I believe they got Stanley Kubrick to film the hoax moon landing, but he was such a perfectionist he made NASA actually send the actors to the moon for filming.
@@aaronottermann5824 nope. lighting doesn't add, up the moon has all the sun to light it up while a studio needs multiple lighting, not to mention there is 360 footage of the astronauts pics on the moon, esplain that one.
14:09 that is not a blue screen used for film, but a grid used for velocity tests. It it were for film it wouldn't have a grid at the grid would cause a lot of problems when trying to key out the background. The screen is actually being used to measure distance in a low gravity experiment as seen in the livestreams.
like really, this is one of the stupidest points i have ever heard any of them make and even worse repeat. arent most of these creators video editors as well?
Quite a few factual errors in this video. For example, Apollo 11 was not the first time we flew to the moon. Apollo 10 did basically a full mission to the moon absent the actual landing. Additionally, the van allen belt is higher radiation but it's not like instant murder level radiation. Radiation is a bit like poison: dosage + duration make it harmful. Considering the flight profile of the moon missions, the astronauts didn't spend more than a few hours traversing the belt each way and it doesn't have high enough radiation to instant kill humans. More like increases your chance of cancer for the rest of your life.
I think it's funny you think Buzz punched that dude because he wanted him to swear he went to the moon. When it's clear he got punched for calling the man a coward. You can't do that to a man.
also buzz is a devote catholic. he took communion to the moon mission. he probably was disgusted at someone running around saying " swear on the bible"
I stopped watching when you couldn't be bothered to look up the Gemini space suits. They're not a mystery, people. You can literally see them in museums for yourself. [edit to add] There is an entire documentary on how different the Apollo suits were and what it took to narrow down the design. How much pressure the seamstresses felt to make every stitch precise. It's actually insulting how little you've looked into this
There is an entire documentary on how different the Apollo suits were and what it took to narrow down the design. How much pressure the seamstresses felt to make every stitch precise. It's actually insulting how little you've looked into this
yeah... and I've designed robotized rotating hydraulic turrets that can 359.5 degrees with about 150 times the static pressure of a space suit, and you can turn them by hand... Some of the points here are sheer ignorance. I don't even have to believe in moon landings to recognize this. I've just done stuff and worked on things...
This is just more than I can cope with. All of this is weak conspiratorial shit. Ive enjoyed some of the content on this channel but I'll never look at this creator the same again. I just can't take him seriously.
10:20 This bonkers claim means instead of using a space suit they already had, they deliberately made an unrealistic one to film the scene. 12:33 that blue grid is on the ISS. You could have Googled that in like fifteen seconds. 17:08 They minimized the time they flew through the Van Allen Belts and built the ship to shield the crew as much as possible. They weren't flying through a cloud of nuclear fallout. Again, basic, easily researched information. 17:44 We did have good knowledge of the Van Allen Belts. Apollo 8 and 10 both flew to the Moon and back prior to Apollo 11. How can you make this video and not know that? 21:28 The quality of a Moon rock that makes it illegal to sell is (with one exception) they're stolen. 29:43 I wonder what it might be about being one of the guys who did what is arguably to date the greatest achievement in human history that might change someone? 30:22 He's not "trying to be a good Christian" he's 85 and clearly was talking about not going back to the Moon. What the fuck happened to you? You were better than this. This is on the weak end of some of the shit you you to spend your time debunking.
13:35 The blue grid is from the video aboard the ISS with British astronaut Tim Peake doing a physics demonstration on conservation of angular momentum. The grid is used to show the position of a ball on a tether that he swings around, then releases. The video series is called “Astro Academy: Principia - 1 Ball on tether”.
10:20 Helmet. - The Gemini helmet (fig. 3) provides integral communications equipment, impact attenuation protection, and a quick doff - don capability. Redundant microphones and headsets are installed for spacecraft communications. The helmet-to-torso engagement was designed to permit the astronaut to connect the helmet to the torso without assistance in less than 5 seconds. The torso portion also contains a rotating bearing, permitting the astronaut to turn his head with relative ease. From NASA Technical Note D-3291 March 7, 1966.
@@T3CHPR135Tah yes. “I’m only PRETENDING to be stupid so you will think about what I’m saying and debate me. I’m very smart” More than likely, he just went off the deep end.
No sources provided and so many disingenuous statements. Take for example your point about the incredible amount of money being spent on Nasa ($69,589,041.09). Using your number that comes out to $2.15 under 25.4 Billion dollars a year. Wow! what an incredible amount of money! Well... Lets check that with the Budget in a given year, take last year the budget was 6.13 Trillion dollars spent thats about 0.4% of the yearly budget. To say "we're spending an insane amount of money on nasa!" is rediculous. Less than half a penny of every tax dollar is spent on Nasa each year.
Youre not a skeptic if you dont actually look for answers that are right in front of you. when you just pose spooky questions and imply theres no good explanation, youre just a grifter. This channel has gotten so sad and desperate.
Imagine going to the moon, supposedly having the technology to do it, then progressing in technology and being a multi billion dollar "space" agency and then publicly admitting that you lost the technology to go to the moon, after the fact. Then saying it would be too difficult to do it again. At the same time India goes to the moon apparently. What happened to progress in this supposed technology, if fcking India can do it. The lunar Lander looks like shit BTW. It looks so fake. I like the foil and parchment paper on it, and cellotape, wow such science much wow.
