Something Weird Is Happening On The Moon.. 

Spot on reference! Only IF successful, lol. That was a fun challenge, liked that game.

But apparently human did it 6 times in a row 50 years ago, the more we investigate the moon the more propestorous this moon landing tales get, I want to believe but the evidence is not helping at all.

@@robymaru03 The first couple of levels are pretty easy, actually, but pretty soon you’re supposed to make pinpoint landings on cliff ledges with very little fuel. I never had enough money to get good at it but plenty of kids did.

@@robymaru03 Yes, because it wasn't remote control. The Lunar Modules had actual pilots which increases landing success by orders of magnitude.

@@robymaru03 That's because the astronauts were handpicked combat or test pilots used to making split second decsions and staying calm under the most intense pressure who were then trained to the limits of human mental and physical fitness and intensively practiced this manouvre while still on Earth. Look up Lunar Landing Test Vehicle. I detect the unwashed stink of a moon landing hoaxer. Get over yourselves. It happened. The whole hoax idea was created by a delusional con artist named Bill Kaysing who had no scientific training and was a copy editor at Rocketdyne, wilfully misinterpreting some questions over the design of the F1 engine and building it up into a massive conspiracy to sell a book.

On point bro

Yes, but the average smart human does not even get past big "G," as a constant. Constants are not variables.

You'd think.

​@@malachiteofmethuselah9713but variables are a constant.

@@mynde-fuchefoundation2254 Variables "Can," be a constant. If you wanna knit pick something. o.0

No man. First one was sent to orbit moon. Second one was sent to soft land but failed. 3rd one was successull

@@baddyforall2568 just read my comment carefully. I said first landing attempt. Not first mission

They promised hotels on the moon in 1969. = Every times, I mean EVERY time they promise they're going back, 15 wars "break out" and the space money is put into the war machine, for another election, another BS artist, and then suddenly we realize the US started the wars, as if there's a reason they can't/won't go to the moon. Ain't that interesting. Those India and China missions got ZERO main strem media space, I guess they can't fake it as well as the US did, and even they didn't do a great job mind you. You remember the blue screens? The zip lines in the ISS? The bubbles? I do.

Liar

@@user-hn6eb3ng5z who?

Definitely! That's where all the pink Floyds live, and they can get a little aggressive every now and then.

A wild guess by know nothing doofuses.

@@oriraykai3610 You are sooo correct -- the moon is obviously filled with marshmallow crème.

@@ts-900 we've gone from thinking the moon is made of cheese to thinking it's made of marshmallow crème, in a day and age where some people still think the earth is flat

@@omegaotaku1342 I've always wanted to ask a flat-earther if they thought the moon was also flat. Pretty sure I already know what they'd say.

@@omegaotaku1342 GASP! You mean it's not flat? Well, as long as it's not a dodecahedron.

LMFAO

It was fake!

Thanks

Totally agree ! Well said

You're no fun.

Eggs actly!

Exactly horseshit he magically landed on his own intuition with seconds worth of fuel what a story lol

What`s your point ?

@@daryl9799 no one says that

So? You say it was “no problem” because you have no idea what you’re talking about. There are photos of the Apollo landing sites from lunar orbit and the surface.

A friend of mine played a multi-player game on the toughest level and was contacted by the US Navy?

@@strikerorwell9232 Can happen, if the game's stats are being recorded, and watched by naval Intelligence, while also regarding the game as a poll for expected results on a set of problems involving quick and/or rather exceedingly bright decision making skills. Basically, I'd make a game to recruit remote drone operators, which could then have a base of thousands of potentials. It's not a physical thing, it's a mental and hand/eye coordination thing, for which games are excellent proving grounds, barring cheating systems. (Cheats would be found out by not being able to produce the same results under overwatch.)

Thank you,I will just stop before I even watch. Im glad I went through the comments first.

The photo was taken in 1968. Most people didn't have smart phones back then

That won't happen until you can admit to yourself that space is Santa Claus for adults

​@@dr.astro.hutchinsYou can't prove a "photo" you weren't there

Theses people think are being lied to I don't believe what they're telling the Americans lies to scare people

Ain't nobody got 2 the moon

I seen the cartoon, real impressive .

