Apollo Landing Sites through my Telescope 

We can't because we can't land on the moon

Did you forget that tax payers spent 50 billion on a telescope called hubble and they still havnt pointed at earth or the moon. That's because Hubble Is as fake as the moon missions. I feel bad for the people who beleive the moon landing bullshit. They want to beleive so bad logic and critical thinking just goes out the window. And then when they can't prove a dam thing with first hand knowledge they get pissed and go on the offensive calling names and belittling anyone who has different ideas than the mainstream narrative. These people go into convulsions of this shit. Standing up for people at NASA they have never met vouching for their honesty and reliability like your insulting a family member. Its the brainwashing doing this. The unrelenting barage of info coming from the state run media ,the state run education system and goverment itself has broken down the ability to think on their own. They are constantly parroting talking points given to them by the so called expert class. They are constantly saying we have done this and we have done that when they havnt done a fucking thing other than repeat what they heard on the state run media. Sound bites and doctored pictures are responsible for molding their world view. They have no clue where reality starts and fantasy ends anymore. They want to beleive the Hollywood bullshit. If a person was raised without seeing the news propaganda and the movies and the science fiction and the bullshit theoretical physicists and was just taught to think critically for himself only believing what can be proven through his 5 senses and actual scientific experimentation. Repeatable observable results. He would recommend 90% of the population be put in psychiatric treatment. consensus doesn't make anything true the whole world can be wrong. sadly enough the people at the top are laughing their asses off at what they can make you people believe

Well in fact, Hubble has been pointed at the moon. And the reason it is not pointed at Earth is because you would not see anything beyond a blurry bit of blue. Apart from the fact that it can not rotate quick enough to track objects on Earth, it's optics simply wouldn't allow for a clear picture. Imagine using binoculars in the place of a microscope or the other way around. It is simply not designed to view Earth, there are plenty of other telescopes that do that.

@@sfojulius every picture of earth has been conclusively been debunked as composite. Not one real picture of the earth is genuine. That doesn't seem a bit odd to you?

Go to the moon and spy on area 51

LeoN ScoTT KeNNeDy sleep well and have a sweet dreams

LeoN ScoTT KeNNeDy Based on the rate of technological advancements, that might be possible within the next ten years.

I don't it terrorfies me.

Yes, i am excited and would love to go someday but my anxiety just bursts through the roof when i think of all the things that could happen

No human will ever leave this planets environment. Just enjoy what the earth provides now and forget about travelling thousands of miles into space as they supposedly did 50 years ago. All we have is some mythical bullshit reflectors. Where's the photographs and images that could be easily shown with our new powerful telescopes so we can actually see the debris left by the moon walkers? human controlled robots may invade the moon but that's all.

@Eihoofd2 pretty stable reply, from someone that I'm sure could articulate his evidence.

Eihoofd2 I can even see their poops! It’s dark colour as they probably ate some junk food in the moon.

Eihoofd2 “We never went to moon” is a nice book for you.

Eihoofd2 Okay I trust you now. I believe that you have also been on the moon before.

Eihoofd2 kid, it’s time to wake up now, you were sleeping too long.

Search "Apollo landing sites lunar reconnaissance orbiter" into Google and click images. Easy.

@@atoaster6715 mind, even as close as the LRO is to the moon, the resolution of it's cameras is still several meters per pixel which makes it hard to spot anything other than the lower stage of the lander that stayed behind when they departed

You won’t be able to see them. A footprint is around a foot long (lol), and the Moon is 284k+ miles away. It’s like asking the Apollo 11 Astronauts to zoom in on a ruler you placed in a field

@toilet paper your comment is almost as valuable as your name.

@@atoaster6715 .. Thanks a lot man, I have checked it and have seen all the clear and astonishing photos!.

we can go there now but there simply is no reason to. The reason we went in the first place is to beat Russia there to prove that NASA has better technology and to just prove Russia wrong. NASA is however planning a future apollo mission

Cost losts of money, it was done once so we can show that we can. Right now we are busy sending rovers to other planets.

Thanks man!

