VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing 

Thanks! That was a beautiful breakdown and proof of the real landing.

Cool

Hi

You do know Wikileaks already debunked the “fake” moon landing by leaking the how it was faked. I bet you all believe the complete spherical image of the earth taken from Apollo was real too huh...😂 You all should go and watch “A funny thing happened on the way to the moon” by Bart Sibrel That Spherical image of the earth was faked. The Astronauts show you how they did it in leaked footage by a whistleblower. As a fellow artist, I find your analysis lacking the true Artist eye and expertise. Very disappointing for so called FX Artist. However, you are decent entertainers 👍🏿

Can u do a longer one as a update please .. I'm sure a lot of people enjoying this had their eyes opened for the first time...please please a nice lengthy one.

They had is in the first half, not gonna lie xD

This dumb joke has been said 1000000 times please stop it

So they landed there!

@@donpettitwedestroyedtheapo6488 no the moon landing was done in a studio. However, to maintain the level of realism expected, they built the studio on the moon.

@@zhankazest :P

OMG thatd be fun

yes, they should do that

Yesss

figgehn :0

They're probably close enough to the supposed real locations where the footage was staged too.

People will always continue to make conspericy theories, why? Because it shapes an image of a non trustwhorhty goverment. Some people will always rebel against the goverment or want to stand out. But the good news is that consperacy theories will fade away with time, but there will always be new ones. Its just sad to see. (Note: my english is very bad)

​​@@Thijmenpost Well said!

The time to accept it was July 20th, 1969

In my opinion it could be realistic if the mountains just like you said the very far away view and takes a lot mile to reach and never ending. In their footage it's like so close at hand, too studio like, too limited, one room. It could have look vast. And Why there's no stars ever? 🤔 why I just hope either it's fake or not. Hope they will not hide something from us about the condition of our Earth. Global Warming 😬.

@@queenieme37 The stars don't show because of camera exposures and brightness contrast. It's VERY bright on the lunar surface, that's why the astronauts have those anti-glare visors. You can't see stars on Earth during daylight but they're still there! "Global warming"? That's a Socialist political agenda not an actual environmental concern. UN 2030 Agenda to be specific. Atmospheric CO2 is sitting around 400ppm which is nice and great for plant growth. Under 300ppm and we all starve and freeze. I know how I prefer it...!!!

@@queenieme37 why is it worded like a fucking riddler riddle

@queenieme37 You clearly didn't understand the points that were made in the video.

@@queenieme37 >In their footage it's like so close at hand They literally explain in this video why it looks like that. >Why no stars? It's daytime. The sun is shining right at them, go outside in bright sunlight on a hot sunny day and count how many other stars you can see

Probably too close to the truth.

you know too much my guy

for Artemis missions they'll hire Christopher Nolan

That is one of my favorite jokes. I always felt it would be harder to hide the fact it was faked and actually fake it than to actually go there in the first place. The Soviet Union would have had a field day proving it was faked if it had been; they had the brains to find and show all the faults in the special effects if it had been faked.

@@rodsprague369 That's true. I'm from Russia, i confirm that attitude

Yeah and when he told them, they were cool with it because they had already built a massive moon rocket to convince the public

I was looking for this comment, not disappointed!

@@alisilcox6036 damn we really shopulve just gone there

Hahahahaaaaaaaaa

I demand Kubrick's behind the scenes to be released

People have some SHITTY observation skills

Zero evidence that Kubrick was involved. That story is likely planted by the CIA to muddy the waters.

I think it was more about if anyone could fake the moon landing at the time, it would have only been stanley kubrick, hence the comparison

It actually looks exactly like that movie lmfao

Yeah no@@lukeshioshio

It's out there, but the RU-vid algorithm keeps that kind of content hidden from most people's recommendation feeds.

Some people might call it a RU-vid conspiracy. Some people might say if you actually search for it you'll find it

It is so difficult to fake it so we did it for real? What a joke!!!

@@Enemji Sorry, it's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic or not. If the footage shows we did it AND it was not possible to fake it well enough at the time (considering the video recording technology level at the time) then why not conclude it really happened?

@@bobblum5973 All I am saying is there is room for doubt, and as the legal system calls it “Beyond a reasonable doubt”. On one hand corridor crew and others show proof that we did not have the technology to fake the video, and hence it must be true. But if we did not even have such basic technology such as slo-mo cameras, how did we acquire/built technology to not only fly to the moon, but not crash while landing, and even make it back. Even now we have missions that crash land. Why not then?

