It's been almost 50 years but we still can't get a clear image of the landing sites. Surprisingly JAXA's lunar probe didn't go that close to the landing site of the apollo 11 to show lunar lander and flag. Let's wait and hope that we can ever get a clear shot of the landing sites.
There are clear views of the landing sites from this orbiter & in this film. You can even see the lunar rover tracks & footprints. You will not get a clearer shot unless you are standing in the exact spot!
@@alexfox1776 Hi A F, Hope that you are well. You wrote "but you can see Mars and Jupiter from Earth right?". Yes Alex, this is correct. This is because Mars and Jupiter are much larger than "the lunar rover tracks & footprints". Seriously, does this really need to be explained?. Take care.
Conspiracy theorists why are there no pictures. Shown picture. Why aren't they better. Shown really good pictures. Those are too good, obviously faked.
Conspiracy theorist: Why can’t we see it with a telescope from earth. Why is it the only source of proof comes from the globalistagenda.org Why are sheeple so stupid to the globalistagenda.org Because the globalistagenda.org is real.
These images look like from that game Tetris where you have to fit the bricks, with pixely resolution that we had on our Atari computers back in the 80's.
@ALL LIVES MATTER first of all, the camera has to be cosmic ray proof, second of all ever heard of data loss, its not like any of the data could be not picked up, and at the end of the day yore watching a 240p video about it, look up the original pictures online
+inagod So where is your evidence of such allegations? Oh wait, I know! You play X-BOX all day so you know how to spot these things, right? Listen, NASA doesn't need or want your trust. They don't even know you exist. To them, you are just another inexperienced millennial conspiratard commenting on something you know nothing about.
@@michaeldavis1609 - hahahahaha they can't go back... they have somehow misplaced the trajectory data on how to get to the moon, because you know, NASA only made ONE COPY of 'How to get to the moon'. Might find it for sale on ebay one day. Imagine if they all signed the Declaration of Independence and then stuck it in a drawer somewhere and then 10 years later someone asked to see it... 'Oh sorry, can't remember where i put it sorry, anyway - not like it was important or anything.'
@@Aishindojo : Newtons wrote the rules for orbits and gravity. Why would you believe the math is impossible today? Did you fail math? Also, there are no more man rated Saturn V / Apollo systems available today. Nobody will go back until such a system, or better is built.
I'm actually old enough to have seen Sputnik 1 (or probably its last rocketstage, which was much smaller than Apollo) back in october 1957, as a kid. I also saw a satellite in November 1957, when only Sputnik 1 and Sputnik 2 had been launched. Since then, I've seen dozens of satellites. No problem to see an Apollo ship. They would have been some of the larger satellites. I once saw the Shuttle when it had just left the ISS. Two clear stars following each other. Without binoculars.
You mean to tell me those tiny little objects are "Clearly" visible not to mention recognizable from miles above the lunar surface? Give me a break! The tire tracks seem a little suspicious as well.
Yah. .60 miles above in the Lunar orbiter... And, absolutely correct...the tire tracks are MASSIVE in proportion to the claimed Lunar lander btm stage.. funny...what a joke...and people believe that Startrek is the real deal also...
Right? The mass brainwashing is unbelievable. Their footprints visible from space LMAO. Anyone who believes in these cartoons needs a check up from the neck up.
Still, just imagine, as far as we know, we may be the ONLY species in the universe that, by our own determination and power, have travelled to another celestial body. I think it's fascinating what the human species can accomplish when we will.
I totally agree. What a vision on the part of JFK! What immense courage on the part of the astronauts! All the careful, thorough work done by the unsung support team that enabled the moon trip! What a shame that America doesn't maintain its education system. Thousands of Americans are too uneducated to understand this achievement. Their brains are eaten away by Mountain Dew syrup, junk food, Fox News and lack of exercise and inadequate sleep. A whole section of a nation are effectively mentally disabled because America refuses to tax the wealthy so that the poor can become educated enough to think and learn and thus to participate in the magnificent attempt at democracy in action which is America. And why? So that the excessively rich can jam more and more money into their bloated bank accounts. Gradually all the money in America is coagulating into the bank accounts of a few families, leaving the poor struggling to survive. So America went to the moon and lots of poor people can't enjoy that fact because science is too difficult for them.