*+Delboy:* _"I didn't see one bit of proof of landing sites"_ J.W. Astronomy never claimed to prove the landings with his video. He was showing where on the moon the landings took place. It's (yup) another straw man attack where you say stupid stuff and then pretend someone else said it. Ridiculously inept deceptive technique there, bub.Don't give up the day job, if you have one. This is a video by an *amateur astronomer* who doesn't care about your delusions. And he should not be subjected to your foolishness. It's a great video.

The Delboy here's another question......what the fuck are these amateur astronomers gaining from "lying" to the world?

The Delboy no honey that's your land! I'll stay on sane side of the world! But thanks!

The Delboy so ALLLLLLL the space agencies in the world (how many of them are there?? And how many people have EVER fucking worked for them??) All the airline companies...........all the GPS companies......all the freelance scientists.........all the freelance astronomers.......every person with a telescope............we are ALL lying???? Ok wait.....let me get this straight ......literally EVERYONE ON THE MUTHER FUCKING PLANET except a handful of flat earthers is lying and NO ONE runs their mouth. That is more ludicrous than you say the moon landing is!! To have a conspiracy THAT enormous, and to carry on for decades upon decades. And you say that I live in La-La land! 🙄

Zoomer30 This guy know whats hes talking about. He should get more likes

So this dudes scope can see millions of light years away but not the shit left on the moon.... to believe such it takes a true case of cognitive dissonance. That is absurd

The "shit" left on the moon is only a fraction of a meter wide. The objects millions of lights years away are lights years across. In other words, HUGE. Big difference.

Derek Smith, shows how little you know about telescopes. There are two types of power. Light gathering power and resolution. Light gathering power has to do with how large the telescope is called aperture. It allows you to see very dim objects. It can collect more light. The faint objects are the deep sky objects that are far away. These objects aren't small just dim. Most are not millions of light years away. They include galaxies, nebulas and star clusters. Galaxies can be millions of light years away. The others are near items a few hundred to few thousand light years away. Resolution is the ability to magnify and look close at things and see definition. It's what gives us the ability to see things closer up. This is what is required to see the lunar landing sites. They are just simply too small. As you see it isn't oburd or cognitive dissonace. Just your misunderstanding of telescopes. Don't try to make people angry about what you don't understand. It's very childish.

Derek smith here is the answer to your question. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QkaNqud_VxU.html

So, for dislike the fake title...

flat earthers are from NASA, they and ufo's are its strongest argument

Jarrett Trezzo because you know a five year old when told they could be critical could tear this fake shit to pieces. Why would you talk about Flat Earth if the ball was bullet proof....... It's not

They are paid to post everywhere there may be a chance to damage faith. They've tied their idiocy to the book of Genesis so when science asserts itself against flat earth its the bible that gets the beating.

Where are the flag & camera that the astro-nuts left.?😕

Klickavelli Your brain?

Good spot, but it's not leaving the moon. If it was, it would be a huge object. Possibly a satellite passing by?

Vape Dude ha ha ha, you must be so proud of yourself. Come up with that one all on your own? Lmao!

Afloat Fob possible, just saying what I saw that's all.

NP. I'm open to the idea of Ufos/aliens, but that's what I think it is.

Thanks! I think the C11 is big too and a great scope.

What the hecks c11. You guys on another level. I got mine from Walmart. It's great for beggingers and that's what I am. Hey is it me or is there like a wave in front of moon. You know like heat on pavement. Peace

The wave is caused by atmospheric distortion from Earths atmosphere.

That's called atmospheric scintillation. When the ground is warmer than the air, it heats the air just above it. Warm air is lighter than cold air, but it sticks to the ground until it gathers enough warm air in a globule to break free. Then it rises as a bubble of warm air. Warm air has a different refractive index than colder air. So as these bubbles rise through the atmosphere, they act like lenses to slightly bend the light as it goes through them. Since, with the telescope, you are looking through a thick layer of air with thousands of bubbles rising through it, you see the image swim around, and this video is an excellent example. Dry air is less steady than moist air. That's why in Florida, I often get to see conditions where there is no scintillation at all.

It was on the dark side I believe which means he cant

There is no real reason to go back there. It is stupidly expensive, so repeated missions would be sparse, and we can't start mining anything because hauling the ore would be costly too. And politically, there is no "glory" in being second. (Name the Apollo 12 crew members without looking them up. My point exactly). Its not that we can't go back. Its just that there is not much to gain from doing so. Mars is more appealing because it is a new place no person has been, and it has potential for a sustainable colony, unlike the moon.