Like the US cartoon does, yes...🤔🤪

US had slightly better cartoon but cartoon none the less.@@mohammedrizwan9447

...depends of the craft... modern sensors can be the size of 2 car batteries ..can probably be shrunk down...but since thers no real market or incentive doing so faast, the equippment are usually one of a kind custom builds... closest i belive u come to off the shelf sensors are a 19 inch rack module + external tube of .5 meters or so with a 5-6 inch diameter... ...but size isent really the issue anyway, its the weight... thers a high cost launch things into space... depending of launch rocket the cost varies alot bigger rocket - less cost/kg ... but then the rocket itself cost massive ...the proble is as said the weight not the size... cost in dollars from a small rocket costing 17k/launch the cost per kg is 41k/kg (unable launch more than small cube sattelites low orbit) to something costing 1 800 000 (almost 2 million dollar/launch) able to carry a space wehichle into space... 65k/kg payload but can carry tonnes... (also takes years to build and cant be reused) or the more resonable Quinguan (China) at 5 million dollars/launch 17.5k/kg cost ...for shooting up instument into orbit either in peaces(modules) or parts of and assemble in space smaller rochets r a viable alternative... but it would req assemble them in space

India and Pakistan are nuclear countries and flying in space so why are they advertising for more money on TV.

I don't believe the moon can change gravity in a short period of time and to any extent that would bother any modern sensors today. We have magnetometers and accelerometers in kids toy drones that demonstrate the tech ! and that's the tech we know about !

@@andymouse ...yes...ther are actually alot of accelerometers and magntometers that about the size of an integrated circuit... ..but when it comes to measuring precise gravity there isent rly many options... not yet... there are chip sized once but those r to inprecise atm...

My point is the gulf between a kids toy and what NASA have on hand is enormous and I'm sure the precision is too@@Patrik6920

And Apollo mission going 6 times in the moon didn't even notice that somehow.

@@robymaru03 Please give evidence of that assertion.

@@robymaru03 the Apollo missions didn’t have gravimetric sensors as far as I know. These days every modern military submarine has multiple for gravity mapping. It’s almost like technology improves over time or something…

It’s a bit more precise than that, but there was speeches written in case of mission failure.

I wonder if other planets have such anomaly...

@@DesertSessions93 Study Uranus closely…..you’ll find it chock-full of anomalies.

Yea, it’s called “Antarctica”.

This isn’t very good information, I’d recommend someone better. Everyday astronaut has good info

I don't think so Dave.........

Apparently there is no Magnetic field present on the moon and then again, nothing has been proven what the moon exists of. NASA the biggest liars in the Universe just touching the levels of the Democrats.

it was a rock people ship, all rock

@@gantzthegreat8998 LOL, even if they were rock people, they would need a way to move around and moving through solids is really not practical so the interior would need to be mostly gas or liquid which would also be less dense than rock. I guess rather than rock, they could be heavy metal, maybe that could work. 😄

or they were liquid meal terminators from the future@@connecticutaggie

Or put up a cubesat to be a relay.