To upload these 'sharp new images' at 240p is pretty damn ridiculous ... even for 2011. For those who are interested, this clip can be viewed at a clearer 360p, here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Pnhnx95LkCc.html
I am proud of my country, the NASA moon mission was very complicated and extremely dangerous but the US pulled off the greatest achievement in the history of mankind and that should be celebrated. Let the doubters doubt because it is totally inconsequential and it doesn't change the facts.
Lenny Anders Well said. It’s incredible and sad that there are people who actually refuse to believe mankind’s greatest achievement. I saw it announced that the us plans to establish a moon base. How will the deniers handle that when it happens ?
@@Chipchase780I don't know but they will think of some silly explanation. The flat earthers are another group of nut jobs, they even have their own flat earth convention so it's become obvious that the collective IQ of America is on the decline.
@Enjoy and Travel The World! you were on the moon? are you an astronaut ? and you are proud of your country, because you have done anything to get nasa to the moon ? you are proud of things you personal didn't done?
@Enjoy and Travel The World! yeah sure :) u can be proud of things u didn't do achievements of others...(sarcasm) WTF yea you can be proud of ur wrestling because its your success/achievement, no problem with that . but proud of a nation u were randomly born into???
@Enjoy and Travel The World! yeah u have the right thinking, (I don't know if u can say that in english), ur a good man Sir, sorry for my missunderstanding
The Japanese lunar orbiter took pictures of some of the landing sites showing the decent stage of the lander, the rovers from the later Apollo missions and foot print tracks and rover tracks.
fredflint75 And yet, Van Allen and every other actual scientist who has studied this stuff says that the edges of the belts (which is what the astronauts went through) had a low enough radiation level that it wasn't a problem. I don't suppose that they might, you know, more about the subject than you?
fredflint75 Actually, the mission reports contain all the information needed to reconstruct "exactly where they flew". That info has been public knowledge for 45 years, and has been on-line for almost half that time. As far as the radiation readings, each astronaut work a "dosimeter", and they read the readings back periodically to the ground. Transcripts for all the Apollo missions except 14 and 17 are available on-line. Pick a mission, and I'll even tell you where in the transcripts to find the readings. As far as Dr. Van Allen saying a massive amount of shielding was needed, I'll even concede that he may have said that--right after the belts were discovered. But try and find a quote from him saying that after about 1960--once the belts had been studied for a few years. You CT's are great for finding some nugget of information that you think proves your point, and ignoring every bit of research that comes after that. So if the best science of 1958 supports your claim, there's no need to look at any later science. Also, why would Van Allen be a reliable source for how big a rocket would need to be? He was neither an engineer, nor someone involved in designing rockets. The "bigger than the Saturn V" claim is usually supported by a quote from von Braun--without noting that the quote dates from 1953, when we didn't know if a man could survive in weightlessness without choking on his own drool.
SURFRUNNER D The difference is that we quote people who are experts in their fields. Quoting Van Allen about what size rocket would be required is a logical fallacy. He was a well-known authority on space science, which is different from being a rocket designer or engineer.
NASA owns the Van Allen Belts..from discovery and exploration from the early 1950's with the Vanguard/Explorer probes plus Pioneer probes in the early60's..NASA and VanAllen knew best how to exploit ways and speeds through the belts..
i want you to try to view the fine details of a coin that is i cm from your eye. the telescopes that we use to view the solar system are of the wrong focus.
Okay, put the money into providing proof of past achievements which are trivial in the scope of what modern science has accomplished, which will likely continue to be called "fake" by armchair scientists. or put the money into new research that could better our understanding of the universe as well as the technology involved. You decide. Space isnt cheap.