Good luck convincing our Neo-Con congress to ever actually send people back to the moon unless there's some military motive. Promise them we'll send the astronauts there to blow stuff up and they might fund it. Hell tell them there's oil on the moon. If they're dumb enough to think climate change is a lie then they're dumb enough to believe we found oil on the moon. They'd fund some missions in the name of oil or war. Otherwise it won't happen.

Not with my taxes 😂

Mike Mower Why would the U.S spend millions of dollars to get to the moon when there isn’t shit there.

Lamster66 I’m talking about right now, we already know everything about the moon.

there's nothing to fear, reach out and let GOD find you. then you will know the truth. be humble brother not prideful

valentino galaviz Theres no god you stupid fuck

🤦‍♂️

Apollo landings? More like Who’s Joe

@aussie bloke We never went bro, sorry. Nothing gets harder to do with technology. Name one technology that hasn't gotten better in the last 50 years? I'll wait..... If we were able to go to the moon in the 1960s, in 2019 there'd be public transportation going there and back. So many trips to space, yet no clear WHOLE photo of the earth, every photo of earth is cgi created, said by NASA themselves. Blue marble biggest crock. If you believe the mainstream narrative, you're just scared of the truth

The telescope is an optical instrument that enlarge the angle we see the object, not enlarging the picture of object. Compare to the distance from Earth to the Moon, the angle that a person create with the flag is below the angle that human can see, telescope work like that too, in order to see the flag, you will need a telescope with at least 200m aperture. curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/45-our-solar-system/the-moon/the-moon-landings/122-are-there-telescopes-that-can-see-the-flag-and-lunar-rover-on-the-moon-beginner

you're the personification of ignorance.

Jack Torrance touche 👏👏👏

Real men dont give a fcuk No, disabling comments is annoying. Allow people to speak. If you don't want to see the comments, then don't look at them

Flat Earth Extremists and Moon Hoax Lunatics have a right to expose their idiocy, deny themselves future job opportunities, future girl friends, future friends and acquaintances as future tools to expose lunatic and dangerous posts become better and better. Nobody believes them anyway. If they wish to hurt themselves, let them and laugh!

Just to tweak the Flatties. Very high resolution photography on the moon from 2013. www.360cities.net/image/lunar-panorama-change-3-lander#41.40,12.70,51.5 Challenge: find a single star, then explain why or why not it's visible. Numbers and logic, please.

*Darren* You're talking from utter ignorance and confidently in your ignorance proclaim _"There is no way to overcome the surface temperatures of the moon, batteries could not have been responsible for cooling the men under those condition's"_ Based on the utter fallacy of your declaration there, what evidence would you accept? There is no evidence you would accept, but I'll provide it anyway so honest normal people can laugh in your general direction. Watch this space. I have it all at home and will post after 6 pm.

Certainly in the next 10 years we'll have boots on the moon and I'd be very surprised if they don't actually return Apollo hardware for inspection. Then there will be no Moon Hoax Lunatics left. You won't even be able to find someone who will admit they *knew* a Moon Hoax Lunatic.

Will we even be allowed to send people to the old landing sites? Are they marked by the world as International Historical sites or something, I might be wrong.

Alan Patten, I've wondered about that myself. I understand the US government wants to protect the sites (footprints and all), but it would be neat if a crew or an unmanned lander could get right up to the edge. The video would be awesome.

Ken Fredrick yea, they might let them get close enough to see it but far enough so it remains untouched

I'd be very surprised if they didn't make a single exception to approach from a pristine direction and retrieve a piece of Apollo hardware to study the weathering effects of micrometeors over 50 years and the radiation exposure. They've done short-term studies on satellite pieces, but this would be ten times the duration they've accomplished before. Of course there are Surveyor spacecraft all over the moon, and they could just use an abundance of caution until we can preserve the Apollo landing sites for all to enjoy in the future. Once destroyed there would be no getting them back.

just wow.

i wish the person writing this comment was fake

Nope even hubble can't see that far. You can see the lander on the LRO photos though

I think the zoom is at maximum

No, but have I have seen other planets through a telescope with my own eyes.