Yes! I also think ghost videos would be interesting to add to the mix

I think the Loch Ness may be an elephant. Probably one from a circus.

Do you find it strange that people who deny the moon landing always claim aliens visit the eath to abduct people?!

My coworker sent me bosstown dynamics and said something conspiratorial I send back the behind the scenes His response was “yeah well those fucking nerds are still doing it”

Now we are talking!

So does the lighting. The amount of light shown across the landscape being uniform, with no bright or dark spots, is something that can only happen if the source of light is so far away that the inverse square law no longer applies.

@@mooneyes2k478 if you look at the apollo 11 images, it is exactly the opposite, almost at all bright and dark hotspots and falloffs

@@zdenekburian1366 Shadows aren't dark spots. And there is no falloff. So, whatever you watched, it wasn't the footage from any of the Apollo missions.

@@mooneyes2k478 eeeehhhhhh???? were the heck did I wrote about "shadows"????? only in your fantasy, while there is a famous documentary where, for at least fifteen minutes, is debated the fact that in ALMOST ALL ALMOST ALL ALMOST ALL the apollo 11 photos, the moon surface is not, in any way, absolutely not, similar to the images from following missions, and there are so huge hotspots there, and so vast falloffs that five of the most important, world renown, acclaimed photographs ever discuss and explain that it is impossible that they were shot under the lunar sun, exactly, word by word, of your "So does the lighting. The amount of light shown across the landscape being uniform, with no bright or dark spots, is something that can only happen if the source of light is so far away that the inverse square law no longer applies" motivation. And this is the absolutely minor issue of the apollo 11 footage compared to other inconsistencies. One can say that the photos were post-produced to enhance the drama in the absolute first moon exploration for publishing on time life magazines, or that the mission was real but then a set on earth was replied for the same show business reasons, but the fact remains that there was a fake anyway.

@@zdenekburian1366 So, in other words, you wrote a whole wall of temper-tantrum when called on your nonsense, while carefully not actually showing any evidence of your claim. Or, in other words, "I have nothing so I'm going to blather irrelevancies." Cool, you do you.

They fooled us by not fooling us

yeah I think also if they had just gone silly with it and pretended it was fake, people would have just taken clips from it completely out of context to argue that it actually "was* fake

@@iansteelmatheson yep, thats the problem with the internet nowadays, so many dummies who doesn't understand sarcasm

@Thien Phan shut up

Hahaha thanks Scott. Is it just me or is it getting a bit manly in here or what?

Hiya Scott, you get your Dear Moon submittal in on time? Would be cool to have both you and Tim on lol

Love to see you here. Two of my favorite channels. Cheers.

Time for two awesome channels to collab.... It'd get real manly up in here real quick....

Why I hear Mun in background 😂😂

Shadows of telephone poles in parking lots on Earth viewed from above are parallel, but as soon as the surface is not flat, the objects not uniform, or the photo angle from the side, and parallel is tossed out the window. The shadow argument was always strange to me, but conspiracy theory is not about the truth.

Yup, particles on the moon follow an almost perfectly parabolic path, like something you'd calculate in high school physics. Nothing else around to impart force. It looks bizarre.

I mean that's probably why so many people think it's fake too, because it doesn't function the way we expect the world to function

theoretically, those sand particles could fly around there for eternities and wouldn´t lose any speed, cuy there´s no air to stop them Edit: I know, I forgot to mention Gravity, no need to say that over and over again

@@sidestreetreaper4203 Gravity pulls them down pretty quickly as seen in the video

@@sidestreetreaper4203 the moons gravity still pulls them down eventually.

Omfg, I've never heard that one before, that's hilarious 😂

what a chad

Practical effects can't be beaten..

@@VivekYadav-ds8oz Hmm, more like “political effects”, lol.

now that makes sense !

I can confirm I've seen a few do this lol

Which is saying a lot since literally the video immediately prior to this was them putting a tiny camera on a bird.

@@Dargonhuman i was going to say lol almost all of their videos are pretty damn good! the mini box car racing episode was pretty awesome!

I couldn't agree more, I expected it to be a little funny video, but it is so insightful seeing VFX artists commenting on why it wasn't fake.

