Debunking Gary Fong/Apollo Detectives - Cameras CAN work on the moon 

I do call them septics, as in septic tank.

@@Kualinar A “septic” is also what we Glaswegians call all cretins! I think “septic tank” actually originated in London though, from Cockney rhyming slang. Either way it’s a perfect description of moon landing deniers and flerfers’ poisonous bullsh*t.

@@terrypussypower And I also tend to call them crétin.

@@Kualinar Ha! Crétin! I’ll keep that spelling in mind! It has a certain “je ne sais quoi”!

… just like ball believers.

Yeeesesssss!!! ❤

I see it. Puppy loves dad.

My dog does that to me

The loving look that the dog gives Dave is heart melting, this is why I love Spaniels soo much

No >:C Fuck that dog!

Just give them a Buzz Aldrin left hook and shut them up!

@@simonmoore8776 I saw the video of that, it was awesome

You can't go back to where you've never been.

@@14lou And you can't see the lizard aliens either. Suspicious.

@@goosegas2087 Simple minds never can

Thank you for your comment. I also saw the Gary Fong video and found his concept of lunar temperatures laughable. He reinforced this by ridiculing people that seemed to have a better understanding of heat transfer. It was actually insulting and just indicated that Gary was ignorant about radiative heat transfer. Anyone (like myself) that has worried about thermal radiation in vacuum vessels or cooling to the night sky would understand the importance of albedo and the emissivity of coatings. Things in a vacuum, with minor conductive heat paths, will have their temperatures dominated by radiative heat transfer and will be in radiative equilibrium with their surroundings. Most of the incoming thermal radiation on the moon would be sun light which is in the visible, just plain white paint is good at reflecting this. Of course the rest of the sky is a good heat sink so the camera can radiate heat away to the sky. All in all it's a slightly complicated problem. Sunlight adding energy, the moon reflecting sunlight and radiating thermal energy, reflections from the astronauts space suit, radiation to the night sky. All this info is available with just a bit of searching. There are lots of people that can help with this info. There is no reason to fight the understanding of this the way that Gary has.

@@charlie2640 I think that what you wrote "All this info is available with just a bit of searching. " has got the point exactly. Gary Fong is too tied up in his purported world-wide fame to need to research anything.

@@peterpoop7760 Agreed. What I find interesting in these people is their rock solid confidence in their own, largely uneducated, opinion. Others will actually demonstrate more understanding of a subject and they are just dismissed. It's fairly basic Dunning Kruger. It should be a huge red flag when someone insults and belittles others as a response. For that matter it is also a big red flag when someone spends time telling you how great they are, all the truly brilliant people I have know never talk themselves up. The ability to tell the difference between people with actual knowledge and those claiming knowledge seems to be lacking in many people.

@@charlie2640 There are a couple of clues in the ID they choose. Any ID which has "truth" in it for example is a pretty strong indication that their posts contain anything BUT the truth They have this absolute trust in the outpourings of people like Bart Sibrel and never bother to check if they're being fed garbage. "when someone spends time telling you how great they are" Ahhh, Expattaffy. He refers to himself in the third person and anoints himself as the "brilliant Expattaffy". Analysing Gary Fong's video, he gets nothing right - not bad for a world famous 20-year Hasselblad user.

I got all my evidence from the same people who lie to me.

America also kinda maybe was the first to send something to space with the manhole nuke

Lol

USSR was part of the "they" that would have been creating the fake. Like in Orwell's 1984, all governments are in collusion to create artificial conflict between them for public consumption.

This should be the top point to anyone denying the moon landing. Did they forget the political environment around the space race? The Soviets were having many accidents, failures, and deaths trying to get to the moon, spending billions they barely had - and they would’ve been all over the US if they faked it, they would have continued their moon program and anyone else who had space programs like China would’ve done everything in their power to discredit the US. What did they do? They accepted that the moon landing was infallible and couldn’t do anything about it, and shook hands with the US ending the space race, understanding the sheer amount of resources the US expended to get to the moon and conceded that they don’t have those resources to get to the moon itself since the goal was already reached. The KGB definitely looked into it if it was fake, and had spies on the ground to watch every second of the moon landing, yet nothing came out of it. They would’ve easily tracked that the rocket went up, and then came right back down if it was faked.