you make that sound like a bad thing, you also forgot private space organizations and hobbyists armed with sounding rockets, you also forgot the observations made in by ancient figures like Pythagoras who used math to incredible accuracy to determine the size and shape of the earth. use logic, why would every other body in the universe appear spherical but not earth? study and observe a lunar eclipse that will give you all the data you need to unequivocally and without a doubt determine the shape of the earth. something to mention, people knew the shape of the earth long before space agencies based on astronomical measurements made on sea voyages dating back centuries. monuments were constructed to prove the math and track star positions of the circumpolar star and the position of Orion's belt. how is this even still an argument in 2018? the idea flat earth existence was proven wrong eons ago with the sundial! enough said.

www.apogeerockets.com/Rockets_by_Manufacturers, or get the parts however you can source them and get engineering. i'll admit i didn't give totally satisfactory answers in my previous comment but it's hard to tell who really gives a rats arse this day and age. your reply is commendable, thoughtful... I like that! for a change I feel refreshed. my one bit of advice? be careful, and join a model rocket club to get the best advice. lastly dont launch in an urban area, many cities have no fly zones. and don't forget to purchase a gps tag so you can recover your data if this is what you have your heart set on doing! good luck! warm regards!

Flat Earthers = irrelevant deniers. They can't agree on a model or any mechanisms They have no applications which work or result in any sensible, verifiable, or consistent observations. In short they are deluded, paranoid, or flat-out lying trolls.

You first; Explain why there are two tropics of the same length Explain why 600 million people in the southern hemisphere all see the south celestial pole (which flat earthers deny exists) EVERY NIGHT, & all due south from their respective positions, all in the same patch of sky, but the field rotated by the differences in their degrees of longitude. Explain why the EAP (Flat earth map) results in East-west distances in Australia that are 250% of the measured & confirmed every day actual dimensions. Show me your working stellar Charts & ephemeris Show me your working surveying & Navigation applications, charts & maps. Until you do so you have nothing to discuss.

We can't see other solar systems. Nebulas are huge and if you went out to a dark place without light pollution you could even see the orion nebula. The tracks and the rover are just too small to see all the way from here. Even hubble can't see them. LRO did see them however and you can find the photos online.

🙄😫 how can someone be so dumb

@@ashishkoge9325 'dude', 'bruh', you're aware this telescope is on Earth. Where do you think those 'things' are based?...

@@OzzyOscy man, are you trying to say that while zoomed onto the moon, at 2:28 something within earths atmosphere flew past the lens? That small but fast object is earthly? Maybe the iss, but not something on earth. A small fly would have consumed the visual due to magnification. Or maybe my concept of zooming in is whack?

@@11designs25 You got it in the last sentence. We're infamously bad at judging size, especially the moon. It looks like a distant bat, it's even flapping its wings. 3:32 is a colony and evidently closer. What's more likely - that you misunderstand, or looking at the moon has caught several examples of aliens?

Human beings are cruel and evil. An unremarkable species. It's people's nature to be filled with hatred. My own opinion is that NASA is a big hustle. These faked missions not just to the moon, but the probes to the planets are like lap dancing money for the psychopaths who own us and run the world.

well that is because we are looking at the SITES a zoomed out AREA of where the astronauts landed

@@sommarstuga1 nonsense no man has walked on moon and of course you have to say that cus you don't see it. Plasma PLASMA but what do i know besides Men lie and government lies even more ypu believe that nonsense and tell yourself whatever ypu have to to keep it true lol

Actually you can with the most powerful telescopes we have

@@zipper978 you are fucking high

ahh flat earth BS and fake moonlanding crap

@@ottokarvonschnallenburg2572 lol you believe in flat earth ?

Michelle R Sun spots are thousands of miles in diameter. The lunar lander was 31 ft wide

@@Lamster66 We're all geniuses compared to flat earthers.

pepe no you can't. God you people are so brainwashed. Lol

pepe there’s no atmosphere on the moon so no wind, fuck off.

good one dawg LOL

How would you see flags waving if there is no atmosphere (no wind)

The Hubble Space Telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter - much too small! Resolving the larger lunar rover (which has a length of 3.1 meters) would still require a telescope 75 meters (246 feet) in diameter. Currently, the largest, ground-based telescope is the Gran Telescopio CANARIAS (GTC) found in La Palma on the Canary Islands. The aperture of this reflecting telescope reaches a total 10.4 metres (34 feet) in diameter and is currently one of the most advanced in the world. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

tumarfa It isn’t NASA’s job to spend billions on a project to validate their own accomplishments in the eyes of Conspiracy nuts.

wutup5566 No; their job is to research advanced aeronautical and astronautical concepts that could have a use in modern society and lead the Us Government’s civilian space programs.