Your hat is nearly as good as theirs. And yeah, this is the best April Fool's ever. I just wish they'd explained why space shots look like bad cgi in the first place, so that they could also tackle modern day deniers. I mean, they kind of go there with the harsh single source lighting, no atmosphere, and limited physics, but expecting conspiracy theorists to connect the dots always just leads to them drawing new dots first. And as it is, I'm pretty sure they're still going to whine about the stars not being visible with all the high contrast ground giving the camera issues. Still, that's just nitpicking. And no matter how in-depth they went, it still wouldn't be enough for the gullible cynics who Dunning-Kruger their way into confusing hard science for Q-anon style brainwashing. ("Science keeps correcting itself, so it must be fake!")

@@juststatedtheobvious9633 Hey, your name is accurate! Oh my gosh BOTH YOUR NAMES ARE ACCURATE! Seriously though I'm an amateur astronomer/photographer and it drives me insane talking to Moon hoaxers. Like for example your point (also accurate) why everything looks like CGI in space is because literally everything we get sent back from satellites IS CGI from space lol, I have to explain to people (not you, I know you're playing a bit). We have no cameras going to and coming back anymore (mostly), everything is sent back as a one/zero pixel luminousity factor and is then recompiled into an image, in a *gasp* computer. So when these idiots say "NASA admits all their footage is CGI" they're not wrong. Just painfully stupid. Be safe out there you too, you're both amazing!

Or are they? _Cue VSauce theme_

@@wren7195 "Yes, we enhanced these photographs so that you can actually see all the different materials in this nebula. The human eye is limited and -" "FAKE NEWS!" "Fine. You win. We actually call the Earth, "God's coinflip." That's why it's so flat. Space revolves around it, and you, because you're the chosen one." "Now you're making sense."

You can't even pretend with conspiracy people, they'll take it as some sort of double fake "this is them secretly telling us how it went down in a way that RU-vid won't stop them!"

Reverse trolling?

Flat Earthers will still use this as evidence it was faked (yes i mean flat Earthers. they need space to be fake to prove the flat earth)

@@kruleworld You need to be almost brain dead to believe the Earth is flat and say you recruit members across the globe

@@cesar6004 the world is full of gullible people who lack the ability to think critically and therefore lack any sort of problem solving ability. They literally cannot understand how dumb the concept of a flat earth is.

@@xxKrazyKxx My parents are that dumb except don’t question the planet’s shape

I Am Waiting For Animator React. Specially Dreamworks Masterpieces like (Shrek,HTTYD1,2,3)

Potential RU-vid crossover with the Corridor Crew. Could be epic.

Make it happen!

React to the Flat Earth. (By the way, we all know it's flat, right guys, I mean come on...)

Whoa are you going to the moon in cartrek????

Yes but another thing to ponder. Why are the astronauts so careless in falling and tripping over and laughing ? Like its a game to them. Dont they realise a puncture in the suit could mean instant death? Its very perplexing and not talked about much. and you're wrong about the dust, On the contrary because of no air the dirt that gets picked up on the moon falls straight down fast, faster than on Earth . The only difference with regards to gravity is the dirt that gets stirred up on the moon rises higher and faster but @ the same time it will drop faster than on Earth because theres no wind to scatter it .

@@westnblu Time the dust yourself - in the Apollo footage it's slower And a puncher wouldn't mean instant death - if you were to puncture a beach ball it doesn't instantly explode - it slowly deflates, it would be the same principle and they would have time to fix the issue - they had puncher repair kits for just such an incident

@@westnblu it wouldn’t be instant death, just a leak. That’s why it’s not talked about.

