Especially when the exclamation has that distinctive South Carolina drawl.

I came to look for it online after watching the movie, For all Mankind

NASA us saying 2024...I'm really hoping!

Dummy

*fakest

​@@LukeMM95people like you are so sad. The same kind of people who didn't want to explore the oceans and claimed it was impossible. Good thing humanity moves forward without people like you, and it will continue to do so. So get left behind if you want it's up to you.

​@@LukeMM95It's 2023 and you still believe that the moon landing was fake

Did you ever think it might be fake? How did all these guys come back alive? Maybe because they never went.

@@bargeman100 Have you given a thought to the very real possibility that you're a totally ignorant dim wit. ?

@@bargeman100you’re a Brain dead idiot if you think they faked the moon landing. Have you not seen the literally videos spanning 70years of nasa history. Millions of patents that show how the rockets work. It’s impossible that it was faked.

or maybe because you don't know anything about it@@bargeman100

​@@bargeman100Nerd

Never even thought about how clear it must look on the Moon. It's not an entire vacuum though is it? There's a tiny bit of atmosphere.

@@brendanrendell9751 yes it has a few gases.www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LADEE/news/lunar-atmosphere.html

Breaking in your own CO2 will do that too. note: Kansas do have drugs

@@narajuna With no atmosphere on the Moon ,objects appear closer.The Portable life support system or PLSS used lithium hydroxide to remove the carbon dioxide from the breathing air, and circulated water in an open loop through a liquid-cooled garment, expelling the water into space, where it turned to ice crystals. Some of the water was also used to remove excess heat from the astronaut's breathing air, and collected for dumping into the spacecraft's wastewater tank after an EVA.

@@narajunaLOL Ignorance hasn't revealed any Moon hoaxes.Did you examine the India space agency images of Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites at the link I sent you.?.?China hopefully will release there images soon.They publicly acknowledged making over flights of the Apollo landing sites and seeing signs of human activity. ?

The sun

That's because of the shape of the ground, which is slightly sloping. Sorry for my english, hope you can understamd what I mean.

the angle of shadows is determined both by the light source and the angles formed by the surface when it's compressed into a 2-d photo

@@nicoberna5463 Your comment makes far more sense than those from all the moon landing deniers! 😊

It's coming from the sun. The apparent movement of the shadow is from the ground itself being uneven and changes where the shadow is being cast.

hooray! Kuni, why don't you reveal what he's won: /watch?v=GB7mHxdHlRY

Lunchpacked180 Thanxabunch. I've always loved Weird Al.

​@@Lunchpacked180❤

Don't have to, it's totally free.. But if you're buying from random people on youtube who have "figured out the truth" (you know the ones, the ones f.ex. using low quality jpg copies of photos to show how it has jpg artifacting that *could* look like it was fake, but is 100% absent from the real high quality film scan of the photo) you're getting a bad deal...

An american myth that's all, but an important one I will add.

You mean who moved the remotely controlled (from earth) camera mounted on the rover to the left? Well i have provided the timecodes and sources, if you follow them you can find out who had that shift of operating the camera If you're really interested in finding out if it's fake or not, or just more about the program, then read the documentation on how things work, or atleast don't blindly accept other people's explanation just because you feel it should fit.. alsj is a nice place to start of as it's pretty media heavy and everything is sorted by standarized numbers and timecodes The rover, camera and its remote control for instance is vastly documented by nasa.. Here is a quick little summary of the video cameras they used www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ApolloTV-Acrobat5.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiXr5uonf3-AhUJvosKHWHHAHkQFnoECDYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1P9-AkhFvDfmL55Z_00btK Also, what about the movement at the start? Or the zooming in? You didn't notice the movement until the very end?

Remote controlled from Houston. Same way how they recorded the LM detach and fly off to rendezvous with the CSM on Apollo 17.

Abacus749. I suggest You start looking at other videos than just the conspiracy ones. You may learn a thing, or two…

Camera man 3 studio backup

Remote controlled from Houston yeah that's the ticket. These clowns have answers for everything.

Mistri? 🤔

​@@Lunchpacked180Mason 😂

"Flur"?

Can you please explain your comment?

I'm pretty sure the op is referring to the Apollo hoax "theory" that astronauts on the Moon were suspended by "wires" to simulate 1/6 gravity. Most hoaxers are post 'n' ghost, and rarely respond to any questions. The reason for that is because they've got nothing.

the farce here is your utter ignorance.. remotely controlled tv camera on the rover, look it up.