Being able to land on something that is not a solid body that is apparently clearly visible against the blue sky as a transparent semi-self-luminous cold plasma with a silvery white light quite unlike the warm yellow Sun, and is by no means seen as solid a rock during the day against the background of the blue sky is not only impossible and absurd, but also an infinitely insane and childish belief for ignorant people with perverted programmed thinking, as well also for ideological people having a huge illusion of real knowledge. Only NASA and modern astronomy claim and defend the cause that the Moon is a solid, spherical, Earth-like abode that man has actually flown to and stepped on. Only they claim that the Moon is a non-luminous planetoid that receives and reflects all its light from the Sun. The reality, however, is that the Moon is apparently not a solid body, it is certainly round, but not spherical, and it is by no means an Earth-like planetoid that humans could step on. The moon cannot physically be both a spherical body and a reflector of the Sun's light at the same time. In order to reflect the light, the reflectors must inevitably be flat or concave like a car headlight, gathering in focus the light rays from any angle of incidence, but if the surface of a given reflector is convex, then any incident ray will be reflected in a straight line with the radius perpendicular to the surface, resulting in scattering of light. In fact, the Moon is proven to be largely transparent and completely self-illuminated, glowing with its unique silver-white light. In many cases the moon is observed half-illuminated from early at night to late in the day with the same angle of illumination, and in the unillumined part, where it should be a dark mass of rock, we see the blue sky and stars in the early morning without changing the angle of the lunate part of the Moon, which part is supposed to be reflected by the Sun until late in the day at the same fixed and unchanging angle of the lunate part of the Moon! When the waxing or waning Moon is visible during the day, it is possible to see the blue sky right through the Moon. And on a clear night, during waxing and waning, it is sometimes even possible to see stars and "planets" directly across the surface of the Moon! Throughout its history, the Royal Astronomical Society has documented many such cases that do not obey the Heliocentric model. The light of the Sun is golden, warm, drying, protective and antiseptic, while the light of the Moon is silvery, cool and damp, putrid and septic. The sun's rays reduce the burning of the pyre, and the moon's rays increase the burning. Vegetable and animal substances exposed to sunlight quickly dry up, shrink, coagulate and lose their tendency to putrefy and putrefy: grapes and other fruits become hard, partially candied and preserved, such as raisins, dates and prunes, animal flesh coagulates , loses its volatile gaseous components, becomes hard, dry and difficult to putrefy. When exposed to moonlight, however, plant and animal matter tends to show symptoms of decay and decay. This proves that Sunlight and Moonlight are distinct, unique and opposite, as they are in the geocentric flat model. A thermometer exposed to direct sunlight will read a higher temperature than another thermometer placed in the shade. But exposed entirely to direct moonlight, a thermometer will read a lower temperature than one placed in the shadow of the moon. That is, in the shadow of the Moon, the temperature of the thermometer is higher than the temperature of the thermometer exposed to direct Moonlight. If Sunlight is concentrated, through large lenses, then at the focal point it creates considerable heat, while Moonlight similarly collected does not create heat. In the Lancet Medical Journal of March 14, 1856, several experiments were detailed which proved that the rays of the moon, when concentrated, could actually lower the temperature of a thermometer by more than eight degrees. Thus Sunlight and Moonlight undoubtedly have quite different properties. This single and irrefutable fact alone, which is supported by experiment, destroys and demolishes the Heliocentric theory, and this elementary experiment can be done by every single person on earth without requiring or needing any education or knowledge of physics or other sciences. Many people believe that the ability of modern astronomy to accurately predict solar and lunar eclipses is a result and unequivocal proof of the heliocentric theory of the universe. The fact is, however, that eclipses were accurately predicted by various cultures around the world for thousands of years before the "heliocentric ball-Earth" even flashed in Copernicus' imagination. Ptolemy in the First Century accurately predicted eclipses, based on the hexagonal annual pattern of the flat, fixed Earth with the same precision as today. As early as 600 BC Thales accurately predicted an eclipse that ended the war between the Medes and Lydians. Eclipses occur accurately regularly in 18-year cycles, so regardless of geocentric or heliocentric, flat or spherical earth cosmologies, eclipses can be accurately calculated regardless of such factors.

So "lucky" 🤣

Mars is still harder to reach than the moon, the amount of fuel, logistic, and calculation is like many times greater than the moon landing , US doesnt not even try to land on the moon anymore seeing that there's no new groundbreaking discovery to befound in there, they have 2 actice rovers and a small helicopter on there already, same with China

My theory is that we are using standard and metric measurements, but the moon uses lunar units.🌙🧀

He lived right down the road from me in Lebanon, Ohio.

Why would it say there were two replies, but I could only see one?

He was hiding a terrible secret…there was no moon landing!

Of course we can. China just did it. The US is doing it next year.

bingo

10:20 $$$$$$$

@@johnmiskimins4104 would you step into a rocket headed to the moon if the experts told you the risk of TMF - Total Mission Failure - was 98%. Seems NASA found 3 who would and after 6 missions , no failures. How nice.

That's exactly right. They think we're stupid. Little do they know. People are beginning to see the world for what it is.... everything is being exposed and there's nothing any of the world's governments can do about it.... I wait for the day for total public anarchy!!!! Our general population standing up to these asshats giving them a taste of their own medicine 😂

@@maxsmith695 really, 98%? I have a very low expectation of that number being correct, since you can’t even get the number of astronauts correct.

There is also the minor part about having the leg-y part down, but I quibble.

The US is pretty awesome at space stuff.

experience learnt from initial failures

Actually, the US landed without problems only 11 times on the Moon. 5 robotic Surveyor probes and 6 Apollo crews safely soft-landed on the Moon. Still pretty awesome, however.

oh you didnt hear? "they would go back to the moon in a nanosecond but they lost that technology and its a painful process to build it back again".so there just going to mars instead.

The Apollo mission was faked. Nixon was delusional, until he realized his stupidity resulted in him getting into a big jam.

Travislangevin319. Yes, the van Allen belts are not nearly so dangerous to just pass in a few hours, that the silly conspirasists say.