It's amazing how gullible silly Billy's are. They can't comprehend a bearing ring in a space suit helmet, they can't comprehend how a RADIO CONTROLLED CAMERA could pan up to watch a Lander take off.
The blue background is a grid that is used to track the path of the object that is moving across it. Tim Peake did numerous videos intended for school children.
15:35 "Fading in and out of the screen" that's what we call basic video editing transitions. The editors weren't concerned with it "looking fake" because they aren't nutjobs. The "greenscreen glitch" is just stream degradation, the reason the dudes get all messed up and the environment doesn't is because it's a static shot, and the environment is unchanging, while the dudes are actively moving. Stream corruption tends to repeat past data to fill in the blanks rather than having just a black screen, and that's the effect we get. "Grabbing objects that aren't really there", the man was turning himself around using momentum, a motion that only makes sense in a zero-g environment. "Pulling on invisible wires" he's just threading his pinky through the belt loop on the guys trousers. The setup is way too complicated for simple hip-mounted wires to be anything but blindingly obvious, which it isn't. "Tangled in their harness" he's using his foot on the wall to steady himself, if he didn't he'd keep rotating. "Astronauts appearing out of thin air" I am going to fucking scream. Gregory fucking Fluhrer why did you show this? This man really doesn't know what a transition is? Gregory.
@@avatarbouwen I've got time and a hammer, give me a list of videos and timestamps. The burden of proof is on you, I'm doing fucking charity work here.
@@rocketmik65 L, Just like mentioned in the video, shit gets removed. Since the last 4-5 years youtube/google got their algorithms in line again. I have a lot downloaded from before that but i'm not gonna bother, I don't care what you believe or what you think of me. I'm just having fun laughing at your copium, keep it up 👍
Maybe you're right, but clearly defending NASA's suspicious glitches is a full time job. Why is he threading his pinky through a guy's trousers? Is he gay?
i LOVE the fact that the comments section is full of refutations and citations and actual skepticism and people who genuinely care about truth and calling this jackass out on his shit. I was honestly worried.
Ah yes, he is just a crazy tinfoil hat wearing idiot right? Let's not actually question anything and just trust mainstream narratives. You are a genius man. Bravo.
The blue screen shown at 14:00 is not a "CGI Screen for special effects" this has been debunked before. It's definitely not a background for editing, even if you tried to use it as such it would be a terrible screen for that. A background screen made for special effects has to be *a different color* from anything else AND it has to be a solid color. The screen shown in the footage is blue, which isn't great since there are alot of other blue things in the scene, not to mention the white grid making it impossible to mask out. A better screen for post production stuff would probably be solid green and well lit. It's clearly meant to serve as a grid for footage that requieres measurements to be made. Knowing the size of that grid you can calculate stuff that moves in front of it. I still think NASA is hiding something but let's not spread easily debunked misinformation.
25:40 if you want to see consistency in "physics", look no further than the moon dust they kick up. It consistently travels as though it's in moon gravity. Did they put all the lil dust particles on wires too?
If you want to see INCONSISTENCY in “logic,” then look no further to……. Well the entire “moon landing” presentation is an illogical joke from top to bottom……. But one of my more favorite examples (of many) is the video clips of them jumping around and falling to the ground “on the moon”… do you know why that is really illogical and not believable? Because one small tear in those suits, which were NOT indestructible, and those guys are instantly done for……. So WHY is their footage of them goofing around and falling down to the ground? Does that make any sense to you? Well i’m sure it does.
14 minutes in... Since when does a studio use a gridded blue screen? That's no good for faking video - they would have to use something like a green screen. Another fail by you.
do you really not know that in the past they used a lot of blue screen too? well, the more you know i dont think moon landing is fake, to prevent the unneeded arguememt
Every single person here, INCLUDING YOU, Armored Skeptic, should all watch Dave McKeegan's videos regarding the moon landing. He takes on nearly every theory out there that you guys throw out and he calmly, respectfully, and very very thoroughly debunks every single one. Especially that supposed blue screen with the grids on it. Please. I implore you. If you actually want to know, watch Dave McKeegan's vids. They are worth it for their educational value.
Thank you for providing a resource to back up your take on this subject. Unfortunately not everybody does that, and I like to do my research before I make a decision one way or the other
I took your advice and went and watched David mckeon's videos on the moon landing very very compelling he's very thorough I know he didn't explain about the the beam of light coming off of possible why are hooked up to the astronauts but everything else very thoroughly explained
@@deboraprigge5124 I watched it too. This man is barely touching the surface of all the impossibilities and only scraping at the low hanging fruit at the bottom of the barrel, for some reason. Even Greg somehow forgot to mention so much more NASA bullshit. So many things not discussed because quite frankly if they were discussed there would be no discussion because it is plain as day.
Jog on bot, Dave McKeegan is a little YT shill and you lot lap up the BS he pushes. Heck he's the next "Professor Dave", he doesn't do anything himself, he has his videos and scripts done for him. But if you had any form of logical thinking to you you could think "Oh who is this Dave guy, lemme look into him!" 🙄 Edit: and then there's bot "deboraprigge5124" replying to the first bot LOL 😆
You’re damn right. Remember when he went on Steven Colbert in 2020 and said that we should treat COVID as a “social experiment” so we can all learn to unquestioningly obey the so called experts?
