Why 1.5x?

Best idea lol thx

Omg .. thanks alot

WARDified Gg thanks buddy for that tip

WARDified Gg your a gangster

mine get updated just fine.

daro l “MiNe gEt uPdAtEd jUsT FiNe”

Dude fr

@@JurassicGecko hahah

It's almost as pathetic as when actors like Robert DeNiro and Meryl Streep talks about political issues....

🤣

It's obviously their crappy recreation

@@SoulDelSol Feel free to make a better one and present it here.

Is the photos you take with your cell phone real or computer generated?

space suits could not contain air in a perfect vacuum, they'd blow up like a balloon

im yelling

tbf this was 9 years ago 💀

It is a simulation of the lighting, not the moon landing itself. But I guess you need to apply that kind of sloppiness to keep your belief in a hoax.

@@Schmidtelpunkt I thumbed up your comment cause your assumptions about my beliefs don't apply to me. I don't actually believe the moon landing was a hoax. But to rebut your first point, we don't actually understand the full behaviour of light and we don't exactly know know what it is either (see double slit experiment) so can we really rely 100% on the results of a 'simulation'? I.e. If the data is not verified then how can an outcome based on that data be verified? Ultimately it doesn't matter though because we're all living in a computer simulation that's going to get wiped out by a global cataclysmic flood soon anyway...

The moon landing was a total hoax, there is no need to argue. Since the 80's the United States had very powerful technology, things we do not understand but existing... however it's only a theory perhaps.

@@PrimePhilosophy We understand enough about how light behaves to be able to simulate this. Our simulations have enough accuracy to do this, it's fairly basic anyways, eg pixar movies run on this model

@@kerman214 "We understand enough.." - Isn't that like having faith in a belief?

Like its obviously a render

My thoughts exactly😂

lol is obviously fake

R\iamverycool

@@studentcopyofburgerking8108 wow what a loser lmao.

It is a light simulation. He explained that and obviously it went over your head and probably also your grandpa's.

2020 CGI, relatively easy. There was no CGI in 1969.

There was no CGI in 1969 dumbass. So how did they take photos of the Moon with parallel light rays showing a black sky? The parallel light rays had to have been from the Sun and the black sky had to have been because there's no atmosphere on the moon hence no color in the sky. We went to the Moon

That's a BINGO!!!

That's my new go to slogan thanks '

It sure is. And guess what they’re in the process of doing right now?

An absolutely accurate statement to those who understand everything "technology" entails. It includes all the specialized tooling, fixtures, and jigs; all the specialized assembly areas; special launch sites and gantries; thousands of legal contract; an experienced administration team; and the vast corporate knowledge of almost 400,000 scientists, engineers, technicians, and a host of others. All of that is gone.

@@marksprague1280 they never had any of it, they lied.

@@sandwichman2247 Prove that claim, loudmouth. You're lying through your teeth.

You guys keep repeating one poorly worded sentence from Petitte. What he meant was "the technical infrastructure - rocket engines, capsules, launchers, derricks, plus all the equipment designed to turn out that stuff from the 1960s, has long been decommissioned, junked, recycled, repurposed, or rusted away. Also, all the people that worked on that stuff during that time have long since retired or have passed away.

Ryan HahahH great

@Suzie.q Popcorn123 ontop of the 12 who've been there already ?

@Suzie.q Popcorn123 get well soon

@@ryansta oh no... you drank the juice... lol

Right... so convincing but yet it never happened. So convenient that NASA no longer possesses that ultra sophisticated technology from the 1960's that could take us back to the moon. People are so dumb or brainwashed or just too proud to admit they have been duped.

Bwahhhaa

🤣🤣😭😭😭😭😂😂😂😂

Savage

lmao

For em flat Earthers and conspiracy theorists to understand each word there needs to be a pause in between each word, so that they can process the info

In the singular? So you didn't even realise that there were six missions in total which not only means that you have no knowledge of the Apollo Programme whatsoever, but would be completely oblivious to Kubrick's actual commitments and whereabouts throughout this supposed staging.

Kept them in their container, and went through the thinnest parts of the belts, in a very short amount of time.

@@randyschissler5791 LOL

While flying through the belt, the film was inside its container inside the storage box inside the Command Module. It was fine.