You’re assuming the soviets care. They faked theirs as well so two liars wouldn’t out each other 🤪

Well said 👏

Hahaha he’s an idiot who believes anything. He’s actually arguing with someone who made the cameras and even he said the photos couldn’t be have done.

Yeah, if Taffy isn't just a Troll/Poe his behavior just screams extreme narcissism and Dunning-Kruger.

Loving these vids, making a mockery of …… hmmm how can i put this politely … i cant the ignorant 💁‍♂️

@@kevinwagstaff7906 There's no reason to be polite to conspiracy nuts lol

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-T_Xbpg14mcQ.html

One small step for the like button, one giant leap for critical thinking skills. A giant leap over flerfs is a small step for those leaping.

My thought exactly. If you dropped a roll of 120 film into a glass vacuum bottle like a Thermos and sat it out in the sun for 6 hours, I think the temperature of the film would remaine fairly stable. The inside of the silver Hasselblad camera would work much the same way.

Dust was indeed a problem even without air as very fine particles were easilly kicked up into clouds around the astronauts that very slowly drifted back to the surface. You can see these fine dust particles scattering blue halos around the astronauts in shots with certain lighting conditions.

The astronauts would have been blown away by the stars they saw while in the shadow of the moon. It would have been unlike anything we could see on earth. Collins in particular as he was in the orbiting module the whole time the other two were on the surface…. Therefore when asked a specific question about stars, it is very strange indeed that he does not mention the incredible star show he would have undoubtedly seen. I’m sure he would have also attempted to photograph the sight.

I feel sorry for you. The guys a professional and you’re listening to a buffoon that can’t comprehend how basic triangles work. He’s not called Dave triangles mckeegan for nothing

I dont even understand the argument? Why would they even think a vacuum would effect the electromagnetic waves/particles/photons of visible (or other) light from reaching and exposing the film? But nope...these entire industries and fields with millions of people are all faked because "that looks fake/like CGI to me!" (For the "space is fake" and flat earthers, less so but still significantly so for the moon landings.) Every scientist, astronomer, astronaut, aerospace industry employee, pilot, navigator, mariner, artilleryman, sniper, geologist, surveyor, etc etc etc would have to be "in" on the "secret". And entirely consistent the whole time. All for...what?! There are plenty of real conspiracies. We dont need to go making them up.

And film for long exposures is 'vacuumed' then exposed to nitrogen or a mix of gases to reduce reciprocity failure. Of course the doubters have never worked with such processes and really have never done anything except non scientific 'experiments' or regurgitate other nonsense. Never a true thought of their own. - Cheers

@@joeshmoe7967 interesting, i never consciously checked reciprocity failure of the evacuated film. Ill also look into the nitrogen and gas mix reciprocity failure reduction. Thank for telling me about it.

@@joeshmoe7967 as for flat earthers, it amazes me how many disciplines one must be totally ignorant in to believe the earth is flat. Even a cursory exposure to aviation, navigation (especially navigation), physics, astrophysics, artillery, satellites, photography, sailing, weather, rocket science, electromagnetic theory, radio, communications, etc etc etc would convince a reasonable person that the earth can not be flat and still have all the assumptions that go into these fields actually work! EVERYone who applies any of these assumptions to do their job in any of these fields would have to be "in on it".

😅😅😅

In other words, you have no thoughts of your own and need to be guided by a cult leader. Why didn’t you just say so?

Original! I like it. 😂😂

Ya gotta lie to flerf...

RU-vid has been removing all the video denying moon landing.