The computer uses the landing radar to calculate how high the LM is above the surface and how fast it's descending. Once it gets close to the surface, it switches to another program that uses the height and decent rate (called "delta V") to calculate where it will land if the commander doesn't make any changes to the descent rate or flight path.
Man, it's almost like NO ONE here has any remote idea how absolutely amazing this is. Theres this thing called an ATMOSPHERE around earth, and it distorts things. We've only in the last decade learned how to cancel it out.
if google can take satellite pictures of Earth to the detail of seeing someone's BBQ in their backyard, surely this can also be done for the moon. why are we still getting this low-quality crap I wonder
Hi guys, Excuse my scepticism on this video. I would like to know how and with what hardware were these photos taken? They can't be taken from Earth with current technology and Hubble cannot be used as it's set up for deep space telemetry, so unless it was taken by a satellite, the Russian or Chinese, I'm a bit baffled as to how these images were obtained? Please enlighten me/us?
The film shows the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which took the pictures. Finally, once & for all dismissing the ludicrous sceptics that we ever went there.
Well, I don't really care if earth is flat or square, but I do know that Google earth viewing the moon landing sites are fake, all you have to do is throw a screen shot of them into FotoForensics and they show up manipulated images that are pasted or painted into the moon surface... say all you like but faking photos I did quite a lot for NASA from 1968 to 72, I know NASA lies!
Man, these guys were *brave* ... A "one shot" deal, all the way around - hit the surface too hard, you die or get stranded; bolts misfire upon takeoff from the lunar surface - you die or get stranded; all of your life support, everything stored in that little shack; you are the ONLY two people on the surface; it's absolutely barren - no flowers, water, etc. Just grey dust and rocks. And if it's true that Neil saw an alien craft watching them, just think how creepy it must have been for him to still leave the LM and *go outside?!!* Yikes!
Totally awe-inspiring. Not sure where in the world you are but here, in Britain, there are loads of programs on the TV about the Apollo 11 mission. I can't get enough of them, there is something new in each one and I get goosebumps just watching them. True pioneers.
Not to mention meteorites aliens temperature extremes radiation solar wind. Your fuel and life support systems bombarded by the Solar wind and radiation which can affect electrics and instrumentation. I've never been convinced by the idea of manned space flight. No air, water, food, exploding stars, gravitational and magnetic fields that could vaporise you in an instant, itinerant black holes, vast distances and space junk to start with. Try filing a flight plan in that.
@@leonardgibney2997 and with this space tourism many things can go wrong just as you stated in your comments. Of course us humans would be excited but the dangers that lurks is something beyond words to explain
I wonder what it was like for the astronaut who didn't step onto the moon but had to do an isolated trip around the moon, wondering all the time if his companions could successfully reconnect with the mother spaceship or if it would fail to dock and they would be knocked off course and would wander off into space forever. That would give the word "lonely" a whole new depth of meaning.
When you figure out how incredibly difficult and expensive it would have been to try to fake the Apollo landings with 1960s FILM MAKING tech, it's just cheaper to actually go to the Moon. It would have been impossible to fake it and NOT get found out.
How dumb does that sound? You’re saying it would cost 100’s of millions to fake it? That’s totally wrong. 2001, which was state of the art technology didn’t cost 100’s of millions to make.
There wouldn't be a crater, there was only a layer of dust on a firm surface. There wouldn't be any dust on the landing pads because the engines had already been cut by the time the pads touched down...not to mention that most of the dust would have been blown away by then.
vhsjvc ... Give me one reason why rockets should not work in space. you seem to have some special insight into the laws of physics that no one else is privy to.
lawrence wil Some people are under the impression a rocket needs air to push off of. Don't even bother explaining how it works to them. They'll just call you a brainwashed puppet or something. They're not worth your time.
You can see where the astroNOTS 0:55 kicked up the dust where they walked around. Every time I hear this liar say this I have to stop and laugh. And he's AMAZED! Whatever!