@@Jan_Strzelecki what storage box was the crew in?

@@marxman00 They were in a Command Module, which was able to block some of the radiation, if that's what you're faking concern for.

lmao

It's painful

Lee Wells lol!

It came after 1 hour of product presentation, imagine how exhausting it is to talk. Give him a break, it is so exhausting to presenting a 2 hours presentation.

He has to talk slowly for low IQ people like you to keep up. 😂😂😂😂 seriously a grown man making references to cartoons proves it! 😂😂😂😂 that's why he is up there and you're on the couch. 😂😂😂

when you trying to be like Steve Jobs

even when setting the video speed to 2.0 you are left with uneeded gaps

You young people are becoming more like HAL as described in Arthur's book. Human response to HAL's questions were a nitemare in lost time for him. Instant gratification seems to be a real thing. Oh, the book is called '2001 a space odyssey' Just an observation by me.

Yea, tried that, didn't help. Then it came to me. The video is just plain boring.

You are the exact point. In less than 15 mins., the research of a highly advanced state of the art engineering company puts to scientifically prove the photo was definitely taken ON THE MOON, and you are bored. Pathetic.

They landed with 40s of _descent_ fuel. The ascent stage had its own separate fuel supply.

ExxonMobil brought them gas via AAA

@@Tim22222 That seems rather too well planned.

@@Lonesome.Cowboy You can see the footage itself on KZfaq. As they descend you can hear them counting down the altitude and the fuel ticking down from 8...7...6... It's a bit tense watching the footage honestly but yes, it was very well planned, very precise.

True! The camera man was Neil Armstrong.

U made my day!

LMAO !

After 5years and 6 months

And still can convince me...

6 years and counting

hahahaha it took 10 mins into 14 min video before he 'debunked' anything....did he???

Underated comment 🤣

You mean the "fake moon landing" right?

Watched with 2X Speed haha

...and that's saying something because we all know how many takes Stanley Kubrick would demand to get every shot juuuuuuuuust right :)

12 men have been on a real Moon, though.

"fuckin" moon doesnt exist😅

Yes, proven a hundred times. But some people just refuse to learn. Let them remain blind. That is what they want.

yeah

This so called "expert" doesn't provide a single factual evidence.. I still think the landing did indeed happen, but obviously this show is just about making money out of naive people..

@@runenexman6587 "naive people" that would be you whenit comes to this

@ERIC SANDSTROM or. OR. Hear me out: his teleprompter could be updating slowly.

He pauses every 2 words because he cant handle his on bullsheeat

Matt no

All of NASAs computers back then together probably couldn’t run crisis lol

Every computer on Earth back then wouldn't be able to out number crunch a single iPhone.

Only 2k

stutters in 1080 | 16bit

Right. For the same reason people in an inner city can look up and see virtually no stars...and people in the country can look up and see thousands of them. Less light around YOU and in your eyes means you can take in more light from things far away...thus making it possible to see those things.

Cameras used by Apollo astronauts were equipped with ASA 160 film (equivalent ISO 160 in digital cameras). And they were instructed to use the following camera exposure values: shutter speed 1/250s, aperture f/5.6 (in shadow), and f/11 (sunlit). The Hasselblad cameras had oversize levers to accommodate their bulky gloves.

As Randy said. The previous Apollo missions had the same Hasselblad cameras to test exposures passing around the moon. They practiced using the cameras for months beforehand, going on treks with the cameras strapped to their chest. If you go look at the original photos, you will notice most are not properly framed; the most famous photo of Buzz is at an angle and he is top of frame, it is usually cropped and black added to the top when you see it reproduced. And the exposure wasn't perfect either.

they have plenty time for perfect shot but not care about hazard environment such as limited oxygen , extrem temp. , radiation , (many charged particle) on the moon 😆

@@yoskarokuto3553 They took years and billions of dollars in development and training missions to account for all those things. The temperature on the surface at the landing site ranged from -66 deg C to 24 deg C, easily handled by the suits. There is no atmosphere, so no ambient temperature, only direct sunlight, also why the suits had such high reflectivity and the cameras were silver. The radiation on the moon allows for astronauts to stay on the surface for up to 6 weeks without protection, not accounting for sun flares, after that they need protected moon bases, which is planned.

