separating of/or re-docking of that module and the eagle/lunar module isn't it? non sense. if they did this feat why did they not continue during the 70's, 80's, 90's, new century with more modern tech? nasa says they lost the tech that had and used in the late 60's. that's absurd. saying nothing would've been a more respectable decision. nasa's version of 'my dog ate it'.
4:45 was the second EVA. They got out first, placed the experiments, got back inside to rest and refill the PLSS, then went out a second time. This is the second time. The light is the sun. After the astronaut adjusts the aperture of the camera, you can also very clearly see that it’s a satellite dish and not an umbrella. The shadow is also nearly completely transparent so that’s a really bad umbrella. How did they take off from the moon, redock with the CSM in orbit travelling around 4,000mph, transfer the crew, experiments and rock samples, undock and then return home? With great difficulty and with previous missions like Apollo 10 which was a rehearsal for Apollo 11 where the were around 9 miles from the surface of the moon before being forced to return to the CSM as well as missions going around the moon unmanned, manned, and probes. There is footage of the docking and undocking of the LM to the CSM. They didn’t continue because of funding cuts. America had almost everything focused on Apollo during that time which is why they went from first manned flight in 1962 to footprints on the moon in 1969. An example of something similar to this happening would be the development of the British Dreadnought battleships which when they were first made, took just over a year to make when today, it takes several years. This was because it was a national priority, just like Apollo. They never lost the tech, just the means to make them because of, yet again, funding as well as a new program called the shuttle which had nothing in common with the Saturn-V. NASA always wanted to go back, they just couldn’t because they didn’t have the funds
This is not the Eagle. This is A14. And the light is the sun. And why do you want to see video of the docking manuver? You'll just reject it as fake, right? At any rate, there is indeed video of the docking, which you can find in about 10 seconds here in You Tube. 4:45
Not a hoaxer, but what is the explanation of how there is no sound delay when talking to Houston? The audio is edited, and the edited audio is looped over the video?
The only reason I give hoaxers the time of day is becauese of all the times they are called stupid. Truth doesnt require ridicule and the use of it sus as f.
4:50 What's that tower like structure on the right side of the lander, it must be an artificial structure since it is clearly visible in all videos of this mission, so what are we seeing, an alien tower like structure or some unknown ground phenomenon, I am only curious hence want to know, so that everyone watching this will get better information and knowledge, thank you greetings from❤🇬🇧, much love and respect NASA❤🇬🇧