Paddy W Wrote: "The camera was operated by Ed Fendell at Houston control. Ed Fendell (Head of NASA Communications Systems Section) also filmed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module take off 'from the Moon.' " well, yeah, i do correct factual errors, no one filmed Apollo 11's lift off from the moon, (fun fact, The Apollo 11 lunar Lift off was filmed inside the Ascent module of the LM). Fendell Filmed the lunar lift offs of Apollo 15, 16 & 17 with the remote controlled camera mounted on the rover.. now if you had done proper research and really knew the subject, you would know this. it is really easy to find out.. especially considering having done all that research on Fendell.. if you can't get simple facts straight, how can we trust anything you say after?

Paddy W i'm not being smug, just pointing it out.. so you thought "Apollo 11? - that doesn't sound right.", but STILL didn't bother to check and/or research it and just trusted your gut feeling anyway, right? again, not a confidence builder.. talk is cheap anyway, i could claim you're a nursing home killer, killing old grandmas in their sleep, and just go "Prove me wrong!" if you have extraordinary claims, you have to have extraordinary evidence! it is not up to others to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove what you claim. going "just google search for xxxxx" is'nt proof, sayng things are so isn't proof. having several continuous video footage filmed in a vacuum (if its a chamber as hoaxers claim, it's MANY times bigger then the current biggest one) is proof, having physical unfakeable objects, like rocks is proof.. if you have any proof or evidence for any faking, and not just some conspiracy website/forum link, youtube or "known" biased sites (like aulis and clavius), then by all means present it. otherwise its just empty talk and opinions.

Paddy W firstly, you come on my video claiming to hear snooker ball sounds proving it was a hoax, refuse to answer any questions about it and instead write a 2 page text about how its the illuminati or something.. You write a pretty big typo for someone claiming to produce evidence or truth.. you even admitted you thought it sounded wrong, but YOU decided to write it anyway, not me.. YOU did.. Apollo 11 is hardly a typo, sure, you my want to present it as such to prevent ridicule, but those are the facts.. typo or no, you admitted to noticing it BEFORE posting the comment but decided to do nothing about it, not check i it was correct or anything, just copy paste and "don't bother about any facts checking, EVEN if i think it sounds wrong..." The holy bible is hardly evidenc, it may be for you or religious people, but it isn't for me, so anything from the bible will be automatically dismissed. (just like you would dismiss the quran) don't believe me? just pray to the flying spaghetti monster who lives in a caravan in orbit around saturn who was boiled for your sins.. see how easy it is? so you admit you have absolutely no evidence to support a hoax, yet still "provide clues to help disprove seemingly 'solid evidence' that the landigs were real" how can you prove something you just admitted you cannot prove? and no, you can't use the bible to say apollo was hoaxed. you could just as well use Lord of the Rings instead.. and no, there is no possibility of the Lunar rocks being meteorites, they have absolutely no signs of reentry, they are covered with zap pits (micro meteorite craters inside micro meteorite craters inside micro meteorite craters etc..) or the entire geological field would be incompetent as they in over 45 years of studying it have NEVER claimed it was faked.. NEVER.. ONLY hoaxers have made that claim, not one of them with ANY geological education. mostly it seems you just copy paste your replies (you even admitted to this) and spread them without really having done any research.. it seems to me that you have found some conspiracy website or video or something, thought "hey, the moon landings was faked" and then proceed to just copy and paste your repliees without any discretion, even whe you admit you thought it sounded wrong, you did nothing to corret it or even find out if it was true, you just pasted it and ignored the error, and then get super defensive when i point it out.. if you TRULY were after the truth, you would do propr research and not just copy paste what you blindly believed.. have you ever questioned your sources? what evidence do they have? are they ust saying what is proof or something? have you done any research apart from googling and reading forums//watching youtube videos? it doesn't seem like it to me.. so the question is, can you provve anything yo claim? answer is "no, you cannot." i do think it's good to be skeptical, but be skeptical of everyone, even the ones going "that f*BLEEP*ng government is doing this and that, just look at my video that i say proves it.. anyone can make a hoax video, and edit nasa footage to your dvantage, but yet NO ONE since it happened have been able to produce a single shred of evidence, managed to keep 400000 workers in total secret, and managed to fool the entire worlds geological society with fake lunar rocks.. to me the hoaxer explanations tends to get so complicated and convoluted that it get's way harder to do the hoax than actually landing.. again talk is cheap. if can't prove your position, then don't share it as if it was fact or you're trying to "teach" us the "truth" (according to you). discuss it on conspiracy forums or similar where its regularly discussed, don't come on videos claiming to debunk the moon landing without any proof and factual errors you noticed seemed wrong but didn't care to actually check if was correct.. it may nt seem like a big deal to you, but having done research on fendell, and noticing something seemed wrong about what you were about to post but still posted it, unchecked anyway says ALOT about your intentions.. it isn't to disprove the hoax per se, it's to either show the lunar landing as a hoax thats part of some bigger govenment conspiracy or you just copy pasting what blew your mind when you read it and blindly believed it as fact (probably because some one told you it was)