Musk is going to get a ship up there soon, hopefully he lands near one of the Apollo sites so we can have tourists taking photos of it!

@@Quickened1 You mean earth's richest one permille

www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/science/moon-robot-rover-viper-nasa.amp.html

They also deny North and South America exists...

it was a scam

Spedz Jesus is a fake .. don't bring his name in with the moon landings please

repent

SiMs yes sir

Thank you!

Mmk, where exactly is your proof that the moon landing was a hoax? Also, why the heck would anybody fake this, they would literally gain nothing from doing so.

@Brynautic NASA has raked in countless trillions over the years. It's like "lap dancing money" to the powerful elite who own you and run the world.

@@PouchMaster what...? I mean, if governments don't get money, then they will collapse, so are you saying that everybody should commit tax fraud?

@@PouchMaster also, if the US government's budget was only one dollar, then nasa would get about half of a penny...

@Brynautic That's a lot of pennies. As I said, it's like a fun money bonus to them. Fake all of this for dirt cheap, then rake in the cash.

mdr that may was a private party

LET ME TAKE A COUPLE A MORE SHOTS AND I'LL GET BACK TO YOU

Nope, seeing stuff the side of a car 400.000 km away can't be done "in this day and age". Not with the telescopes we have today (even Hubble is not big enough to resolve such small stuff). But there are probes orbiting the Moon at a pretty low altitude, and they did take better pictures of the landing sites.

DJMModelWorks most people see the moon as this little dot in the sky and fail to realize just how far away and how big it really is. it's a bit smaller than the united states in diameter (3.500 km) and 384.000 km away. looking for the descent stages and hardware of apollo missions from earth would be like looking at a 35 m (~100 ft) sphere from 3,84 km away and trying to zoom in on a single dust particle.

They can see millions of light years into other galaxies but claim zooming in on the fucking moon is impossible... it takes a certain kind of idiot to believe such garbage

Derek smith Do you have any idea how large a galaxy is? They can be THOUSANDS OF LIGHT YEARS wide. That is why we can see them from so far away. The technology doesn't exist today to resolve an image like that. It isn't garbage because you can't understand it.

Derek smith it’s a matter of scale, not only distance. instead of closing your eyes and remaining incredibly ignorant, why don’t you think before you say something? it makes you sound so much less idiotic.

Dr J悟 mine is better

No Earth bound telescope is powerful enough to see a small object at such a distance. Even the Hubble telescope can't see anything smaller than a football stadium on the Moon. You'd need a 60 meters lense to (barely) see the stuff they left behind from 400000 km away. The LRO probes are orbiting the Moon at an altitude of 50km, though, and they did take pictures of the landing sites.

J vdSpuy The lunar orbiters took photos. Can even see the rover tracks.

With a Nikon p900Camera we can see that stars are not balls of fire.

Aurora One Raven Stars are not balls of fire. They are stars.

Larry Scott 😒Nikon p900Camera shows otherwise.

Robert Thayer exactly my thoughts as well.

He can't zoom in far enough to show traces left over...

No telescope on earth can see that small details on the moon.. not even the Hubble.

De Wae....No wind, no dust!

Robert Thayer leave.

globalmind43 - Since when did observing what is around us dictate what we are? If an African American baby is surrounded by 8 Caucasian babies does that mean it’s white?

Yes yes I also seen

You are a brain dead idiot, period. How can people as stupid as you still exist? All the proof you need is laying in plain sight but you choose to believe conspiracy theorists like a fucking retard.

Go back to elementary school; you seem to have forgotten common sense.

Fred Cink lol.

JEBEDIAH KERMAN yea.

George Margerum i have a better telescope

fucking joke !

Can you send me the link to that video?

@@plushiez_show8827 that's from the 80s I would not know how to locate it.

@@patrickmartin7316 Okay

Not the smartest tool in the shed, are you?