There is no such thing as a gridded bluescreen. A grid on the bluescreen would be the opposite of what you want. you want a flat color you can remove with after-effects. It's my only nitpick. As an effects artist I would NEVER want to use a bluescreen with any kind of grid on it.
@@avatarbouwen It doesn’t take a 60m budget for those kind of after effects. @guyopitz is correct, the only thing you’ll see on Blue Screens are tracking points, if that. I’m the guy bugging them about how much time everything is going to take, and have used Blue Screens on shoestring budgets as much as the big ones.
@@Asthmatattack tracking points to fake objects floating in space? not sure what youre trying to say. so 60m is more than enough to make an international space studio?
@@avatarbouwenit isn't about the money, it's about the method. you wouldn't put a grid on a blue screen because that unnecessarily increases the challenge/risk in successfully removing it in post production if anything, you could argue that more expensive higher grade software should _remove_ the need for any kind of grid or tracking points
@@UncleJemima i'll admit that would be more logic. But I don't know enough about high end hollywood blockbuster space movie special FXs to say for sure, I would compare to that.
13:35 It's ... not a blue screen though? Not even one that might be used for movie-sets with moving backgrounds... Those use + shaped tape, usually close-to, not exactly close, the color of the material they're using... because a + gives more corners/points for editing software to accurately position scenes. It's definetly not a "CGI placeholder screen". And actually, from what I've been able to find- that "blue screen" was used so people can measure velocity per the distance change of the object... That clip there was apparently an experiment for everyone to watch. Search: "Astro Academy: Principia - 1 Ball on tether Tim hits the camera" This is the actual footage you can see in that clip. That should make it apparent it's an experiment for people to try calculating motion. I can understand being a skeptic- but what is a skeptic who doesn't look further than the surface? A conspiracist.
The funniest part about that is that even if that portion of the ISS is just a "set" and not out in space, there is all of it there. Why would they ever need to divide the space up with a gridded blue-screen just to CGI replace it with the rest of the interior of the ISS later? Plus of course they pretend that the grid is there for tracking reasons, but the camera was stationary. You dont need tracking markers on a blue screen if the camera doesn't move.
USSR admitted that they received a signal from the moon during the apollo 11 mission. Why would USSR during the cold war, during the space race, lie about it?
it was a plant, everything is a plant, every picture is photoshopped, every video is doctored, every witness is payed off, and the lack of evidence is a cover up
Have you considered the possibility that Russia and the United States Government are not separate entities. The actual elite that run this system do not show themselves in TV. They have a bunch of celebrity tier retard puppets as a proxy. It's all staged. Shakespeare quote, the world is a stage and etc. You need to start thinking in a more nuanced way.
Let me elaborate more. By puppets I mean politicians and retrads like Biden and Trump. Ever heard of predictive programming? Did you know that there was a literal card game and I can send you proof of this, so don't accuse me of bullshiting. In any case this card game came out .ore than 27 years ago showing a cartoon version of Trump. The same exact face he makes on the newspaper fronts when he was elected in recent years. The card even hints to a shooting.
Most of your scientific questions can be quickly answered with quick google searches. Whether or not you believe them is another story, but the logic behind the explanations sound valid. For example, the Van Allen belt is an issue during long exposure. The metal casing of the cameras also make for a good shield.
And it's barely an issue during long exposure. Long exposure would be a serious issue if you were outside doing a spacewalk. Charged particles do not penetrate far. Your dead layer of skin alone is enough to block most beta particles, and 100% of alphas -- it's a virtual impossibility for one to pass through, just from repulsion of electrical charges. But it's not like you're going through outside with bare skin... the excess radiation that astronauts receive is gonna consist of light / electromagnetic radiation (which, just as visible light won't _appear_ to pass through a space shuttle...) the higher powered / more dangerous the light, the more of it gets absorbed... but technically some will always pass through. That's really what astronauts worry about for radiation, and that's not what's trapped in the radiation belt -- obviously one can't trap light like that.
@@AvidiaNirvana I wish more people were aware of how bad Google is now (and how bad it steadily grew since HRC took over the US State Dept at the end of 2008; Assange wrote a whole book on it); but luckily at least with _actual_ non-contested _actual_ science, which seems to be getting rarer these days, it still should be mostly reliable. Really what you'd want to search with Google is what sorts of radiation can penetrate through what sorts of material, and the materials science involved in shielding, how different materials are used to shield different types of radiation, and what radiation is trapped in the Van Allen Belt. Thankfully, Google doesn't have a reason to lie or withhold information about that... yet. But they are an *_evil_* corporation.
Too bad all of the points made in the video are answered with 1 minute worth of research. This video shows how easy it is to believe in anything If you aren't honstly looking for the answer.
@izaruburs9389 agreed, and it's just so depressing to me. Used to love this channel when it was debunking people like that. Regardless I guess greg can still find an audience with this content, it just won't be with anyone actually skeptical.
@@seanmoreno5694So how would you explain the moon rock that ended up being a tree? I just don't get why you people are acting like this is your religion that is being attacked. It's crazy.
Ok 11 minutes in.. the pads in the sides of the Gemini helmet clamped the helmet to the astronauts head, so that it would move when the astronaut turned his head. You need to try harder especially with 451k subs, that's really poor.
So much cope. Occams razor thrown to the wind. So much cope cause you refuse to believe you were lied to again. How many times does your government have to get caught in 4k lying before you start to question their veracity?