Absolutely, yet some have the audacity to suggest they were murdered as part of a cover up 🤦🏻‍♂️

Dave, the Internet breeds all kinds of despots! It makes you wonder what these folk actually do for a living to be to mental 🤣

But it is fake when you start to scrutinize the story. We’ve never been there and we never will. Keep believing the lies.

How’d they get past the Van Allen Radiation belt? Why is it so painful for them to make 60’s technology that they claim they destroyed? Why’d they destroy it? It goes on and on and on but instead of looking into it and asking (oh no!!) questions you guys just believe the story they tell you, no questions asked because they are (smart) scientists….don’t question the science….because….that’s not how science works but whatever. It’s not like they don’t have billions of dollars to gain by perpetuating this nonsense with pictures of salami and claiming its galaxies or cgi rendered images to fool the sleepy masses. Foolish people.

@@greysuit17 we get it... you're trolling for the clout. Just stroll into the sea until your hat floats off your head 💀🤣

Thanks (but no thanks) to all these debunkers, our knowledge has grown and information about the Apollo landings we would have never known has been revealed. In their effort to debunk them, it strengthened them instead. The steps and the engineering that was mustered to achieve this is still outstanding. It was not done overnight, but thru gradual and fearless steps. Astronauts lost their lives as well, but in the end it was achieved.

We live in an era when every "official" organization in government, science, education and industry is supposed to be lying to us. This has been Fox "News" mission for nearly 20 years. Massive conspiracies are needed for Flerfs and their ilk to exist.

The earth is not flat. And we did not go to the moon.

@@DARTHNEWS the earth is not flat and we DID go to the moon. See! I can do that too 😂

@@dougbelford4565 lol u took the bait. I just wanted a response. Have a good one

I was working at the Mayo Clinic in 1980's We used the latest CGI and we also developed gloves to hold 3D objects and move them. As for the faking using CGI for Apollo. I don't think so. I think this was all setup using practical methods. A movie called 2001: A Space Odyssey was in 1968. Much of the methods used looked to be like on the moon. In truth I know the only reason people love the moon landing idea is it is a positive and inspired people to shoot for the stars. I am right along with them. However After many college fields I woke up and realized that if this was achieved we don't normally stop. I push to do more. We strive like moon bases. This never happened. The only logical reason is we never went.

@@primemac3dstudio18 As a visual effects artist, there is no way they would have been able to create the footage we see. 2001 took years upon years to produce and it still has very visible compositing artifacts and color issues (since optical compositing was the only way to do it). For longer and far more complex "shots" in the footage, it would've been a monumental undertaking that would've taken every optical printer in Hollywood to even start doing. You'd have also needed an army of people working frame-by-frame. It would've easily been just as expensive as building it for real, and you'd be able to see issues which are not visible. Why did we stop? Because there was no reason to spend that much money anymore. Life doesn't work like an RTS or game where each "achievement" is a tier upon which the next level is built. Its a fallacy to assume that "we wouldn't stop", it happens all the time. Plenty of islands were charted and never visited again. It depends on the reasons you went and why you'd want to keep going. And from congress's point of view, Moon landings were a waste of money. Only starting around 2010 has congress even been "for" returning to the Moon, they opposed it strongly through the 70s, 80s and 90s. And killed all followup missions. All Apollo hardware work was done in batches which made it very easy to simply not pick up the next batch and let that cancel things. The goal of beating the USSR was achieved and even the last few missions didn't have the funding to fly. Congress considered the WHOLE space program "over" and only reluctantly went along with the Space Shuttle with its drastically reduced budget. This was stupid, but its what congress wanted and thats politics. They cancelled habitats and engines because they simply feared they might lead to Moon bases or Mars missions- they didn't want to spend the money. The only reasons we can go back now is that they finally found a way to do the mission at a mere fraction of the cost of Apollo, theres no more Space Shuttle, but most importantly, Congress is actually FOR it.

What a bouth light source.same light source moon and earth.why moon so dark.its a night footage or day fotage..