@@randyschissler5791 STRANGE, The Hasselblad designer and maker of the Camra, states clearly on YT video, that the camera had no alterations for the asstronuts at all. And the viewfinder, for focussing etc, would not be visable with the suits restrictions.

And you know how to extract humor from context.

Speaker could play this science fiction story as criminal comedy drama in our village tent theatre every sunday

sounds like Armstrong careful answers to Repporters.

Calculon!

@@kundziabu1743 they play your conspiracy theories as background. They're quite amusing

Name the technology that was destroyed please. Is it the Saturn V rocket that can be found in museums? Or the Command Module that can be found in museums? Or the Lunar Module that can be found in museums? etc

The lost telemetry tapes only contained NASA's BACKUP of the SAME Apollo 11 moonwalk footage that we've ALL seen already.

Yazzam X, I don't know what technology Don Pettit was talking about but that's what he said. And the telemetry tapes that they lost contained the real science data of the moon landings that would prove they went. I'm not talking about video tapes.

@@truthseeker6369 - Destroyed as in we can't use that old technology today my friend! Hence the Space Shuttle is now destroyed. Concorde is now destroyed. But lookup the soon to be launched SLS rocket which will take people back to the moon in 2023.

@@truthseeker6369 - Read about the tapes in NASA's own report here; goo.gl/62FGDH Notice it's ONLY about the TV broadcast of the first mission, stored on telem tapes. Nothing about data! Conspiracy theorists twisted that into something it wasn't, i.e. they lied :-)

It is the nature of technology that those readings increase in precision. You should start reading more than headlines, maybe then you will be allowed to have an opinion.

They did crash tests on cars in 1970, why do they still do them now? 🙄

it's a new spacecraft with different properties. how can anyone be so simple.

Lol yes we did.

Lol

Hi dad

Are you high?

Wrong, they are debunking the debunking of the moon landing.

And a much of no name conspiracy nuts are "in charge" of debunking the landing yet you'll never question their qualifications. Plus they aren't "in charge" of it. They did it just because they wanted to.

Some Americans are so supersticious and believe in all kind of stuff

The machines feet don’t even sink in to the dust- they would have

No they don't! All of their doubts have been answered, they just don't care.

The only thing in doubt is your ability to chew gum and walk simultaneously.

@@Tim22222 could you point me to genuine proof of the landing?

@@realeyes2458 What proof would you accept?

@@Tim22222 any proof.

ikr

He has always been a shitty speaker...makes me wonder why he is CEO.

Cam Kustka Maybe he has the money, better than him just buying a speaker though

Cam Kustka Well, there are many other tasks as well when it comes to CEOs. He might be a good leader, bright / quick to figure out things and so on. There are lots of people who give good presentations, but it doesn't mean they are smart or that they're good leaders...

Sampling Reality LIKE ME! I'm great at public speaking, terrible at leading

My eyes never felt so tired

Thanks this helped me sleep

Did you mean if you have trouble shitting, cose his geriatric narative will do it for ya

lol

Not really - they just debunk one theory. Which is already one too many for hoaxers to understand.

it should have been "nvidia dismantles the most common moon landing conspiracy theory"

How TF could they simulate the moon's atmosphere without any data to create the simulation from? That data doesn't exist lmfao

Sounds so ridiculous it must be true ... the script writers should have been sacked

I like that.

Me neither, average cgi at best. Solicit Applause!

Agreed. Sorry nVidia. KZfaq is HD these days. The image looked CGI the whole time. Granted it was very photo realistic, but photo realistic is not the same as real.

Me neither. Funny how they sell it as a group conclusion, more than inviting you to reach that conclusion

The lander looked great. Buzz's boot though. X(

And touched it

Fact

I BELIEVE THAT THAN AMERICA LANDED ON THE MOON. IT WAS A BIG LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LANDINGS WERE FILMED IN AREA 51

@@michaelholland7952 : Owww, who's bad...

I believe that more then buzz. Since he's was depressed and NEVER would talk bout "going there" HMMMM🤔 THAT'S NATURAL

German Kanzler does not remember too in 2024 ... and we all know he lie 🤯

@No Channel think u can check out the lro photos and videos online of the Apollo landings

Pretty much every lunar mission that could see the _Apollo_ landing sites have reported seeing them, yes.