Oh come on! The "documentary film maker" was antagonizing and insulting him. He was purposely pushing his buttons not looking for an honest conversation. Let's just be honest about that.
Funny, my other comment got deleted. you should watch the entire docu. He does want an honest conversation. But none of the astronauts want to swear on the bible. not even to shut him up and go on about your day. funny.
The fact he couldn't even touch the Bible and say I promise to get that whack job to leave him alone and resort to violence tells me everything I need to know.
@@avatarbouwen Wrong - Eugene Cernan, Alan Bean, and Edgar Mitchell sweared on the bible. Lookup "EUGENE CERNAN Swears on the bible" and you have a video as a proof.
@@quikee9195 Ahhh i remember, the last one of the bunch actually did it. Strange to be so mad and agitated to tell the truth. But he had nothing to lose i guess, those guys got a first class VIP seat to hell anyways.
Ed White's spacewalk was in a Gemini suit. Totally different from the suits of today, or even of Apollo. The helmet certainly was attached to his head, like a motorcycle helmet.
@@CyrilSneer123 I think he can (and his mistakes are unfortunate and irritating), but I don't think these recent videos are meant to be taken as _seriously_ as so many commenters seem to be taking them...
The guy Buzz Aldrin punched had been following him around for months shouting about the moon landing being fake. Aldrin is a little touchy about people claiming the moon landing is fake because his mom died of a heart attack from worry while he was on the mission.
So why not just appease him and swear in the Bible it's easy and gets a weirdo out of your hair. Oh is it because lying on behalf the Bible is too tongue and cheek?
@@TokenTravis Easy, because he doesn’t want to engage with the guy, cause that invites other people to randomly approach him in his regular life and wanting him to swear on the bible.
@@ianhpete I highly doubt that since the people who wanna see that happen would be pleased with the video of Bart doing that. All the normies just wanna praise and get a picture lol
@ianhpete punching the guy invites more people; police,lawyers, press, more documenters.....Literally just lying would have solved the headache but I guess old boy still has morals.
Exactly. The astronauts planted a flag (and a few other things) and the Sovjets (and others) could see it with their telescopes. Pretty hard to fake that. I suppose they could have had a lander with a robot instead of astronauts, but at that time I think that might actually have been more difficult.
Because people believe there’s such things as sovereign countries. In reality there aren’t, every country is controlled by the same powers. The Cold War was basically a hoax.
@tombstoner6360 with a sufficiently large radio telescope, yes. Optical telescopes will have limited use on earth, but radio telescopes have, effectively, "infinite resolution" because of how they work. So you can use a radio telescope to image things that an optical telescope can't.
17:10 The camera was modified with metal plating, which would increase it's resistance to radiation damage, along with some other smaller changes to the camera to make it more compact and space-worthy. Also, they go through the thinnest part of the Van Allan belt to minimise exposure to radiation. They spend about 15 minutes in the denser belt, and maybe 2ish hours in the outer belt. Even so, the capsule is made to protect against this radiation, and the camera is much smaller, and is protected twice, once with it's film canister and again with the capsule.
@@xcosmiccrunchx Maybe it's poor spending because all you get is CGI images? Now whatever you do dont go looking at all the different earth pictures from space nasa has presented to the public and compare them 👀
8 years ago he is debunking spirit science about the moon, now he sounds like he would be perfectly happy siting around the campfire with spirit science 🤦♂️
Truly. Just checked his channel for the first time in a while and saw this video. Skimmed through it and unsubscribed. Those spirit science videos were the peak.
You know When I heard that you and June broke up years back, I was kinda sad since I was a fan of you and her content. Then I see what kinda channel you became and it started to make sense You used to be one of the good ones Greg. You used to be one of the people one could turn to for logical approaches towards science and debunking of nonsense. If I didnt know it better, I would almost say that the video from HBomberguy way back when really tore into your brain and made you snap. "Im not trying to prove its fake, I just wanna show that people who say its fake have their reasons" Alright, then apply this to literally every fricking christian you made fun of back in the day. Cause as much as their reasons for god being real are nonsensical same as the ones about Nasa in this video, they have their reasons to believe its true too. Just join the Flatearthers already, holy fucking shit. I used to respect you man. What happened to you? Like seriously. What the hell happened to you? You used to make fun of people like this. For good reason. Use your brain again. You have 450k subs. And in a day reach 21k views. And it aint much better for the rest of your more recent content either. 4 weeks, 25k - 49k. Its great that you keep going regardless of how many views you get but seriously, you cant tell me that this is what you want. You cant tell me that you spend, idk how many hours on your content and that you are satisfied with the result reaching so few people. Cause here is the thing. Quality wise? Your videos have improved MASSIVELY. Contentwise? Ill just keep that to myself. Its already enough of a backhanded compliment as it is.
Seriously I haven't heard from Skeptic in awhile and I just got recommended this fucking video. At first, I thought it was a joke or satire but it really seems like he's serious, what the fuck happened? God, imagine being one of the Russian Spies back in the day, you find this evidence that America is faking the moon landing and you're like ''Nah comrade, we not humiliate America with this, we keep silent and drink Vodka'' like fucking seriously. You'd have to have Matrix-level administration on the entire world to keep this quiet if it were staged. Like holy crap, what a serious decline.
He has less views but a more dedicated audience, who supports him through patreon. I don't think he believes any of this but he realized he can take money from flatheads making these dumb videos.