@@primemac3dstudio18 You need historical perspective - 2001 looked like what it was, a sci film. Even by 1968 Apollo had become controversial with the public and congress, which is one reason why Lyndon Johnson and then Richard Nixon killed anything in the future; Johnson because he was having problems with the Vietnam War and the Great Society and Nixon because he was a good politician and saw that the Moon could harm his presidency and he began cutbacks during a widescale retreat from technology projects, and of course Nixon never liked Kennedy and didn’t want to prolong his legacy. There was/is no political imperative to go back to the Moon as there was to get there in the 1960’s Cold War, which was a completely different time. Even Apollo astronaut Frank Borman said. 'Any idea that the Apollo programme was a great voyage of exploration or scientific endeavour is nuts. People just aren't that excited about exploration. They were sure excited about beating the Russians.’

@@lalherapb9627 Check your vision as soon as possible.

All on tv not in the real world.

Not wars, not the Atom Bomb, our escape from the cradle of earth to walk on another celestial body was such a gigantic achievement and people disregarding it as fake just seem so sad and boring to me.

@@TheJUNGLESURFER You are only on my cellphone, and not in the real world. You are faked. Prove to me you exist.

Sorry about that, I rolled into my phone while sleeping.

@@TheJUNGLESURFER Just because you are incapable of comprehending the science doesn't mean it didn't happen Nancy.

Thank you Seb

Maybe if you have reservations you could voice them in a way that they can be addressed, with evidence that might be convincing for you.

If Only Gary Fong had taken 15 min to research rather than claim, the photos weren't taken on the moon.

@@paddyofurniture3988 Research, for the conspiritards, consists of reading posts and watching vids by other conspiritards. They would never go near a NASA website as they have been convinced that NASA is the Devil incarnate. It's like an echo chamber in their world of deluded beliefs.

@@DaveMcKeegan Seriously though, its well put and backed up with easy to follow explanations, trying to explain why it could be seen another way. clarity and openness that doesn't seem to be reciprocal

RezRising What you would have had was a copy neg. They used transparency film (slide film) on Apollo, not negative. Also, Neil most likely never got to touch an original. But I am sure he could have gotten or maybe were just given copy negs or copy transparencies.

@@williammann9176 Maybe, probably. In the end, someone smarter than me threw down eight thousand for them, the inscription and signature were real, and I have good memories of both my parents and sister talking about them hanging out in FL. Truth, dad was probably trying to get Neil to go in on a business deal or three. 🌖

@@MrRezRising If they were autographed then that would sure add value to them. But NASA greedily keeps a tight chain of custody on all film stock.

@@williammann9176 I think I stated up above ya wouldn't believe me. Neil's autograph is worth about $500, btw. Be well. Be well.

And these "debunkers" are trying to take away all the achievements of folks like your dad?

The moon has up to 200% more radiation

The carry on x-ray machines are safe because of their lower power so film is unaffected for the most part. The x-ray machines used in the luggage area are much more powerful and can cause fogging.

Was it 100 ISO on the Moon or 64?

@@oscans7084 The medium format film used was slow ASA 64 Kodak Ektachrome MS SO-368 estar. Also B&W Kodak Pan-X 164 ASA.. The 16mm stock was 64 ASA reversal. They also had a Kodak 35mm stereo close-up camera for close-up lunar surface work and on later missions UV stock for star field photography from the Lunar surface.

@@oscans7084 Not enough difference to alter the argument.

I also saw Gary Fong's video, and found his assertions to be really irritating. When he started going on about the temperature, it was obvious that he did not even understand that a moon day is 28 earth days, so they would not have experienced night at all, and they obviously would not have planned their trip for midday. Dave's response in this video is exceptionally well presented.