Yup

@@lance3748 yup , moon hoaxers are so funny Prob trying to find meaning in thier lifes

@@Jan_Strzelecki yup

Everyone knows we landed on the moon now. Have you ever watched unacknowledged it shows stuff from the government had to release because of the freedom of information act you should check it out.

😂

@@danielbennett1734 the sam FOI from australia and us government admitted that covid wasn't isolated but noooo, no one looks that up cause they dont want to,

ahahaha so true! this would fail high school science class project

we've never been to the moon period

I'm going to swipe this comment.

Stanley Kubrick never would've allowed intersecting shadows on his set... Don't belittle him by comparing his work to the blatantly faked Moon landing footage.

1995-02-06 Were you always like this or did you have a serious cranial trauma recently?

Nice insult. Do you have anything of substance to contribute to a conversation or...?

1995-02-06 Do you?

First, please state which source you trust for proof of belts of radiation around the Earth that is completely invisible and completely undetectable from outside the belts, and hence can ONLY be detected by sending spacecraft into them. My point being, you appear to trust NASA when they say there are invisible belts of radiation around the Earth, and yet you don't trust the *same* NASA when they say the *same* invisible belts of radiation are not a problem to pass through in a few hours, as they did during Apollo?

Answer: Quickly! Van Allen himself said you'd have to spend a WEEK in the densest part of the belts to receive a fatal dose; the Apollo astronauts passed through in 15 minutes. Exposure time matters.

@@Tim22222 but I've seen actual Nasa interviews where they were implying that no one has been to the other side of the Van Allen belt .

@@prometheussnow3647 - No my friend, you've seen NASA interviews where you jumped to your own false conclusions. Perhaps you can present one example, but remember YT doesn't allow links so either name the video or post enough info to direct others to your source.

@@prometheussnow3647 "I've seen actual Nasa interviews where they were implying that no one has been to the other side of the Van Allen belt ." You saw it falsely then. Probably talking about NASA engineer Kelly Smith, where he doesn't say that at all.

one giant LIE

@@Amine-gz7gq how do ya figure?

Now you are going too far, Amun. You are actually thinking.

Simple, go outside stand up and try blowing on the ground and get the dirt to move, it won't because you don't have a strong enough blow force to do so, similar situation to the LEM, it was throttled down significantly as to not create a crater and damage the LEM with debre.

But the force of a human can create a foot print. Shame on you Amun for using common sense

@Amun Ra The so called "Glitter Bomb" is because the Assent Module of the LEM separated from the Descent Module leaving the Landing Gear and Retro Rocket Structure for the landing on the Moon, on the Moon. They're all still up there, so what I'm saying is the Burn for the Assent wasn't into the Surface but into the Descent Gear as they separated....

Because it was blown away at landing

It depends on the individual topography. A rock shadow on the ground won't receive any light when there are no surface reflecting lights towards it. Eg. at 7:43 there is nothing which could reflect lights into the shadows of the rocks or lander on the ground. Also one can see very well how the surface angled towards the camera reflects more light into the more elevated position of the observer.

Because a camera can't see things as well as your eyes can. Is that what you are getting at?

Name the photo or stay quiet.

+Ray People do keep saying that in these comments. But I think they are overdoing it. Remember that the boots had not been used before, so they should be as clean and smooth as if just pulled off a store shelf;) Well, OK, a more experienced eye can catch the fact that the shading is too even even for that. But the difference is just not that big, the presenter was still being accurate when he said it looked like a photo. It is pretty close

I didn't read comments. Also the the astronaut looked weird. Like animated. But I thought it was because of shitty picture. It's like the new rogue one movie with the animated actor. A friend of mine didn't notice at all that it was animated, until I told her. But I had no trouble noticing. Animation is getting really good, and we are almost there. But not just yet. My problem with this is that the CEO of nvidia claims that you can't tell any difference. That is just wrong. I know it's just a sales speech trying to make nvidia look good. But it's a lie when you can tell the difference

+Ray That was their CEO? My, my are they in trouble! No company can thrive with a CEO with such poor presentation skills. The major duty of a CEO is making presenters to investors and share holders! But I don't remember him ever claiming that "you can't tell any difference": only that it is hard to spot the difference. And it turns out for people with graphics experience, it is not even very hard.

its not that hes just stepping a a tiny hill thingy so it looks like it got cut off

I could tell instantly it wasn't real because of the boots as well. After I noticed the boots a few other things as well.