Paddy W 1: i adressed the sound, said i don't hear what you describe in your description, and it certainly wasnt without radio static.. you do like do label people it seems, pride has nothing to do with it. 2: again, "you're a killer of old granmas, prove me wrong" it doesn't work like that. YOU made the claim, YOU have to prove it. i haven't made any claims to the authenticity or illuminati or anything, YOU have, without ANY proof, yet you expect me to prove you wrong? learn how the scientific method works.. 3: well, it seems big brother is then mre important than correcting a simple mistake you admit that you KNEW was wrong BEFORE posting it.. stil posted it, didn't correct it.. anyway you try to spin it, you should have corrected it BEFORE posting it when you admit to thinking that it seemed wrong.. 4: i take the side of truth and reason.. if you think me pointing out your factual errors, and your attempts of excusing it (even when you admit to noticing it BEFORE posting) is ridiculing you, then that'syour opinion.. and you're welcome to it. and btw. what WAS the war jesus talked about? 5: well, it is if you'd like to shar what the astrophysisist said? and are you telling me that you have tangible evidence supporting that the meteorites show no signs of atmospheric entry AND has faux zap pits? 6: if you didn't ignore the error, then WHY did you leave it in when you posted it? it's not a likely error to make if you have done research on Fendell.. it's like saying "The rolling stones released abbey road" and then saying "oh, i MEANT to say the beatles, i noticed the error but left it in anyway becasue big brother came on" when someone points it out.. you had plenty of time after watching big brother to correct it, but still didn't.. to me it seems like you got caught in an error but refuse to own up to making it.. 7: grammar nazi now.. sure, that's exactly the same as presenting wrong data as factual.. but hey, whatever floats your boat.. 8: if you don't believe the rocks were fake, then why say it's definately plausible that they were meteorites? as i said, if they were meteorites, they would show signs of atmospheric reentry and no zap pits.. it isn't plausible, at all.. 9: a worker of a car plant would be able to see if the thing he has scholed him/herself was making didn't look right or was faked, point is, NONE of these workers came out with any evidence against apollo, not one who worked on the project said "they faked it because the part i made was just for show" so they would hve to make all the hardware correctly, which means they *could* go to the moon.. then it's much easier to just risk sending 3 guys up there, rather than spend many more millions constructing special huge vacuum sets the size of a small town, getting a filmcrew and personell and actors who can record hours upon hours of flawless acting, getting the lunar dust to move as if it was in 1/6th G etc.. faking the lunar landings es actually harder than actually landing on the moon. (extra: just a note, Bill Kaysing who worked at rocketdyne, a favourite of many hoaxers as he claims to have inside knowledge having worked for a NASA contractor, quit in 1963, BEFORE they started work on the Apollo project.) 10: i'm not questioning that you have done your own research, just on how neutral and scientific it was.. because it seems pretty biased towards the conspiracy scene.. as for the sound, it sounds like something triggered the mike, like i said previously, its hard to say, but it could be a grunt, sneezze or cough or similar quick noise that triggered the mike, after watching it again and checking with ALSJ, i'm thinking it could be the rake that Young is holding and about to pour lunar regolith samples into the bag Duke's holding, and the sound could be the rake bumping into Duke's suit? but again, as i said before, it's impossible to actually tell what it was, most likely it's only a fragment of the actual sound.. as the mikes worked on sound, they might not have triggered soon enough to catch the full sound, which could give the loud "popping" sound you say sounds like snooker balls (but clearly isn't).. i just find it fascinating how some people just disregard all scientific data from one of the most publisized and open projects the world has ever seen, and how it's ONLY "uneducated" people that find the anomalies.. (by uneducated i mean someone who is not an engineer or geologist or similarly schooled expert in the field they claim to have disproven or found errors with or similar...)