According to a theory, most of the lunar dust is razor sharp, micro meteorites, which turned to fine dust like when got in touch with the rocks at continous, high velocity bombardment. Some points that raise doubt (apart from the usual questions on flag flutter and angle of shadows etc) 1. The lunar dust is very dangerous, razor sharp that can damage a prehistoric space suit of '70s. Tripping over and laughing in a lighter vein is okay, but that could have killed the person (if on Moon). I am sure NASA and the people behind the video didnt think of the fallacy behind this concept. If this is wrong, then the razor sharp lunar dust theory doesnt hold water - both these dont gel together 2. (Lack of) Puffiness of kicked off dust cant be the proof of having gone to Moon in the early '70s. Its rather easier to doubt the (low) camera resolution, (low) light intensity, black and white film, distance/focus of camera at that point. Like the same arguement put forward to silence the question of why no stars on horizon - (the logic given is, since the camera is set for on ground higher light intensity, background's feeble light source couldn't be visible - point taken) - should be applicable for lack of visible puffiness of dust kicked off ie light/camera resolution/focus weren't right enough to capture the fine dust, it could only capture larger soil particles thrown when kicked. 3. There are other NASA videos in different contexts and people's interpretations that claim there shall be haze on the Lunar horizon because of continuous micro meteor shower. However this one propagates "no haze" is THE proof of Moon landing. Looks like NASA forgot that they showed lunar landing videos with no haze when postulated the "haze on horizon" theory to make their new space suit research appealing/logical (the modern space suits that will protect astronauts from razor sharp, micro lunar dust) 4. If the new space suit will protect them from such dust, how were those 50 year old primitive space suits helping when "several manned missions" were sent without much knowledge about the lunar environment. 5. The rover with 4 rubber tyres just like a usual golf buggy was shown effortlessly moving - claimed to be as far as 4Kms and back - how can this rover move on surface with fine dust settled over centuries and millennia. On earth, the surface dust settles and forms a solid layer over sometime because of gravity, humidity, vegetation and most importantly the activities of micro organisms etc. That rover of '70s, I bet cant even move for half a kilometre on a desert (on earth) with dry sand of centuries even with a guide who knows the terrain to navigate, leave alone a unknown territory, terrain to tell about the depth of loose sand!!

@@DrNovid that’s a lot of words that say exactly nothing.

I will, and I'm gonna have fun

@PS5 Owner Show me a Non SLS rocket built and launched today capable of putting 30,000 kg into Trans Lunar Injection. Hint: there isn't. It takes 3 Delta IV Heavies to accomplish that TLI.

@@dongiovanni4331 You mean we haven't built rockets to go further than we wanted to go? And they don't carry more than we want to send up? You're pointing to efficiency and cost savings as evidence that it couldn't be done, then dismissing the programs with comparable objectives.

@@travissmith5994 Thanks for agreeing with me. It's a shame they canceled the F-1A engine, and the proposed Saturn Stage-And-A-Half variant. Think early Atlas 2E ICBMs.

They destroyed the footage though lol

@@PeepGamePopoff there's a whole documentary of restored footage though. They taped over some of the telemetry data. There are entire websites devoted to playing back all available data in real time. You can get all the available audio, mission transcripts, and more for 9 days worth of material.

We kind of get it for two days when you think about it. Rest of the world has to catch up because of timezones all over the Internet. 😂

That's what you get for living in the future!!!

Same too here in the Philippines

Omg totally!! It got me

Dude living in Korea here: Agreed 😂

back then, yeah. also if it was faked, russia would've exposed the US.

Let's put it simple: Picture that you're using a low end pc try to play the latest games of 2023 with the graphics set to ultra. That's same as how hard (impossible) to fake the moon landing during that time.

@@MMDsM7And yet airheaded conspiracy theorists thinks its fake

@@krio1267 Well, you see it from the professional themselves (those guys in this video). Case closed

@@krio1267 Calling others airheads when you believe everything these RU-vidrs tell you

Hey so uh, if you like that kind of content you should totally check out Captain Disillusion - his whole schtick is to debunk fake viral videos! And he's really cool.

@@squidfeathers9704 I was about to say that. Captain Disillusion is seriously underrated.

Thanks for the recommendation guys! Never heard of this guy but I'm headed to check the channel out now!

They should do UFO VIDEO REACTIONS!

love this idea!

Harry Truman on futurama says it best.

lol

I think moon landing was real but the video of moon landing was fake

@@bihugaming3486 What leads you to think that?

@@bihugaming3486 I mean, you can look at the reflective surface of the helmet and see that the camera is being held by another astronaut, you can see that there are no lights anywhere other than the sun, if it used studio lights the shadows would diverge meaning they could only get parallel lights using a panel made up of thousands of extremely rare omnicolour lasers that would have cost more on its own that the entirety of NASA’s budget during the space race including the 6 moon landings just for that one lighting system

Tbf, that wasn't the first crew. Edit: it was the Apollo 17 crew, not the Apollo 11 crew that was singing.

Space madness

They were in the middle of a relentless schedule of stuff they have to get done in a limited time. They had specific times blocked out to get to this ridge, then over to this experiment station, with Houston cracking the whip.