It is lit by one source. The sun.

Yeah - they come up aces in securing the silence of a huge number of people in on the supposed "conspiracy", and then they leave out an extra light bulb by mistake.... A pretty ludicrous hypothesis, ain't it...?

Scott Hix Why do people not realise that going to the moon and producing some fake video for Apollo 11 are not mutually exclusive. When Nixon was told the film coverage would be poor and grainy he hit the roof and additional film was made in a studio to supplement the film from the moon to fully exploit the event and get value for the expense ! End of story - no real conspiracy. If you believe NASA and the Govt are cynical enough to fake the moon landing you must believe they would be willing to add some fake footage to improve the coverage.

Tom Chapman - Years ago I delved into a multitude of moon landing hoax video's and I learned a great deal about space travel and the moon landing. Yes I believe there's more than enough evidence to support it, but the fact it was questioned made me want to learn the science behind it for myself. I've only really seen polarized points of view, you're the first person I've come across to say, "going to the moon and producing some fake video for Apollo 11 are not mutually exclusive". Well done, thanks for the provoked thought.

My favourite movie director made the Apollo moon landing television live presentation in 1969. Stanley Kubrick. The man was a science fiction master.He thought out all the correct lighting details and gravity effects and I recommend everyone watch 2001 a space odyssey .It was put out before the moon landings and looks like every nasa video they ever did ,enjoy.

And one more witless, asinine and unoriginal comment for a conspiracy believer.

A giant crock

In between takes possibly a hundred for each scene before he was able to get through that scene without laughing and said humans are suckers

🤣

👍💯👏

Why would he?

@@DemonDrummer - Cause he's a lier.

Frabbledabble the boots were the dead giveaway. Apollo 11: The Open Sandbox Game. lol

+John Doe JUST... NO!

+Frabbledabble yeah, what kind of debunk is that? wtf..

+John Doe hey John, nice to meet you

I suspected something was amiss when I saw the wonky boots and pixelated shadows lol.

🙄 You know these kooks can't work a camera.

Poe's law.

Billy McAuliffe Or you.

The dumb ones are those that remain unaware of the intended deception behind the video, which is that using a single photo's aperture settings to explain 3 minor issues, can substitute for proving any major issues they don't realize exist.

Stop licking lead paint

lead paint, loose a few iq points? Not nearly as damaging for him as what you do... inject aluminium and mercury into your body causing major brain damage possibly even autism...So that's done worse for your than a little lead pain for him ;) lol

they are actually simulating how light is on the moon, exactly, down to a T. This proves some of the conspiracy theories as wrong. Funny how so many who were trolled by the debunkers cant accept that new information, ie: this Nvidia presentation, proves they were lied to. Accept that we went and move on or stay stuck in the past, and be left behind.

@@backseatsamurai Your moon landing religion requires more blind faith than Christianity

Parish Bananarific chose between slavery (enslaved by the satanics) and liberty (freed by your creator)? To put em in ur words: stuck in the past (seeking truth) or move on with the agenda (the masonry satanic plan). Wake up, stare at the chemtrails and evil dust being sprayed to dumb the population and depopulate us....or do something about it

@@backseatsamurai "they are actually simulating how light is on the moon, exactly, down to a T. This proves some of the conspiracy theories as wrong" Isn't this circular reasoning? Using the information from the guys that said they went to the moon about the lighting on the moon to prove that they went to the moon! Do you not have any brain cells left anymore to think for yourself? How do you know it's down to a T? Oh right, because that's what NASA says!! Give yourself a cookie, you really deserve it!

1969 technology vs 2019 technology. Think about that for a minute.

The original recording has been decoded and transcribed into the different formats, so it was redundant. There were six further attempts, five successful. Which you would know, had you bothered to inform yourself at all.

He is doing what we call "grasping"

Clinton’s got them again! Lol

and the lawyers, too, in case Armstrong slipped on the ladder and chose to file a workman's comp claim.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Stanley, without a camera crew ... is akin to NASA, without a starry-eyed audience.

Ever heard of a tripod buddy?

@@donavishaka5906they haven't heard of anything except being hard headed and uneducated in science, Best thing is leave them alone and let them be wrong LOL !!!!