Thank you very much Nic It's frankly alarming that Gary's video has attracted so much attention despite all his assertions being wrong ... And people wonder where misinformation comes from 🤦🏻‍♂️

Nic I saw Gary's video first and then found this gem from Dave, I have attached my comment to Dave and Gary for your information below. Wow what an amazing video Dave. I watched Gary "Wrongs" video before finding yours as I wanted more and better information, basically I didn't believe a word of what he said. You did an amazing job of explaining things much better and I have attached a copy of the comment I made to Gary. I have subscribed to your channel in the hope of seeing more videos like this one. Keep up the good work and well done for not lowering yourself to Ex Pat Taffy's level of insults. Gary, you are just another conspiracy theorist and from watching your video I think you really don't believe that astronauts have walked on the moon. In spite of your apparent intelligence and consistent bragging about how clever you are and your qualifications, have you ever wondered why NASA has never defended itself regarding conspiracies about the Apollo missions? Its because they don't have to and they won't lower themselves arguing with idiots. Case closed.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fMcpKJ18nmo.html

@@scott-o3345 That Bart Sibrel, has blocked comments on his youtube video, because he does not want people pointing out how stupid he is. If there are 2 light sources, there will be 2 shadows, so his studio lighting theory is crap. The moon surface is not a smooth level plane like the road in his photo. This will make shadows appear to not be parallel.

No idea why they'd claim the studios were built in 1962 The site used to be a NASA facility which was used during the Apollo & Shuttle programs - later turned into studios Perhaps the Detectives are just up to their usual trick of taking 2 unrelated pieces of information and fabricating the story between them

@@DaveMcKeegan - I'm just stunned, as usual, that their followers, who praise them to the sky, have never bothered to check what the ADs claim. This or any of the "information" they pass off as "fact".

@@Phase52012 Agreed, the irony in their statements is so hilarious yet their followers completely miss it Their latest video, Marcus claims I need to provide evidence that the Apollo film wasn't regular ...except they just palm off all evidence as being fabricated by NASA Whilst they repeatedly claim the film was regular, consumer stuff with absolutely no evidence to support it Not as hilarious though as their genuine claims that NASA must have watched their videos and then immediately changed all the available information lol

Wow, thanks I did not know that. Makes sense, though. One thing the conspirationalists say is that you don't need a reseau plate, because you can superimpose the marks after developing the film...

Excellent point I also believe they coated the plate with a conductive film to deal with the static that it would generate when the film was winding over it

Changed the record Taffy I'm not scared to face you, I'm just waiting for you to prove the most basic fundamental for the moon landings being fake: What lighting did they use to create those images in a studio If the lighting can't be created on Earth then the photos MUST have been taken on the Moon If the photos were taken on Earth then "the brilliant Expat Taffy" should have absolutely no problem showing the world a working lighting setup ...

@expattaffy1 Anyone who was stuck with your brains would have to have their meals through a straw, because if you had any brains you'd be able to answer the most fundamental question "how was the studio lit to create those images But we all know you won't because it can't physically have been lit that way in a studio, instead you'll just continue trying to drag arguments out of nonsensical shite

@expattaffy1 As I've told you before, I've answered several of your questions while you've answered NONE of mine So you're getting no more answers until you start giving some

Mythbusters was pure comedy.Pure garbage to defend Nasa but aall intelligent people know its all Disneyland lies.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-T_Xbpg14mcQ.html

Ok, So "very difficult to fake" More difficult than Actually Going to and landing on the Moon? I Believe Not!

@@kennethrhodes7143At the time .... probably yes, as it happens. What is your knowledge and understanding of computer processing and applications?

What is Dave and your experience of what happened back then ? Physical evidence please ?

⁠​⁠​⁠@@Hellndegenerates Ok, firstly, what are you even asking, try and make a legible sentence, and what do you want evidence of? If you’re arguing that we never went to the moon but demanding evidence from them, what’s your evidence for whatever you believe?

@@iamacatperson7226The burden isn’t with him. It’s with the individuals that claim to have shot thousands of images in just a few days with a camera that can’t withstand temps of supposed space while having multiple light sources ….which isn’t possible. Zero dust on the lander. How did that full sized vehicle get there? Who filmed the lander leaving the moon from the moons surface? Why did Buzz say they all saw stars yet the one man that stayed with the ship in the dark side of the moon admitted he saw no stars. He’s the only one that absolutely should have seen them. It’s a silly hoax and only children believe these little fairytales.