Terry Badger OK Terry, I take it you're 100% convinced that 12 men did not walk on the moon. That however does NOT entitle you to call Mr.Petro a "liar". If you're in denial about the Apollo program, and the moon landings, that's fine, but just abusing someone in that fashion does not support your case. And based on what you've said I'm sure you have PROOF ABSOLUTE, beyond your opinion, that the moonlandings did not take place. I invite you to share that PROOF ABSOLUTE with the rest of the world. A short video presentation in response to this video would be fine. As for me I have 100's of photos from the Apollo program and ALL the Apollo moonwalks on videotape. One of the Apollo 17 moonwalks lasts several hours and covers a huge area. How they faked a continuous television feed from the surface of the moon showing two astronauts walking around and driving the lunar rover and that last several hours just amazing .......
Joan Evans Well sweetheart, do you know how to use the internet? www.flickr.com will allow you to share these super crisp ones you own. Tell me how I can nearly see the pimples on the kid in the videos face if RU-vid harmed the quality of the upload.
Terry Badger WEll fuckhead, it is 240p:/ Also, its not the bloody hubble they sent there, just a small camera ,lol. Its PLENTY clear enough to show you hoaxers are morons...and NOTHING will change that,lol
Why is there no US stamp, US coin, or piece of US currency with either the name or the face of Neil Armstrong? Why is there no steam when the heat shield hits water on splashdown? Why has no one been on the moon since Dec. 14, 1972 when technology improves so fast? Why did 2 crashes of US spacecrafts into the moon suggest the moon is hollow?
No earth-bound telescope can see the leftovers from the Apollo Lunar Missions. Even Hubble is just too far away. To get technical, Hubble's 94.5-inch mirror can only resolve objects bigger than 43 meters at the Moon's distance - and only in UV light. Within the visible light range the resolution is less than half that of UV - meaning an object on the lunar surface would have to be at least 90 meters tall/long (and with considerable breadth) for Hubble to be able to 'see' it at all. Given that the largest bits of Apollo's lunar remains (the Lunar Lander Modules) are just under 6 meters high (by 2.5m wide) - you can see that the general public are not going to be viewing them Apollo Landers anytime soon! To successfully view an object the size of an Apollo Lunar Lander (or harder still, an American flag) you would need either: A) a Lunar Lander and Rover of your own; or (B) a Lunar Orbiter with the capacity to fly safely in very low orbit. And so far, the only institutions able to successfully build and launch their own Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiters, Landers or Rovers, are, of course, the national space agencies (of Japan, Russia, India, China and the USA) as well as the European Space Agency. Nevertheless, for those who are interested in viewing the clear 'tracks in space' left by the Apollo crews half a century ago, there is a growing portfolio of photographic evidence, of steadily improving quality. These images are being filmed not only by NASA but also by her staunch adversaries in space (the Russian and Chinese National Space Administrations), as well as by such neutral third parties as the Indian, Japanese and European Space Agencies. If you're interested, Wikipedia has a decent smattering of images here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#New_lunar_missions But remember to keep checking back. With the resurgent interest in space, lunar probes are now being launched every year or two, so the quantity - and quality - of images, will only improve over time.
@Col83 There was no intention in the Apollo program for "progress" the aim was to visit the Moon and return safely, doing some research whilst there. That's it... They haven't spent the past 50 years trying to remember how to do it again. NASA are going back in 2024 so I'm sure we'll see clearer footage from there. Take your tin foil hat off.
I remember all the space stuff right from when it really started to get going in the early 60's it was the greatest thing I've ever followed in my life! The launch of the first Saturn V was really something else to see live on TV & it's still the most powerful rocket ever built & used, expensive to run though at 20 tons of fuel per second & not much of anything of any use left of all the finely engineered & enormously expensive machinery afterwards!
How can the tracks of the rover be seen? what the hell is this? Why does it have such shitty image quality? At what height were these photos taken? Why is everything always white or gray?