@@sonzofhardcore My tools, all of them, are clean, in order and well taken care of. None are useless or dull. Have a good day.

He’s looking at a piece of rock do u expect there to be stars there?

EXPOSURE

Galaxies are enormous, a lot of them are bigger than 10 million light years, but footprints on the moon are extremely small and are impossible to capture through a telescope, there is however a satellite orbiting the moon which has been able to take some photos of the landing sites

Maybe because the LM wasn't made out of tin foil and shower curtain rods.

he isnt trying to show the stuff they left there. He is just showing you where they landed

It's impossible with any telescope on earth. Even hubble isn't big enough to see the landers. The nebulas are enormous. You could even see the orion Nebula from earth with a telescope. The problem is light pollution. So see the milky way properly you need to get away from all light. If you want to see the landers you can watch the photos from the LRO.

Most likely it's more northern than it appears on the image

Just checked this stuff: the moon's orbit has an inclination of 5.16° to earth's ecliptic plane and has a tilt of 6.68°. The alnding site of Apollo 15 was 26° north of the lunar equator which sums up to the earth being 90°-5.16°-6.68°-26°=52° above the horizon. This is if the lunar southpole kinda points towards earth and if the moon is at the highest point of its orbit in respect to the ecliptic. 52 still seems much higher. But: The earth's shadow points downwards towards the horizon which suggests they'd have to be far west or east of 15's landing site (15 landed 3° east)

So it appears I am not able to find this picture for now (also the creator of this video didn´t put in a source for any of the images so duh). Also you can clearly see stars in the image, which shouldn´t be a thing, since the lunar surface is much to bright for cameras to pick up both the surface and the stars, which are far more pale. Though I could find this www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nasa.gov%2Fmultimedia%2Fimagegallery%2Fimage_feature_2020.html&psig=AOvVaw0mTHUq9Tqvg_-5w8Ih9eHw&ust=1592033395064000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCKj66qzj--kCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD which seems to be the exact same image with the exception that the right side is missing in which the earth can be seen on the picture from the video. Also the stars aren´t there. So you could argue, that the image from google is fake and that the US government is lying, or you could say that the image from the video is just an artistic impression. As it turns out I seem to just have found the picture from the video (my dumb ass didn´t see it the first time around): www.flickr.com/photos/futurilla/21903482502 So the dude (creator of the image) took the og 1:1 aspect ratio image (they apparently used Hasselband 500EL cameras) and added the lil slope and the earth and the stars just to make it look more interesting or whatever. He didn`t care about how realistic it looked he just wanted it to fit his artistic vision: You can see a small distortion in his edited version if you look closely right next to the rover wheel. (Probably he wanted an artifact to make it look like an older picture) (Also Follow the link to flicker on RU-vid it`s not visible that well). So he didn`t seem to care retouching this minor detail. Well, tHe mOre YoU KNoW. Sorry not sorry

@@pianoraves Very nice!

@@hypatch8014 lol almost forgot about this 🤣🤣

How was this video supposed to convince you? This video couldn't be any more neutral to the moon landing debate.

Yeah, that is all bullshit. They DID pass through the radiation belts, and they WERE briefed on them. They specifically planned for them too. The impact crators on the moon you mention doesn't make any sense. The smaller debrid from larger impacts would still land back on the moon because of gravity. The moon does have gravity, you know?

@@HalcyonVoid how did the pass through the van Allen belt? Isn't the radition DEVASTING to humans? Also why don't we have the technology to go back?

@@thediaz07 The radiation is only about 1 years worth of exposure. Nothing devastating. And we haven't gone back because it isnt politically important. The origional moon missions were good for the anti-russian talking points of the day. We can go back, we have the technology, but not the political support to do so.

@@HalcyonVoid yeah I could source the part about the radiation being deadly to humans...also the part that we destroyed the technology and Aren't capable of going back.

@@HalcyonVoid I'm not saying we never went to the moon, I'm just saying we didn't go the first time.

Sorry, YES, there are telescopes that can spot and identify locations of the moon landings.

@@dankamusprime3721 : Ok, please educate us then and give some information? Not even the Hubble telescope has sufficient resolution to spot the landing sites. www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/ ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QkaNqud_VxU.html

This video is not trying to prove anything.