Even the ordinary emulsion wouldn't outgass quickly enough to ruin the photos within the timeframe of any _Apollo_ mission. And the film wasn't directly exposed to sunlight, so it never reached melting temperatures.

brb renaming my WiFi Neil.

Buzz Aldrin admitted to a young child Zoey, recently, we didn't go to the moon.

@@johnkean6852 nope

New Conspiracy.

Ok bud

Collins said he also couldn’t see the stars. Big mistake because he was never on the surface. Also Armstrong said it was a 6 inch drop from the ladder. Ladders about 2 feet from the ground. As you watch each moon lander it weathers. So same one was used.

Right

Astronauts from niel Armstrongs mission couldnt even get their info right

If you have a smart question then ask it right here.

Lmfao.

Last week I went back to replay the videos I found and saved showing the problems with the photography and other things that didn't look right or sound right about the Apollo program and none of them would play back, and in my new searches they won't come up. I just get all the stuff like this.

@@darthvaper7157 if they went to the moon 50 yrs ago and they somehow cant go again

@@Stickman_Productions If you believe these things get 'lost' you probably believe everything they tell you. If things of this caliber get lost they didn't exist in the first place.

BINGO!

+John Ryan he debunked only one aspect- there are many more - divergent shadows, an astronaut pulling an "anti-gravity" feat, perfect exposure and framing despite astronauts not being able to see the viewfinder, and the gloves too cumbersome to adjust aperture settings, the earth the wrong size, not even the smallest disturbance of dust beneath the landing module. Starting to sound fishy yet?

He thinks were all brain dead.

Jacopo Peterman came to say the same thing.

Thats what happens when you script this stuff to be so careful to not get caught in a LIE...this is a joke.

The Moon has no atmosphere so how do you make dust clouds ? Were talking about using a wide angle lens to frame a subject at a great distance.most surface images on apollo were taken using one of two wide angle lenses. The Moon or Earth. As the focal length becomes shorter, the perspective difference expands, making a close subject appear that much bigger and remote objects even smaller-this is called exaggerated perspective.

Which shots, specifically, are you referring to? If you mean the video of Armstrong climbing down & taking the first step, that was from a camera mounted on the side of the LM. (That's not this pic BTW; this is Aldrin, taken by Armstrong who was already on the surface.)

No, Facebook posts and obscure hoax websites leave out any semblance of fact. This video assumes its viewers have a brain otherwise, they would have to start by explaining that the Earth and Moon are a sphere.

Nah, it's actually one giant STEP for mankind Source: whoever the hell this guy is

One giant LIAR

Are you twelve?

@@seigeengine No, no. That's his IQ. ... drools a lot.

He wasn't

Ha!Ha!Ha!ha!ha!ha!

And sandy hook next lol

Even Neil got the quote wrong

Armstrong's mic cut off the word "a". He attempted to correct the misperception, but 50+ years later, everybody still gets it wrong. I'm over it.

It was LEAP not STEPx2

That's been debunked on Reddit.

Yes, heeheehee

"The camera used to take pictures would not have survived the radiation or the heat in direct sunlight." They made it back because you are wrong. You obviously don't know the difference between heat and temperature, in an environment with no atmosphere, and how an atmosphere or not would affect that. Also, what type and how much radiation are you thinking would destroy the film?

You left school early, didn't you.

First word was actually "Houston"...

***** nope

"Contact" was the first word on the moon Houston wasn't

Yes! 😂😂😂😂😂♥👀

I wholeheartedly agree

Donald Hoot but it is though 🤷‍♂️

What a crock

hahaha i thought same thing

Yes they did!!

@tsepom455 now repeat that 8 more times....

@@Tim22222 Nope. Proven to death.

@@pvn2474Well, if that's true then you should have no trouble sharing some of that "proof" with me. Whatdiya got?

Because the same questions are relentlessly asked over, and over, and over again by individuals that aren't remotely interested in the answers that are provided innumerable times. Are you?

Nova Malone

Like your conspiracy theories put the rest of us to sleep.

reflects the first apollo11 conference, not one apolloists comments joy, all just whine about the bad comments.

@FanOf Dueling project much?