I want to sound some well intentioned criticism. I fell in Love with your channel around 5 years ago, especially with this series, never cared much about the commentary content. Although most of this series is a 50/50 mix of Information and opinion/speculation about things deliberately hard to proof, I've always had the feeling that you did your best possible to setup a neutral status quo/fundation to catch your audience up and then build your case on top. I felt this way because no matter of I had knowledge of the topic beforehand or not, I always gained something out of the foundation part of your videos. That's what made them stand above everybody else, it wasn't the same regurgitated crap over and over again already. I found that especially awesome because what I always was truly here for was of yours your own take/speculation which made every topic no matter if i was knowledgeable or not in it always very enjoyable. This video has been lazy researched. As mentioned in the video alot of the foundation is partially made out of stuff you yourself debunked years ago! The party where you tell your own speculation on the other hand is missing IMO. It feels like you decided to recycle a script you wrote years ago that was only 25 % finished and added some comments on the fly when you were realizing that by now you have already talked about some of the topics. For example I was waiting for your opinion on doctored moon/mars pictures showing artificial structures, whistleblowers who confirmed this over the years.. You left alot of juicy low hanging fruit untouched and barley mentioned a few mainstream topics in abbreviated form. Also the critique on the lateApollo crews mishaps is really unconvincing. Old people gonna be old just look at the US senate. Also: Apollo 11 wasn't the first through the van Allen, that was Apollo 8 the roundabout flight to the moon. Also Apollo 10 went through said belt, both missions were in preparation of Apollo 11, Apollo 10 even almost touched down with the lander. Both 8&10 were therefore incremantal steps assuring Apollo 11 success. But nothing was guaranteed, there were alot almost mission ending mishaps that came to light over the years. You look like you are really exhausted. I still love your content and would always return to look if I missed some new upload. Maybe take some time off and try to find something that isn't so dependent on success, I imagine the low statistics really take your fun away and it rl shows in this video. I hope this was somewhat helpful, English is not my first language so please excuse me for not going into much detail. Try to find some inspiritation beside success and rest assured that I will alwa, s come back for more no matter what. You have been a major part in shaping my expirience of reality and I will always long for more of your ideas. Ray.
I agree, I have been a fan since the beginning and his content quality has had its ups and downs, we are defiantly in down period. I hope he finds something to inspire him to improve and get back to where he was a year or two ago. But like you I will keep watching for missing out on what he is capable of producing.
Alright, time to debunk the claim that the video signal from the moon was purposefully degraded. The video signal sent from the moon had to fit into approximately 0.5 MHz. By comparison a VHS tape has a video bandwidth of 3 MHz and the then NTSC broadcast standard had a bandwidth of 4.2 MHz. Now, how do you squeeze a video signal down to fit in just 0.5 MHz? Well one way is to simply transmit fewer frames. This is called slow scan television and in the case of the moon landing the framerate was just 10 fps while regular NTSC was 59.94 fields per second (due to interlacing, an early form of video compression). Now if NASA had just given the broadcasters the raw video feed from the moon no one would have been able to actually watch it on their TVs, so they had to convert it to regular NTSC. Now had this happened a few decades later the conversion would easily been done digitally but given this was in the late 60s they had to do it optically (in other words, a black and white NTSC camera recording a TV playing back the slow scan TV signal, which was then recorded to a magnetic disk which was then replayed five times to get the 60-ish frames expected by NTSC). Had the telemetry tapes survived we would be able to do the conversion at higher quality today but alas they were recycled in the 1980s, probably by employees not realising the significance they held
wow... deep stuff. really important video, a must watch. can you do another video about whether or not the earth is flat and maybe one about whether or not water is wet because i think they've been lying to me about that. also, can you explain what those two things are at the end of my legs that i walk on? at least a half hour each video please. and start off each one admitting that you are genuinely skeptical about the premise. lol ffs. if that doesn't go over well maybe jump back into your cartoon armor and debunk some creationists hahaha. time well spent, a life of accomplishment
9:44 to 9:52 Mr. Skeptic, i'm gonna need a source for this claim. because i can't find anything when search "is it illegal to broadcast live video of the earth from space". it also just straight up doesn't make any sense. there's no clearly defined point at which space begins. there's the Karman Line. which is within the Mesosphere. this is the point at which jet-powered aircraft can no longer reach. however, there is still some atmosphere here. not a ton. but not none either. when Tom Scott sent a garlic bread in a weather balloon up, he made a good argument that it got to the edge of space. but it only got like, 15 miles high. the Karman Line is 62 miles high. so like, whence cometh space?
Skeptic: " astronauts would see flashes of light as radioactive particles go through their head, and the eye interprets this as light. If this happened to film, there would be flashes of light.) Skeptic 2 minutes later: " My favorite footage is from Apollo 14 that catches astronauts getting caught on their own wires. the camera kept catching these lens flares..." bruh..
@@SirMildredPierce first he talks about how radioactive particles in space can show up as light flashes on film. which is true. then shortly after that he uses a brief flash of light like the one he descripted previously, as evidence of suspension wire.
@@agent74113 it's difficult to imagine that flash of light being similar to the one described. The glint of light seen in the video feed footage (not film) is reflecting off of the antenna on the back of the backpack. It doesn't look anything like radiation damage on film, which wouldn't show up in more than one frame anyways. No one in the history of looking at Apollo footage ever mistook the glint seen in that footage as radiation damage on film.