Travis you are 💯. Especially since nasa says they havent built a craft yet capable of deflecting the radiation to protect humans. Look it up yourself. It’s nasa’s own video on youtube. The van allen belts Arranged like two nested donuts, the inner belt is mainly energetic protons, while the outer belts contain both protons and electrons. These belts have long been known as 'bad news' for satellites and astronauts, with potentially deadly consequences if you spend too much time within them. Now does that sound dangerous to you? People who say otherwise are trying to keep up with the lies. And in case you get someone that says, Astronauts are safe because they were moved quickly thru the belts, here is an even greater risk. What poses a greater risk, then? The galactic cosmic rays represent a greater risk because we know we can’t protect against them. Solar radiation storms also pose a more challenging risk because these are not easily predicted and they affect all of geospace with increasing severity, the further one is from the protective shield of the Earth’s magnetosphere. Here’s what Piers Jiggens, an engineer from the European Space Agency’s Space Environment and Effects section, and a member of ESA’s Heliophysics Working Group, based at ESA’s technical heart ESTEC in the Netherlands. Originally from the UK, Piers graduated in aeronautics and earned a PhD in astronautics specialising in solar particle radiation and spacecraft design related to the threat posed from solar flares and solar eruptions. He says as stated above “We can’t protect”

The answer is - rather quickly…

Astronauts have never traveled thru the Van Allen radiation belt.

If facts bear something out weather or not it may be a conspiracy really does not matter.@@YDDES

N do u really think there's a rover on mars?😂

No,,we didn't. When in doubt there is no doubt. Overwhelming evidence shows that we didn't.

You think the government would lie to us??? I can't believe that ..... is the next booster shot available yet

Seems to be easier to land on Mars.

@@joerodriguez3002 Overwhelming evidence shows we did. For one thing, if we didn’t the Soviets would have called bullshit. For another the flight was followed by universities and civilians all over the globe.

Political stunts mostly. NASA did much better planned exploration programs. Most of the Russian firsts were nearly tragedies. They may have been slower, but NASA made it work for real.

@@curtisquick1582 Wow, moronic.

It is run by musk so an impoosible task...

After landing hundreds or large Falcon boosters on Earth, the Moon, with its lower gravity, will be so much easier for SpaceX. And besides, the computer on board is much more capable than humans at landing.

@@curtisquick1582 It’s nothing like landing on Earth. There’s no atmosphere so you can’t use wing flaps to correct the orientation of the upper section. You would need retro thrusters. The surface of the moon is not flat. The video even mentions how hard landing the reusable rockets on earth is. So on the moon it’s a lot more difficult.

@@robinkelly1770 how so? He’s succeed at everything he’s done including perfecting reusable rockets. Just you hate him because you’re a liberal. Lol

Being able to land on something that is not a solid body that is apparently clearly visible against the blue sky as a transparent semi-self-luminous cold plasma with a silvery white light quite unlike the warm yellow Sun, and is by no means seen as solid a rock during the day against the background of the blue sky is not only impossible and absurd, but also an infinitely insane and childish belief for ignorant people with perverted programmed thinking, as well also for ideological people having a huge illusion of real knowledge. Only NASA and modern astronomy claim and defend the cause that the Moon is a solid, spherical, Earth-like abode that man has actually flown to and stepped on. Only they claim that the Moon is a non-luminous planetoid that receives and reflects all its light from the Sun. The reality, however, is that the Moon is apparently not a solid body, it is certainly round, but not spherical, and it is by no means an Earth-like planetoid that humans could step on. The moon cannot physically be both a spherical body and a reflector of the Sun's light at the same time. In order to reflect the light, the reflectors must inevitably be flat or concave like a car headlight, gathering in focus the light rays from any angle of incidence, but if the surface of a given reflector is convex, then any incident ray will be reflected in a straight line with the radius perpendicular to the surface, resulting in scattering of light. In fact, the Moon is proven to be largely transparent and completely self-illuminated, glowing with its unique silver-white light. In many cases the moon is observed half-illuminated from early at night to late in the day with the same angle of illumination, and in the unillumined part, where it should be a dark mass of rock, we see the blue sky and stars in the early morning without changing the angle of the lunate part of the Moon, which part is supposed to be reflected by the Sun until late in the day at the same fixed and unchanging angle of the lunate part of the Moon! When the waxing or waning Moon is visible during the day, it is possible to see the blue sky right through the Moon. And on a clear night, during waxing and waning, it is sometimes even possible to see stars and "planets" directly across the surface of the Moon! Throughout its history, the Royal Astronomical Society has documented many such cases that do not obey the Heliocentric model. The light of the Sun is golden, warm, drying, protective and antiseptic, while the light of the Moon is silvery, cool and damp, putrid and septic. The sun's rays reduce the burning of the pyre, and the moon's rays increase the burning. Vegetable and animal substances exposed to sunlight quickly dry up, shrink, coagulate and lose their tendency to putrefy and putrefy: grapes and other fruits become hard, partially candied and preserved, such as raisins, dates and prunes, animal flesh coagulates , loses its volatile gaseous components, becomes hard, dry and difficult to putrefy. When exposed to moonlight, however, plant and animal matter tends to show symptoms of decay and decay. This proves that Sunlight and Moonlight are distinct, unique and opposite, as they are in the geocentric flat model. A thermometer exposed to direct sunlight will read a higher temperature than another thermometer placed in the shade. But exposed entirely to direct moonlight, a thermometer will read a lower temperature than one placed in the shadow of the moon. That is, in the shadow of the Moon, the temperature of the thermometer is higher than the temperature of the thermometer exposed to direct Moonlight. If Sunlight is concentrated, through large lenses, then at the focal point it creates considerable heat, while Moonlight similarly collected does not create heat. In the Lancet Medical Journal of March 14, 1856, several experiments were detailed which proved that the rays of the moon, when concentrated, could actually lower the temperature of a thermometer by more than eight degrees. Thus Sunlight and Moonlight undoubtedly have quite different properties. This single and irrefutable fact alone, which is supported by experiment, destroys and demolishes the Heliocentric theory, and this elementary experiment can be done by every single person on earth without requiring or needing any education or knowledge of physics or other sciences. Many people believe that the ability of modern astronomy to accurately predict solar and lunar eclipses is a result and unequivocal proof of the heliocentric theory of the universe. The fact is, however, that eclipses were accurately predicted by various cultures around the world for thousands of years before the "heliocentric ball-Earth" even flashed in Copernicus' imagination. Ptolemy in the First Century accurately predicted eclipses, based on the hexagonal annual pattern of the flat, fixed Earth with the same precision as today. As early as 600 BC Thales accurately predicted an eclipse that ended the war between the Medes and Lydians. Eclipses occur accurately regularly in 18-year cycles, so regardless of geocentric or heliocentric, flat or spherical earth cosmologies, eclipses can be accurately calculated regardless of such factors.