@BATKOV with the technology available at the time it was easier to literally go to the moon than it was to get a parallel lighting array

@BATKOV they can, it’s just that they need to add in a ton of shielding nowadays for the extremely small circuits, electronic components today are far more sensitive to radiation than they were in the 60s

We've been able to record sound since 1860, and the earliest piece of video is from about 1888. Though if by your definition of "video" you also count photographs then you are absolutely correct.

Who recorded this how was the cameraman already there

@@jaeeff8328 There is no recording before they were there. If you mean Armstrong stepping onto the surface after coming down the ladder, that camera was on the lunar module and deployed when he pulled on a cable.

On top of that, that kind of technology is still to advanced for MODERN DAY let alone 1969.

@TLOU 2 won 300 Plus GOTY that videos has so many holes that it's like swiss cheese. Also it can't be "lost". They broad casted it live in 1969: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FlpstXNjImY.html&ab_channel=NASA . The idea that it was lost is crazy madness. Also the video is cut so weirdly, it's almost like it's hiding something like how it's a bunch of lies. What was probably lost was the mechanical data of the landing. Which was often lost and destroyed when reentering the earth's atmosphere. The reason why people don't go to the moon anymore is because there is no reason to. The only countries that are even doing so are emerging powers trying to prove their strengths Like China, who landed on the moon last year with Chang 5: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program

@@tuotuolu2805 People often forget that the US gov and military in general has lost some important shit and trust that gov agencies aren't being crewed by incompetent half-asses who CAN'T be fired because JFK thought that allowing public sector unions would help him (they wouldn't even if he wasn't "lobotomized" via bullet), like a couple dozen nukes over the years (though they were all found), have marked living people dead and dead living (talking about soldier status here), and most hilarious of all, the T95, an 80 ton assault tank that is the size of a small mobile home, was lost in a training field for 50 years until the place was closed and found it after clearing some bushes.

@PS5 Owner in other words, "too fucking expensive and not enough good reasons to go back to get more rocks" they did it to beat USSR in the space race

And after 40 years they can't go there again. Lol

You brought up a huge point no one is talking about

Bro 1857 first vfx motion

@@islamdefender6740 ah yes photo realistic hand drawn 1969 VFX

@PS5 Owner why do you put this under every comment...

@@just_tom00 cause he owns a ps5

@@willcrump no body asled

@@comment3952 the person who did ask decided to delete their comment

@@comment3952 can’t you see “@PS5 Owner”? it’s obvious they were replying to somebody who deleted their comment. please use a little thinking before you come to the conclusion that you have to ask before they may speak.

They will look worse since we no longer have stanley kubrick 😢

@@ImBasedKidsI think you mean they’ll look better since we have better cameras.

@@AM-rd9pu it would be harder without stanley kubrick

@@ImBasedKids Last I checked, Kubrick was a filmmaker, not an engineer. Space agencies will be just fine.

@@AM-rd9pu Moon landing was a film, it was faked .

Something around that size for sure!

just a couple million miles, no big deal really. hahahaha

BS. You can use lenses to get paralell shadows. If its a miniature u can do it.

@@aSinisterKiid try about 90,000,000

@@notlNSIGHT No, he's right - you can do that with a lens or a parabolic mirror. But a lens would introduce noticeable chromatic aberration so you'd need to use a mirror instead. The thing is that the mirror would need to be the size of the set to cover it all with parallel lighting. The maximum size for a mirror in the 60's would be 5m - because that was the diameter of the largest telescope mirror that existed back then. In other words the set would need to be no bigger than a circle 5m in diameter. You would also need a small and incredibly bright light source - though I think an arc lamp would suffice for that. And today you would use a high power LED.

The lights even needed to take it require a light replica of the sun

@@vaporean_boylove.0w083 which would make faking it harder than actually doing it

@@resonate9815 sounds like you didn't even watch the video

@@resonate9815 well you're obviously too dumb to understand any of the video then lmfao

@@resonate9815 you just got owned! L.M.A.O snowflake

@Justin Y? I didnt

@Justin Y? lol

#ReleaseThePeterCut

then its just downhill from here, that wouldnt be good

that's super cool!

Whoa 3d artist visualizer at NASA?? THAT'S NEAT! Did you model / render the latest visualization of omuamua asteroid?

That's awesome! Do you get to be involved in the technical consultation/planning for the visualizations as well, or primarily the graphical stuff?