The Van Allen Belt would expose an unprotected Apollo Mission astronaut to not more than 11 RAD. They did have shielding. The most any astronaut was exposed to was under 1.2 RAD. LD50 is 400 RAD.
Sure and there was no blast crater when they landed or took off even though NASA themselves stated that there would be FEET of fine lunar dust to contend with. You are dreaming if you think anything they fed you is REAL Just one tiny example from Many
The type of radiation would also be relevant as some types are easier to thwart than others. High energy neutrons will pass right through anything conductive but get lost in water or concrete. High energy electrons can be absorbed as electrical current in conductive materials. Also... the "flashes" reported by astronauts were electrical nerve impulses, right? Not the same as the radioactivity that damaged Kodak film in the 1950s. It's something much easier to shield against.
NPC script. Russia “confirming” that we “went to the moon” just means this is a one world system and “countries” are not what you think they are. QUESTION: why does every space agency in the world use the SAME symbolism in their logos??? Just wondering what the NPC script to this would be…
It was a triumph of humanity recognized by all at the time. It was a human moment that changed the view of all. Ill keep my own thoughts of the moon landing to myself.
'When your own government is possibly lying, look to it's greatest enemy for confirmation' is an interesting take. I very much disagree but I get where you're coming from.
Russians joined the world bank in 1992. Also if they said the Us faked it and then they tried to fake it it wouldn’t looked good to point out that it could be faked. It’s like who farted first
Hi Armored. Let me see now… So you think the country that invented liquid fuel rockets, and then went on to dominate the world in science, engineering, and manufacturing for half a century, could not get to the Moon; but Russia, China, and India can??? Did you know India photographed a couple of Apollo landing sites on the Moon? [Armored, you are a humorous guy, but a serious thinker, you are not. If this whole vid is just trolling, bravo. Otherwise, I would say your intense prejudice against the U.S. is clouding your judgement… how modern.]
You mean... He punched the same "documentarian" that keeps showing up and keeps harassing Buzz and Neil consistantly? It's not an isolated incident, it's the fact they couldn't take it anymore. So, the guy got what he deserved.
We LITERALLY put a mirror on the moon when we landed there, you can ACTUALLY shine a laser at it, and it EILL bounce back IF you actually hit it, you can use the speed of light divided by the time it takes to get the bounced laser light, in order to measure the EXACT distance between the earth and the moon......
@@dolorousjohn5499 Says anyone who knows anything about gen 1 silicon chips and the available programming languages back then, let alone all the other hardware constraints that existed.
Apollo 8 was the first human crew to orbit the moon. Zond 5 of the Soviet Zond program was the first spaceship to travel to and circle the Moon in a circumlunar trajectory, the first Moon mission to include animals, and the first to return safely to Earth. Zond 5 carried the first terrestrial organisms to the vicinity of the Moon, including two tortoises, fruit fly eggs, and plants.
Creationist levels of cope Holy shit, I thought you were sarcastic with all these but there is a limit, and accusing nasa of killing people only to say there was no failures after not even the briefest of google searches has surpassed it… You’ve become what you swore to destroy and it’s sad
It's so weird how you people act so defensive over anybody questioning this religion of yours... Calling people flat earthers or creationists just because they don't trust their government? Amazin'!
@@AvidiaNirvana Its not about not trusting their government, its about not trusting science and logic... besides are you really suggesting that a private for profit business would have less reasons to make up shit? lmao
So you don't think that the film for the moon footage could have been kept in a lead-lined container? They knew there was radiation in space, you know, and had speculated about the VA belt. And it was well known that radiation will fog photographic film.
Not Holland….THE NETHERLANDS 🇳🇱 (Holland is just two provinces) sorry to bitch about this 🤣 but had to set the record straight as a Dutch guy. Love your work🙏🏻🙌🏻
Thank you, more people are finally deciding to do their own research and realizing all the lies that majority happily swallow. Dont sweat the non believers. They will realize one day.
16 minutes in... why does that guy assume those are 'air bubbles'? Any ideas as to what escaping liquid or gas does in the vacumn of space? Well it looks alot like that. Also there are particles of stuff that's broken off , that will float around, which is what you're seeing on some of the footage. This is really poor video by you, really poor.
I mean he is now. He takes stuff which is common knowledge and being skeptic about it, which ultimately makes a lot of people look them up or at least think about them. Also its all just entertainment and for fun.
Oh okay so I guess it's only all right to be skeptical about certain things even when your government has been proven to be liars time and time again and same with the news.
AH SO HE CAN BE SKEPTICAL, BUT NOT ABOUT OFFICIAL NARRATIVES? OR MAINSTREAM ACCEPTED "FACT"? The same narratives that are given to us by the Government, you know the super trustworthy institution that cares and lives you so much. Fuck off LMAO.
My guess on the Apollo 11 astronauts not wanting to talk about it has a lot to do with the mission almost failing, and them almost being stranded to die on the moon. On the press conference, they were quarantined for like 2 weeks the second they came back, so that press conference was probably just an annoyance before they got to go home to their families, as well as being inundated with the same sets of questions that all of the NASA staff were likely hounding them with during those two weeks. Being military men, they were also likely traumatized from their time in boot camp and at war, so I’d wager their demeanor has much to do with that as well. Talk to vets and you’ll find a lot who don’t like to talk about almost anything. So maybe the hypnosis idea isn’t that far off, but it’s just from the military instead of by a propaganda department.