Huh? What is unusual about it?

@@bigboss-tl2xr i think one side always faces the Earth

Yeah, I just don't understand what is "unusual" about that. Many moons are tidally locked. 🤷🏼‍♂️

@@bigboss-tl2xr Ok, so maybe unusual is the wrong word then. The Earth rotates, and the Moon does not. That is the usual way moons do I guess. haha

Exactly right! Thanks for letting folks know!

You apparently don’t understand what fly by wire is, and it isn’t the computer making decisions.

@@tonyhaslam186Well, actually it is. The control stick sends impulses to a series’s of computers and they interpret those impulses and move the appropriate device, in this case the descent engine and RCS thrusters. More and more transport aircraft today are fly by wire.

With all do respect but he still flew it if he wouldn't not of take over the so called computer it would have killed them. Landing in a rock fild

@@JennyJackson-zp7xu That is a lie based on a cherry picked piece of footage. He said we never went back, not that we didn’t go. Which is entirely true, after the last Apollo mission humans haven’t gone back. Until next year anyway.

America has the best.

Nothing extraordinary about Indian engeniers they do good in certain fields but suck at others mainly because of a lack of capital I believe

I will not say the have *the* best, but note that India has centuries of matematical and engineering traditions. I'm jealous of ISRO's success and welcome them into the club with open arms. Now it gets *really* fun! (Fingers crossed for iSpace). And, please spend little time debating who's the best and more time on being the best.

@@davidvomlehn4495 What debate? It's a forgone conclusion according to this streamer. "We know" it to be true! I've worked with engineers from many nations for over 30 years including many from India and I never knew this fact. I have learned something new today. I am now in the "we" club!

He was proving the point dimwit That even with best of all team, tech & brains it's still hard Low iq

Thanx to our lovely government

Perfectly oversimplified as only an amateur can.

@@UpperDarbyDetailing Keep commenting. Maybe someday he can be as smart as you 😂

@@jetsengoytredkl I can’t make someone follow the truth, I can only show them the way.

@@jetsengoytredkl lol

You might be crazy

I saw that too and was confused. This video has nothing to do with the SpaceX investigation.

You’re either an idiot or crazy. Or a crazy idiot. That was all nonsense. Stop listening to people dumber than you.

How is your Niece BTW ?

It changes on Earth too. You literally weigh less on the equator.

@@UpperDarbyDetailing Ha! I didn't know that.

@@mclovinfuddpucker Actually, my momma said it was the devil 😇

@@mclovinfuddpucker is that you, Mommy?

"... it could, in theory, could be just about anything ..." 😂

We have been mapping the gravity

Ships and stations aren’t any harder really. All speed and motion is relative.