@@johnnydough8841 the burden IS with him. When you make a claim that something is wrong, you have to provide proof as to why. He's also asking for physical evidence (which he doesn't have either, at least that's my assumption). Also if we were to fake the moon landing, firstly why would independent people from other nations claim to have gotten our radio signals (I believe that was it) from the moon, and perhaps most damning, the Soviet Union admitted it as well, our space race rivals. If anyone would want to go against us and say we didn't, it would be them, but they didn't, and as for the camera stuff I can't speak on it because I don't know the camera used, nor it's specifications

@@johnnydough8841 I think perhaps the most important thing to think about...why lie? What does it get anyone to lie and pay absurd amounts of money to make people be quiet, and even then people *ALWAYS* mess up, especially with the amount of people that would need to have been involved. My main reason for this is the same as me believing flat earth is nonsense: What difference does it make if the conspiracy were true?

The astronauts actually were concerned about their space suits, as the dust was razor sharp and cutting through the fibre of their space suits.

Completely agree thank you for opening your doors I would love to do that but I already have 10 people in my house eight dogs seven cats lizards Turtles tortoises I have a zoo for people and animals

@@oregonmodding wanna add a idiot?

There will be no Ukraine in 2024. This is what they get for electing a comedian as president. Russia is taking what’s theirs and nato doesn’t have the courage to stand up. Meanwhile we have a guy that can barely mumble in office lol

@@johnnydough8841 Hey, it’s you again! =D It’s good to see you consistently representing the worst of humanity, just in case there was any confusion over your integrity or values.

@@TukaihaHithlec I notice you’re not denying the fact that you enjoyed the profile photo. Meanwhile I’m opposing it. It’s not what you say. Sometimes it’s what you don’t. I don’t expect you to grasp that concept. You seem a little shallow and I’m miles ahead of you as most are I’m sure

I'm glad you enjoyed it

"Thanx for laying that out" double thumbs up! .

I believe the camera he is referring to seeing is the one in the Smithsonian, which didn't go to the moon itself (all the surface cameras were left on the moon) That particular one was one that the astronauts used as part of their training before missions

@@DaveMcKeegan Reminds me of arguing with Flat Earthers, you will never change the minds of most of them because they want to disbelive anything that disproves their cherished belief, I guess you may convince people who are just curious about the claims and don't know the facts.

I'll take that as a win 😁

Dave's videos are great, though part of the reason I watch them is, like you, because of the dog!

Excellent. You must be a great 'people watcher' I'm sure the stories I make for them are more interesting than their actual lives. ( And ditto in return for the ones that watch me)

Isn't it funny the nonbelievers never have worked in the field with equipment or processes. I too was in the industry and also an avid amateur photographer and astronomer, still am. - Cheers

Apollo ONE-TEEN!

Sounds like a cool person if you don't talk about the moon (or just agree so he doesn't start a argument)

Good for you for your willingness to listen to the explanations and change you mind. Even more so for saying so publicly. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

That other guy being Fong. I was wondering have you seen that claim that the backdrop hills were used twice on two different locations and whether you had any opinion on that?

Knockout. I won't be clicking on the deceptives if I see them- cognitive dissonance springs to mind. As for expat taffy. Clearly mad. Let's keep our minds open. I particularly liked your explanation of lunar temperature and Armstrongs baseline nervousness, with answers about the stars. Now all I need you to do is explain what all those foo fighters were in ww2 👽

Genius 🤣

One think that is funny and usually forgotten is that the Apollo 11 astronauts had and used a light meter. Minolta was very proud of the fact that a Minolta spot meter was used. When the hoax people ask "how could they get the photos so perfect?" well training and equipment. Like a light meter.