@FanOf Dueling time is relative

@FanOf Dueling what's your point? lol! You are clearly illuminating your own Idiocracy by presumably making the assertion that your comment is immortalized in fact & cannot be challenged or questioned

@@SassyBagels lol “Cause you’re dumb” will be on his Tombstone

@FanOf Dueling 'time' doesn't make truth less relevant. In reality, it adds relevance. DAH

I'll thank you now.

Because there's no atmosphere on the moon. In an atmosphere, dust can swirl around before settling; with no atmosphere, it's just blasted away.

"When the LEM landed, and also when it took back off, there were huge clouds of dust created." Totally false. You can only have dust clouds in an atmospheric environment like the earth, not in a vacuum like the moon.

elmohead Exactly

Even the Soviet Union, their rivals, knew that it was genuine.

elmohead - yeah, sorry for the inconvenience... technical difficulties.

thats a good point

Hum, you just said something i didn't realise. Wonder how many russians think it's a fake. ATM the only people i met who think that a fake are americans.

By George, I do believe you've proven there is cheese on the moon.

Exactly. It felt some average video-game's screenshot at best

And somehow people think NASA could do BETTER 50 years ago 🤔

Its astroneer

Nick Hahn You do know that we went back to the moon a half dozen times after this landing.

Uneven surface topography explains many of these apparent anomalies, where subtle slopes dramatically alter the apparent orientation of shadows falling on them. Others are due to perspective - the geometrical effect that makes parallel lines appear to converge on a distant vanishing point. You can see exactly the same effect on Earth. Also, the lunar surface reflects sunlight the albedo of the surrounding terrain, and bright objects also produce a source of light.

@@yassassin6425 There's also the matter of perspective. An object in center frame will project a shadow straight to the horizon, and object to the left will project a shadow that angles to the right and to the center, while an object to the right will project a shadow that angles to the left and center. As you said, a slope will greatly alter the direction of a shadow as well leading to some odd looking shadows

Do you mean at 13:26? That's the simulation he's been talking about throughout the whole video.

It's definitely not the first time. In the early 2000s, George W Bush was talking about sending men back to the moon quite vociferously.

@p r o x y I remember. They kept getting bolder each time until they were packing up dune buggies and cruising around in the deser... I mean moon.

you can't go back when you've never been there

2024

@@sidmartin8348 thats why we arent going back to Mars

You'd need massive radio telescopes to pick up a signal like that.

It was slow-scan, rotating color wheel "TV", and yes, they DID use massive radio-telescopes to pick up the signal!

@@gdavisloop 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

🤣🤣🤣

@@debraolson7553 What, are you saying we DON'T have big radio telescopes on Earth?

There is no photo of the first man on the moon as Armstrong held the camera. On the EVA shots he is only present as a reflection in Aldrin's helmet. The lift-off only has been captured for Apollo 17. The camera left behind was mounted on the rover and remote controlled.

No, if you had been able to follow the presentation, you'd see that it was more like the hoaxers claimed Santa would exist and this was debunked using a simulation explaining why Santa would be vaporized at the speed required to reach every child on earth within 24 hours. The hoaxers claimed light could not fall in a certain way and the simulation shows: It can.

The moon landing is real tho

Stay mad

You sir! Just made my day

Luis Colin Oooooohh

I know this is probably just a joke, but the people working on the divers probaly aren't the same graphical engineers that work on projects like these :p

Luis Colin This technology may eventually make it into games, you know.

The Fifth Horseman And what form of anguish do you represent?

We're never going.

Nope. They already admitted it too many times.

Obviously for me too.

Yes.

Yes, just like on earth.

That's cause no one but you has a half empty bottle next to them.

Except he’s lying, other than that its ‘fine’. It’s all fake. m.kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q9iRqZSjttTafas.html

@@xonerate371 Yeah...no

his speech is perfectly fine to me.

I think it’s fine too

And that is what this video is about. Showing how powerful their video cards are that they can reproduce the picture of the moon landing in such detail, and which models how the light works on the moon so exactly, it looks identical to the first picture.

There shouldn't be any to speak of.

The Descent Stage rocket engine produced a thrust of 3000lb and was cut some 2m above the surface. Why exactly do you think there should be a crater??

Totally false! How do you guys come up with such nonsense?

It was a JOKE! Sheesh, how obtuse can you get???