Think of the money you could make as a former NASA employee giving speeches about how it was all fake - charge the conspiracy nuts $100 a ticket to private meetings where you slowly dole out "inside" info - and then after 5 - 10 meetings, tell them "April fool" - lol
the¦ory [ˈθɪəri] NOUN a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:
Google Earth does NOT use satellite imagery for you to view your home! Its made up of two stitched images, one from space and then another from an aircraft using HD cameras, so s you zoom in it shifts to the aeroplane image and vice versa. It is impossible to view any objects on the Moon using current land based telescopes, you would need a mirror 75m wide so we have to rely on this kind of tech. Maybe one day we will be able to array some optical scopes to get the resolution necessary but for now the best proof of the landings are the Moon rocks returned and the laser rangefinder device that measures accurately the lunar distance. Oh and the fact that the astronauts are all slightly younger than us when they return due to relativity, but that just proves they travelled a long way...
I really don't get these conspiracy theories. It's just really irresponsible, and to be straight forward, stupid. Some of the video footage was probably fake, just to add a bit of glamour. But NASA landed on the moon, end of. Next you will be saying that the earth is flat.
@Yusuf Best Is that what you base your conclusion on??? It happened 50 years ago! You don't think Russia or China would jump on us if it were fake? Go back to the terrorist country you came from
You probly believe Kennedy was shot by a lone gunman from a library with an old gun that is known to jam, and the pentagon was hit by an airplane flying 20ft. off the ground, and OH, you say there is no airplane parts, and all the cameras malfunctioned that day? No, our government would NEVER lie to us. I can show where our government has lied to us many more times than told the truth.
i think he is a shill for fickr. he is a good troll though. if you hit him with to many facts or just beat his arguement and it's his thread he'll just shut it down
Moon Hoaxers: BUT BUT BUT WE DIDN’T GO TO THE MOON ITS ALL FAKE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE I LIKE THINKING ITS FAKE BECAUSE IT MAKES ME FEEL SPECIAAAAALLLLLLL MY MOMMY DOESN’T LOVE ME-
Well I guess some people find it absurd that: Plans to fake the moon landing were drafted by the Nixon administration to say we made it, even if we failed. We apparently went to the moon in what is essentially a tin can on the first attempt. Astronauts were on film cutting a stencil and placing it on the window to make the earth appear smaller and further away. Astronauts falling on their face and magically bouncing back up as if they were pulled up by a string. Moon landing was projected and re-broadcast 4 times before reaching the eyes of the public to cut down the resolution. They actually projected it onto a bedsheet and filmed that with a camera to broadcast to the public. Moon lander kicked up no dust up There is plenty of evidence out there if you can find it on the conveniently obviously suppressed evidence. You can believe the propaganda. I don’t really give a shit.
ThePROFESS10NAL that’s great and all but. Where’s the proof? What source do you have? Sure it’s easy to think that we faked it, but when you really think about it. You have to realize that Film technology was in its Toddler years at this point, it was still trying to learn how to get in color. It would be easier to go to the moon then to fake it. “But Stanley Kubrick” I hear you say. Well the thing is if you compare the footage from 2001: A space odyssey and the moon landings on face value it’s easy to think that...but take a closer look at it and that thought immediately evaporates when you see that the moon scenes and the actual moon landing scenes are completely different...one landscape is painted...the other is ones not. It’s all blue and creepy in 2001 you can see the stars. In the moon landings? They’re not...? Quite the contrast don’t you think? And to add to that, If you see how the ships move in not just 2001 but... ANY movie from 1968 to even the 80’s they all look shit, Alien which came out years later, the ship is stiff and doesn’t move all that much. But when you see the Footage of the command module, it’s doing flips and turns that are so precise without ANY cuts. And living in a tin can for a week through space? Uhm, we’ve flown on air craft that’s made out of flimsy plastic