I suspect I'll experience a similar fate of being blocked ... While they continue to complain that people talk to them 🤣

@@DaveMcKeegan You won't be blocked on the Apollo Detectives channel unless your comments contain vile and hateful insults, as was the case with the liars who are complaining to you now.. The trolls who were blocked after being allowed to post hateful ridicule for several years are CLERIC 58, Justin Cox, Cornelius crewe and Phase52012, along with a few other trashy trolls, who mistakenly thought that school yard bully name calling equated to rebuttals.. The Jan Strzelecki troll is allowed to post comments, since his silly mind games and lies have never included the type of hate speech the other trolls enjoy so much. So if you would like to continue our polite debate on Robert's channel, I can assure you that you will not be blocked.. Btw, I had no idea you were such a photography "expert".. I never would have guessed it, considering the comments you've posted so far. 😉

@@DaveMcKeegan Dave, out of interest, do you know what the near, mid and far focus paddle settings were in terms of feet and how they were marked on the 60mm Biogon lens? I have been unable to get clear information on this but I suspect 74 feet was far. This relates to an aspect of a new AD video where they cannot understand a requirement to be 74 feet away from something.

@@CLERIC_58 I don't know the figures off the top of my head but I'm sure I've seen them referenced in one of the documents somewhere, I'll try and route it out when I can Likely it would be a guide to ensure that depth of field was deep enough to reach infinity The photos of the data camera that I can find show the lens focus markers in meters rather than feet and has them at 8m, 15m and then infinity So I would guess the advice was to aim the focus to the mid point between 15m and infinity

@@DaveMcKeegan Cheers Dave, no rush.

Ah Phase52, nice to see you ☺️ I had noticed that many of Taffy's 'arguments' are ones he's been spouting for years Seems he & the detectives overlook the yeaes that companies spent developing everything alongside the astronauts, changing designs over and over again to find ways to make things work

the fact that the USSR DIDN'T call it a lie already validates the apollo program.

@Stale Shortcake That's usually my go to rebuttal 😄 - the Soviets didn't say anything. But MLDeniers usually reply with "They were in on it", at which point you know, that they are a lost cause.

"Glad you said that" thumbs up!

"Do moon landing deniers think?" No, they don't think. That's the source of their trouble. Thinking is anathema to them.

thank god i was genuinely concerned about the health of the poor pink flamingo head, on the moon, under a boot and without the proper equipment

Hell the elephants foot had a pic taken and it looks fine

What's super fun is that the Apollo Detectives block all oppostion in the comments on their channel because (lol) we pro Apollo folk never present facts or arguments, only name calling.

Absolutely, unfortunately some people can be rather convincing in their misrepresentations - and many people are too quick to believe things at face value rather than digging into topics themselves to see

You are doing exactly that my good man.

@@DaveMcKeegan You are doing exactly that. The only way that you came to that conclusion is by recognizing it in yourself. ❤️

Because there are people out there that are so “antiestablishment” that they have to be contrarian about literally everything regarding objective reality. If a person in a position of authority said the sky was blue on a clear and sunny day, the flerf/moon landing denier/etc., would disagree and would proclaim that the sky is neon orange just to be a contrarian, and would be incapable of supplying supporting evidence to back their claim, evading ever discussing their claims and instead making absurd strawman or other fallacious arguments against objective reality in an endless cycle of attacking reality while avoiding ever discussing their claims in any detail ever when it is brought up.

The sunlit lunar soil all around them also lit up the areas in the shadows.

nah mate it had to be the lizard people or someth. But yeah, it obviously did happen.

Hi G S, hope that you are well. There are also several occasions in the footage of the various Apollo missions where it is possible to do a calculation of g (acc due to gravity) on the lunar surface, eg: oscillating back pack, dropping hammer/feather, bouncing astronauts, etc and each time the answer turns out to be about 1.6 m/s2, the expected result for the lunar surface. Take care.

@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth excellent point, but beyond my maths ability! the Apollo images are stunning though,and as a photgrapher myself , they look 100% authentic.for all the reasons in the explained in the video , cheers