@@Insan1tyW0lf Yeah definitely! It’s pretty sweet getting to with the more professional artists as well as the systems engineering teams to figure out how to use the data we have an will get during the mission to best illustrate science concepts for the general public

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AcMp9JJ8q0.html

I work for Nasa and have a PhD the landing was real only some scenes were faked because of paranoia reasons

@@bauch16Don't believe you.

@@johnpaulvalentin5819 Walt Disney is the Flunder of NASA, NASA means nose in many sanscripts and which Disney Charakters nose grows when he lies? :)))

@@bauch16 don't forget your meds

Different tinfoils same opinions. While they have the tinfoils and are talking how its real and making it a joke does that mean they actually think it was faked?

You can tell alot about a person by the shape of their tinfoil hat

@@hiebrantsify did you watch the video no they don't think it was faked stupid

True that there is an extremely tenuous atmosphere there, but surely the Apollo exhaust gases have long since escaped...

Latest estimates conclude that Earth's atmosphere (in an extremely attenuated form) extends beyond the orbit of the moon. So, technically, I would guess that some of the moon's atmosphere is really Earth's.

@@aemrt5745 wtf

@@aemrt5745 how does the Moon cut it's hair? Eclipse itself...............I'll show myself out

Another fun fact , the astronaut's *talked about objects being much further away then they initially thought.I'm guessing change of color or hue of a object through our thick atmosphere is one of the ways we calculate distance.*[transcript's ,video]

TBF they could have put those there with unmanned flights. So that’s not great evidence.

Now, now, they didn't say it was IMPOSSIBLE. Just that their miniatures would need a football stadium sized set kept in a total vacuum and in total darkness except for a single light source that was brighter than the sun... but they didn't say it was IMPOSSIBLE!

@@rsrt6910 Also, that light source would have to be as far away from the subjects as the sun in order to get parallel shadows, lol.

It’s probably possible now but take in account that they were seeing if it was possible to do in the 60s where there isn’t any vfx.

@@nikverghese There were vfx in the sixties. Not CGI, but definitely vfx. Did you watch the video?

Just goes to show you that in the 60's the easiest and cheapest way to realistically fake a moon landing was...to actually go to the moon.

Lol its harder to fake than actually go to the moon?

@@mahadevmnair3797 yes, technology wasn’t advanced enough in special effects

@@Guyro.1 but it was advanced enough for space travel to the moon? Also why havent the Americans revisited the moon even after so many advancements

@@mahadevmnair3797 no need, we have already been and collected what we need

@@mahadevmnair3797 also yes we had the technology to get to the moon, the cameras we had and computers, there wouldn’t of been a way to fake the dust and the other stuff people say

I agree

Yes

No .

@@SabbaticusRex but actually yes

@@willyates2787 Let's meet in the middle with a solid _MAYBE_ .

Most of which was hidden as it contained suspect content... ta ta taaaaa

@@gabegabes6419 make a decision is landing fake or is it ancient aliens cover-up? You can't go both ways.

@@denismilic1878 I like the one "theory" that claims we actually did go to the moon but the footage we all know is fake because the REAL footage was full of UFOs, lol.

@@gabegabes6419 Bruh

@@gabegabes6419 Yes, turns out they actually started eating all of that moon cheese!

Same here.

They should collab with Captain Disillusion!

Second that

JerichoSlushy they did

@@Prabzs123 They did? Can't believe I've missed it! Know what it was called?

fo rillzzzz monnn

@@CapitalCash No they didn't. They lost a small amount of Apollo 11 TV footage. Literally a singular one inch reel of tape. It was overwritten in the 1980s during the LANDSAT program which helped bring you Google Earth imagery. And even then it was only the original copy which was lost, we still have plenty of second and third generation copies around.

@@CapitalCash The evidence you provided does NOT prove the Earth is flat. Missile designs you speak of do not rely on the planets shape to achieve its purpose.

you just douche shamed an entire group of people. not cool.

@@chadd990 But they ARE douches, so that's ok.

@@chadd990 I don't see anything wrong with "douche shaming" lmao

@@chadd990 Why do you say douche shaming like it's a bad thing? The only time douche shaming isn't cool is if you're shaming a woman for douching her womanly bits.

@@Dargonhuman As a person with womanly bits, we should be shaming douches, they can cause more problems than they “solve”. A vag is a self-cleaning system and flushing it with liquids can fuck with your pH. *ends PSA*

Imagine building up your career over a lifetime & eventually doing the most incredible thing anyone has ever done in the history of the species, & filming it no less so that everyone could see & share in the momentous achievement for the rest of time... Only for an army of sweaty basement dwellers to 'um actually' you & say that none of it ever happened because facts & logic. That punch must have been so satisfying.