from New York to London for 8 hours in an altitude where the air is PAPER thin, enough to kill anyone, yet we fly through it while reading books and listening music while we drink Champagne. ... and we trust the Air companies with these plastic toys that fly. It HAS to be thin, other wise they wouldn’t get off the ground. If it was all heavy metal it’ll waste a lot of fuel. The Lunar Module not kicking up dust? Actually it is, look back and you’ll see moments before landing and right after it lifts off you WILL see the dust being blown into space by the engines Also if your gonna criticize the moon landings at least don’t call it the “moon lander” it’s called the Lunar Module get it right. Landing on our first attempt on the moon? Uhm, Surveyor program would like to speak to you. No, it was not our first attempt, we landed and crashed probes, on the lunar surface before in the 50’s to early 60’s. And if your talking about the Mothership the CSM and LM, those have been tested too in orbit and before we landed on the moon. Apollo 4 and 6- test of Saturn V And CSM (unmanned) Apollo 5 - test of lunar module (unmanned) Apollo 7 - testing CSM with people on board in orbit (manned) Apollo 8- Circle eight around the moon with just the CSM (manned) Apollo 9 - Testing LM and CSM in orbit (manned) Apollo 10 - Dress Rehearsal before actual moon landing with both CSM and LM (manned) Apollo 11 - Self explanatory Need I say more? Again, NO we did land on the moon on the first try we had probes we had unmanned flights to see these things work.
Plebdominus Rex I do not subscribe to the Kubrick theory, hence I did not bring it up. I have seen video of the “lunar module” 🙄 making its maneuvers in orbit over the moon. Watching it move as and stop as though it was on gears only convinced me more that it’s fake. Yes first trip 230K miles with men on board landing successfully is a bit odd. And your explanation of TV being in its infancy is less then convincing. There is absolutely no reason to have projected it onto a bedsheet then use another camera to rebroadcast it.
Well do you blame me for mentioning Kubrick? Every time a Moon Hoaxer mentions the topic, kubrick is always brought up, so it wouldn't be surprising if you did either. If you don't believe me that TV was in it's Infancy, how it would be impossible to fake the moon landings there's a whole video explaining it better than I ever could ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_loUDS4c3Cs.html
If we have the capability to produce telescopes that can photograph distant galaxies, why can't we have a clear picture of the American flag on the moon...after all, it's only 'across the road!'
Hi my friend, the Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away and yet we can see that galaxy with the naked eye. Therefore it's not about the distance we can see, it's about the magnification we can achieve, or more specifically, the resolving power of the telescope. Think of it this way, at what point do you accept that telescopes have limits? Should telescopes be able to zoom in further to clearly see one of the stars on the flag on the moon? Should it be able to zoom in further still and see individual threads of nylon within the flag itself? :) Where do you set the limit? There's an equation which is used to determine the maximum resolving power of any telescope mirror, hence it has been calculated that to see Apollo craft and equipment on the moon from earth, it will require a telescope with a mirror that is at least 200m wide! The world's largest optical telescopes today have mirrors that are only 8m to 10m in diameter, and Hubble's mirror is only 2.4m. So we're talking about a telescope with a mirror 20 times wider than the world's largest optical telescopes, which is impossible. Therefore the best way to see Apollo craft and equipment on the moon is to send a spacecraft with a telescopic camera into orbit around the moon to take photopgraphs of the landing sites, and that's what we got with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). For example; /watch?v=PTeM4ZqEKR4 I hope that helps to answer your question.
Leon They would never be definitive for those who want to believe in a hoax my friend :) Hence even if the LRO photos were so sharp that we could see rivets on the lunar lander, there would still be people insisting that the images are fake :)
I don't want to believe it was a hoax but it's just odd that we still haven't we seen any clear pictures, the only ones are as above which don't actually show anything conclusive .