I cant believe the amount of hoops your trying to jump through in order to justify why they look so heavily disheartened and downtrodden. They just accomplished the greatest feat of all mankind, as military men and especially in those times, they would know that even if thats how they felt on the inside, that is not how you present yourself to all of the world on the outside, at the press conference for such an historical achievement which will probably be shown and used for centuries to come. Regardless, you would think they would show at least a little enthusiasm, elation, pride, happiness, honor, literally any other emotion besides looking like 3 of the most morose and melancholic MFer's I've ever seen.
also they became global heroes, they went on world tours meeting all the most important and rich people. Neil was a shy guy through and through. they we just men on a mission. plus the things they had been training their entire adults lives for had now been complete and their very strict regimen was now over. they were lost. probably an early mid life crisis.
14:06 see how dude in the video is messing with a HOVERING tennis ball? The grid is there so things like speed and angular direction can be easily observed and measured..... It's called SCIENCE.....
One thing that I think would’ve been hard to fake at the time was the lack of vortices whenever the astronauts kick up moon dust. The dust falls straight down and doesn’t seem to float up at all due to the lack of atmosphere.
The vortices you talk about are seen really well in the moon landing segment in 2001: A Space Odyssey, ironic since Kubrick has been pointed to as the guy who faked the moon landing.
Thicker dust particles. That is easy. You just take sand and strain it while washing it with water to ensure that all the particles are at least big enough to not swirl in the air.
@@captainhellhound7451 what he is saying is that when you kick up normal dust and sand on earth, the smaller particles get caught by micro-currents in the atmosphere and appear to behave like smoke for a brief period of time before dispersing and eventually settling. The lack of this effect makes the dust look a little strange as it gets pushed out from the tires, as all of it forms a neat arc, and none of it seems to "poof" into smoke-like dust. But since this smoke-like effect only happens to particles smaller than a certain size, all you have to do is regulate the size of the sand particles and you get this same effect on Earth.
@@Dziaji there are a couple of issues with that- firstly, the moon does actually have an atmosphere- though quite thin. The other is moon dust is very fine. I don't think dust or lack thereof is entirely that simple. The dust clouds from the rocket thrusters is gone too. I think its more the glasslike rock and potentially lack of atmospheric static charge or abundance of negative charge. Iirc its positive ions that cause the repelling floating effect on dust
Regarding the Orion having troubles with the van Allen belts: The better your computer chips, the more vulnerable they are to radiation. More transistors on a chip means they have to be smaller, but smaller also means more fragile.
Happens all the time. Plans are never perfect. So they have to be adapted to solve unforeseen problems. Those later adaptations are often not added to the original plans...@@YantisOm
@@YantisOm Basically yes, we lost the tech and literally cant make most of that anymore. The Rockets where programmed by hand, like the 1 and 0 were set by hand. They needed personal from a total different field (i think weavers) and that skill is lost today. So yeah we habe to use newer chips and they are not cool with radiation
I find the mention of NASA budget strange since it ignores the fact all that money makes of less than a percent of the total money the US government spends. The military alone costs the US BILLIONS a day
@@stevee8318 NASA has to get cleared by the government to do anything and is more strict towards regulation, SpaceX is a lot more free in that regard. If NASA had more freedom I'd hope we wouldn't still be dealing with the SLS program
@@brunosouza3326Correct me if I'm wrong, but it feels the argument being made is that it's strange how much money NASA is getting, and by isolated that number from the greater US budget makes it feel like the US is spending a whole lot of money when in actuality the US spends a lot more money on a lot of other things
funny, A well known cinemaphotographer said that it was impossible to fake the photos because at the time, we did not have the tech. He claims that it would have been easier to actually do it.
I’m gonna be so disappointed if he says the wind or not being able to see stars… I have a fourth grade education and I’m PF tired of that argument (edit: 1:20 he better not say the reflection isn’t holding a camera, please I’m begging pls don’t) sweeet! This passed the test! Yayyyy
27:00 Just straight up armchair psychology. These are military guys, not movie stars, and this was about a month after their return to Earth. They're acting pretty fucking normal in my eyes, instead of being all doughy and wide eyed. They did a dangerous job they had practiced for months for, and it was through increased hindsight that they could see the actual magnitude of what they accomplished. If they WERE hired actors, they would have, I dunno, ACTED like it was a huge mind altering deal, rather than being disciplined about it. But sure, you'll probably respond with some BS about it being reverse psychology, because you're looking for a specific answer, you'll spin it any way you need to.
A month would have been quite some time to reflect and blow steam off. Then go do the most important press conference of all time to date being praised for the heroes they were after returning from the greatest most seemingly impossible feat mankind had achieved. They trained for months? More like years haha! But oh wait they didn't and that's why their body language and responses to the questions tell the real story. You are right these guys aren't movie-stars. Do you think they would trust an actor with such a huge responsibility to change the perception of the whole world? No you would get military personnel who you know can be trusted with state secrets. And they happen to be freemasons, score! Even better! But sadly for them, humans have emotions and their guilt got the better of them. That's what you see during that conference, none of them were even the slightest bit excited and they were all really careful not to fuck up with answering the questions. You see discipline? Maybe you should read a book or two about psychology and body language.