@@dr.zoidberg8666 imagine living your whole life being contributed with a thing you have never done and needing to lie about it for the rest of your life while not being a sociopath?

And he was absolutely right!

@@hiebrantsify what the fuck dude?

@@hiebrantsify What the fuck are talking about?!

The horizon is 1.5 miles away but it looks like it is only a 100 yards or so. That line that everybody thinks is evidence of front projection in many of the scenes is the horizon but its sharpness just makes the whole thing look unreal.

That horizon is fake and it is called Front Screen Projection. Stanley Kubrick created it for his movie - 2001 a Space Odyssey -that was released in April 1968.

nice oxygene pfp

@@nickrose8733 absolutely correct, and if you were to check out more documentaries, you will see tons more anomalies! But the people who say they did do it try to discredit the conspiracy theorists, there are far too many anomalies which proves different. A good documentary I fully recommend is was it only a paper moon, where Jim collier investigates the moon lander also the lunar rover. Well worth watching.

As the moon lacks an ocean and has lots of mountains and valleys, saying the horizon is X miles away is silly. But of course the moon is smaller in diameter, (about 27% that of Earth) so the average distance to the horizon is going to be much less than on earth. And yes of course we do use atmospheric haze on Earth as an estimate of depth for long distances and that won't work on the moon.

He wasn't the only one,did you know that another astronaut from a different landing once punched a conspirationist?

I'm not surprised.

@@luigicampo4008 That was Buzz Aldrin, in 2002. He was 72 at the time! What a boss!

@@luigicampo4008 Buzz Aldrin! He was part of the same landing (Apollo 11) though. 2nd man on the moon

Buzz Aldrin even punched one of em.

almost as if it's not on Earth....

I blame Canada

@@kruleworld it's so..... alien

It's so out of this world.

They blackmailed Nixon. Nixon paid. It was faked

@@maxsmith695where the over 70 other missions that have passed by, orbited, or touched the moon all fake as well?

lol@@maxsmith695

Ayy Bennyboi

Hello there

Venny are you intrusted in vfx

let's see paul allen's comment.

Oooooo

Good little sheep

More people believe in Alien Abduction than think the moon landings are fake. Ignore them and thy go away.

@@jacehendrix3194 cuz you're not a sheep, no, you believe in a theory where the only argument it shows have been disproven several time

@@Zaher74 going to space has been disproven

@@jacehendrix3194 by what ? the stupid argument with no foundation, said by people who claims to know more that they actually know

He may have low key outed himself as a moon landing conspiracy theorist lol.

They are immune to facts... Unfortunately... They would say the corridor guys got payed for this video...duuuh...

Yeah dude, i have close friend who really believes its fake. Its infuriating ti trying to explain it to him

@@zee9709 Next time it comes up, ask him why the Russians... who could track everything we did and would have loved to humiliate us... didn't call bullshit.

@@GreenSabre187 not everyone who thinks the moon landings might have been faked are die hard believers

@@DevinDTV No one should think that they "might have been faked" in the first place. Also your assuming that if you were to preface it as you "might" believe something that outlandish that no one would say, that your a die hard believer. Also Vector replied to Jeff who said "anyone claiming they were fake", which means Vector replied to jeff with the context that they would 100% think the moon landing was faked. Point is that if people had context that you "might" think the moon landings were faked, than no one would say that you're a die hard believer, because they would already know that you said the moon landings "might" be fake/faked. Also I get the feeling that you might think the moon landings were faked, which is why you tried to defend a insult that you thought was directed towards everyone, even if they only thought that the moon landings "might" have been faked. Also good luck reading this complex (*most likely Grammarly incorrect) paragraph :D

Ikr! Especially with the razor sharp Moon dust.

The suits were multi-layered and fairly tough. That said, they did find that the Lunar soil (regolith) was far sharper than first thought and was more abrasive on the suits than they'd planned for.

@@PervertedThang that suit could be a million layers of the strongest most durable material on the world and I still would shit myself.

@@Likeomgitznich fair point lol

@@Likeomgitznich imagine trying to hop to yoru feet from your knees like they did... like are you trying to see if you can rip your suit... lol