Leon These are clear pictures given the circumstances, where many don't appreciate the distance and size involved. For example, many ask "Why don't they point Hubble to the moon to view the landing sites?". Telescope mirrors and lenses have a resolution/resolving limitation, which can be calculated using the formula called 'Dawes limit'. Hence using that formula, we know that to see Apollo craft and equipment from earth, we would need a telescope with a lense or mirror that was 200m in diameter! The world's largest optical telescopes have mirrors that are 8m to 10m diameter (20-25 times too small), and Hubble's mirror is only 2.4m (Hubble's power come from being above the distorting effects of earth's atmosphere, not greater magnification). Therefore the best way to see Apollo craft and equipment is to send a probe into orbit around the moon to take photographs of the surface, and that's what we got with the LRO. Finally, don't be fooled into thinking the Apollo sites in the LRO photos are the complete picture, instead they are just a tiny section of a *massive* photograph of the lunar surface seen at higher resolution than has ever been achieved before. Therefore please look at the Apollo 12 landing site in the following link, where you can zoom out and then zoom in, scroll up/down/left/right to view the rest of the moon (change * to . in the link below); tinyurl*com/ngznk8w Notice just how large and detailed the photograph is, were you can even see large boulders on the surface and other features. Hence the Apollo landing sites are zoomed in sections of those massive photographs :)
This is sharp new details...?! I though it was images from Lawel observatory somewhere in 1910...boy, it is quite development of telescopes in past 100 years 😁
Bruce M Carleton Jr ... Since 1969 hoax conspiracy theorists has said " ah gotcha ...no stars." Simply put, would you expect to see stars during the daytime on earth? Remember these pictures are taken during the lunar day time. The same reasons you can't see stars in the daytime on earth apply on the moon, atmosphere or not.
+lawrence wil Do you not know this fact?-----> Astronaut Mike Collins doesn't remember "seeing" ANY stars and he was NOT on the moon! He was "we're told" circling the moon during the entire Apollo 11 mission, that means the dark side too. OMG! Ah gotcha moment anyone? This statement from Astronaut Mike Collins was heard around the world in 1969 at the famous press conference after the Pinocchio boys returned from the moon! Please watch that press conference for yourself. It is available on RU-vid along with "Astronaut's Gone Wild" another Gem you should watch as well. It is quite ridiculous. If this does not help you to wake up to the fact that no human has ever left Earths orbit please look at the sky tonight and imagine you are on the dark side of the moon and what you think you would see!
+Pota Ville Mike Collins was sitting in a brightly lit Command Module. If you're in your living room at night with the lights on, and you look through the window, you won't see any stars either.
Brian Bingham As an American I have the right to say I don’t care if you believe it or not you didn’t pay for it through taxes. But Canada has its own Space Agency that is going to be partners with NASA on a return to the moon. You should care about that. It is your money now. Not being mean, just honest.
@@SoggySoxSaga Ya but we have a a Rothschild owned deep state run central bank which prints fiat currency just like your Federal Reserve. Pretty soon gold will be the currency again and all that fiat paper money will be worthless.Canada refunds all my tax money every year now.
RIP Neil Armstrong - your efforts and all those who supported the various lunar missions will be forged firmly into our collective human history for all time.
Sebastian X 😂🤣 I was thinking the same, like “damn, a child with a crayon could have drawn something more convincing.” 😂🤣 not gonna lie though... the fact that it’s super shitty is kind of encouraging... kind of.
Im no Expert, but i also whould have expected a more crisp and detailed Picture, but on the other Hand they are taking a Pictutre of a Car(Rover) via Satelite! from Space! But when i open Google Maps and look at Cars (also filmed by satelite) they do apear bigger and the image is much clearer. Is this due to distance or is it just the Camara?
Then why were demo charges seen and recorded goiing off...1 and 2 where "Where did the pieces to tbe jet go..3 how did a structural steel building just colapse in on itself from a measly Jet plane hitting it "impossible" 4 how did the structural supports get melted at its Base..."ground level" where NO FIRE TOUCHED...5 how come so much debris wrre Missing....tbere should have been a much bigger pile..never mind tbe plane that hit the Pentagon was Staged "Look it up" a 15 ft whole with metal "dumped into it" amd NO BODIES...NONE...NOT ONE..."DRONE" look up the facts its old very old news...Our Government Stole 2.6 Triion of our SS Money and 9/11 was an attempt to destroy the laper trail "evidence" the Theft was discovered days before...it was also "supposed" to help get tbe American leople behind the Government to go to war with tbe midfle east..."FALSE FLAG" come on read up on it...✌
Shocking, the experiments left by AP17 pictures don't match.The moon from ground picture shows twin mountains at the back.The high picture from orbiter shows no mountains at all,why? You make a guess !