@@avatarbouwen Regardless, it's still just speculation on body language. "They seem guilty" isn't proof of anything. If it was, a lot more innocent people would be in jail. They're just obviously uncomfortable in that environment, you're just trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Which of these seems more likely - "They're being crushed by the weight of their guilt in concocting the biggest lie in history" or "They're camera-shy country boys"? In Armstrong's second appearance, many years later, he's still just as uncomfortable, reading directly from a script on the stand. And, from what I know about Freemasonry, it just seems like a bunch of rich dudes playing at being mysterious, anything relatively undocumented seems mysterious.
Ok, the blue screen as shown during the Bush tour segment is pretty clearly part of an experiment to track some sort of motion. Which is why its arrayed in a grid, and the astronaut is holding s pair of sphere like objects to be tracked on that background. Its beyond a stretch to suggest that is some sort of evidence that space station interviews have their backgrounds green screened as a common practice. Also the astronaut has blue on his outfit which would add unnecessary complications to keying out that background.
Just a reminder we went to the moon 69-72 all during Nixon's terms and while losing Vietnam. Also Van Braun wasn't into the moon as much as he was into orbital nuclear weapons stations. Something the USSR beat us too while "we were going to the moon". It was also the only clear win the US had in the had during the space race. The USSR had every other first up till the moon. Also just read the excuses why we can not go back it basically is a confession at this point. Oh and we have basically been at war with Russia for 2 years but they are they only reliable ride to and from the ISS at the moment.
I kept waiting for the punchline... but nope... he's just recycling tired old talking points that are easily debunked and have been a dozen times. This is like a youtube video from 2010 or something. *yawn*
The guy talking about Orion going through the van Allen belts is specifically discussing the risk to Orion's guidance system, which is presumably largely digital. This is new, as the Apollo missions had much less sophisticated systems that would have been less vulnerable to disruption
Apollo had an entire team dedicated exclusively to making sure every single wire was grounded in multiple places, to dissipate any stray charges as quickly as possible and minimize the chance it would create a memory or processing error. Even still every mission had to reset various computers to remove glitches caused by outside charges being added into the computers switches. On the Space Shuttle the landing gear system was only one way, as in it could only ever be lowered, and had no mechanism to allow it to be raised again, so if it was triggered in space the shuttle would be lost on reentry, so it was extremely important that the system not be triggered early. They used a purely mechanical and manual system that could only be started by a manual hydraulic pump in the cabin, with no wiring whatsoever. No, analog systems are not at all free from issues with radiation, and are arguably much more vulnerable.
I'm a bit disturbed by the amount of people who think Greg is serious. It's almost stranger than Greg himself. He literally tells you that most of the video contains misinformation... Y'all failed the test in hilarious way. This video was probably designed to get people who can't think for themselves to embarrass themselves. So many people who know how to fact check what they are hearing, but completely ignore the context of where and why and how they are hearing it... It's interesting, and depressing.
Yeah, he probably doesn't believe this shit. It's a dangerous game though. The intent of these videos may be something like an interesting exercise in devil's advocacy so that the listener may gain knowledge by refuting it. Unfortunately, a ton of people these days have no BS meter and will lap up whatever the first thing they hear on a subject is, and never investigate after that. Making content like this is how you get the growing anti-vax movement and Trump supporters.
WOW. People in this comments section don't like their religion poked and prodded at. Consensus does not equal fact. People choose to BELIEVE things they can never truly prove themselves. I can't believe how many people are blindly religious who don't even know they are.
I think those comments are astroturf. Normal fans of this channel who believe the moon kanding is real wouldn't react so harshly to NASA's word being questioned. They'd agree that it's appropriate to be skeptical, and that there is reason for doubt, even if they personally think NASA's moon landings are all real.
22:10 it’s not that the moon rock has some special properties, all moon rocks are property of the United States government and the people of United States. An individual cannot own a Moonrock, so it is assumed to be stolen if you have one.
My favorite take on the moon landing """hoax""" is: It would've been more difficult and expensive to convincingly fake the landing using 1960's film techniques then it would've been to actually just do the landing for real.
Sure, but then you have to find a way to show film of it. If parts of the film didn't turn out well it would make people skeptical of the mission's validity, so you'd have to fake parts of what really happened.
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they’ve been fooled”, originally “How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!”. (Mark Twain 1906). “Every blockhead is thoroughly persuaded that he is in the right, and every one who is all too firmly persuaded is a blockhead”. (Baltasar Gracián 1947).
I thought similar as I was watching the video, but as I am responding to comments I can just about feel Greg rubbing his hands together at the engagement he's whipped up. Well played to him I suppose.
@@DrunkenAussie76 Probably. That's why I took my reaction short, and simply unsubbed, and probably try not to watch even if youtube decides to show anything.
It was not gifted by the Apollo astronauts, it was gifted by an ambassador to a former PM. So technically he is wrong... Like technically he is wrong on most of the stuff he is talking about.
I only doubt if the footage is real. I have near to no doubt we landed on the moon. You can look up with a telescope and see the tracks the rover left. But I do enjoy watching videos like this.
No, you can't look with a telescope and see the tracks on the moon. You could aim a laser at a reflector that was left on the moon though. What specific footage do you think NASA faked?
The shape of the arc of the moon dust flying up off the spinning wheels of the moon lander was the result of the force of gravity on the moon, which is less than that of Earth. You can't approximate that here, and practical effects weren't good enough to fake it on film at the time.