See it? It’s right there. That spec. That’s it, right there. How can you not see it? You can’t see it still?? Of course we went to the moon just ask Buz Aldrin. No there’s nothing suspicious about his behavior.
Wow, my jaw dropped too. STUNNING images in 240P. If they tried any harder to feed the conspiracies they could do no better than this. Amazing. Spectacular, beyond belief.
What is the resolution of the LRO? What was the flight height? The photos shown look like a child from Kindergarten has been playing around with Photoshop!
think about it, imaging trying to take back picture of a car and a house that clear from way above, and without it being man controlled, it’s not that easy
@@charlielindell1122 : Yes, I understand it's difficult and that's why I did some quick investigation about our spy satellites and the WorldView-2 satellite which are taking photos of the surface of earth and can follow cars!! 1. General drawing of altituded of our GPS satellites and also ISS. space.stackexchange.com/questions/10837/why-are-the-gps-constellation-satellites-in-such-a-high-orbit 2. Altitude of WorldView-2 satellite is 767 km and resolution 0.46 cm panchromatic and 1.8 m multispectral. Very impressive and this was launched 2009 just as LRO. directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/v-w-x-y-z/worldview-2 www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/6/7/6500/htm 3. Some general information about spy satellites and other satellites (WorldView-2 is mentioned here too) which takes photos and videos. Their resolutions are also very impressive and the article is about following cars from over 700 km!!! That's actually insane! www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/09/us-spy-satellites-at-diffraction-limit-for-resolution-since-1971.html 4. The LRO orbits the moon 50 km +/- 15 km and has a resolution of 0.5 m panchromatic (NASA doesn't want to give the multispectral resolution). www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc-20110906-skimming.html www.lroc.asu.edu/about Something is really weird here! The photo and video taking satellites of earth which can track cars and almost show the number plates fly at 700 km. It's 14 (fourteen) times further than the LRO (remember 50 km+/- 15 km) is orbiting moon! Take into account that taking photos of the earth surface you have to consider the atmosphere, clouds and air pollution! The photos of the moon surface should be crystal clear since there is NO atmosphere at all, it's vacuum!! If you looked at the first link where ISS is orbiting around 400 km altitude and that's the most far we can send human today. It's 48 years after the last alleged moon landing 1972. USA haven't still been able to send any humans after 2011 when failed Space Shuttle program closed. Notice, the distance to the moon is 400 000 km. It's 1000 times more than to the ISS! When in history of modern humans (200 000 years) have the technical evolution gone backwards? NASA lied about all these moon landings for sure to win the cold war against Soviet Union! Well done! :)
@@KimJakab _When in history of modern humans (200 000 years) have the technical evolution gone backwards?_ The fact that we haven't landed on the Moon in 48 years doesn't indicate that "the technical evolution (has) gone backwards". We don't have any supersonic commercial jet in service today either. Does it mean that the Concorde was fake? Also, just because hi-end spy satellites with big mirrors can take excellent pictures is irrelevant. LRO's resolution is what it is, and does seem to do an adequate job. _The photos of the moon surface should be crystal clear since there is NO atmosphere at all, it's vacuum!!_ Do you imagine that NASA, having faked the Moon landings, would be incapable of recreating the landing sites with CGI in 2009 to give you that crystal clear high resolution? _Notice, the distance to the moon is 400 000 km. It's 1000 times more than to the ISS!_ And that's one of the clues as to why LRO wouldn't be as fancy as WorldView-2.
