An oldie but a goodie.

Wow, first time I ever hears that! Did you make it up yourself, or did you have help?

@@jonsmith3945 Acting like everyone writes their own jokes and expecting original comedy material in a comment section. 💀

@@Hatasumi69 It's just disappointing to see the same mindless shit spewed out by someone deluding themselves to think they're clever. My advice to those people: tis bettr to remains silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.

@@jonsmith3945 I feel as though you are ironically playing the other side of the coin; the ubiquitous, overly-cynical response to flippant comments - there's nothing new in your response or theirs, just a pair of jesters lacking cleverness and signifying nothing except that they both take the value of comments too seriously for different reasons. Perhaps we should all remain silent and if we do comment, let it at least be positive since it's been consistently proven that negative/mocking comments don't actually change a person's mindset or habits - the joke of the cynic's response is they are creating more of what triggers them in the long run while expecting unrealistic results from such low forms of entertainment, which is admittedly funnier than the original joke here at least!

Just because one can explain something doesn't mean it can be executed. Einstein himself was all theory and no show.

@@dst1311 You should've googled the true meaning of the word theory before posting your reply.

@@dst1311 I'd say he's pissed on the nutters theories

@@TimeHunter2305 Try banging rocks together. That's about the level of his understanding.

@@dst1311 The words theory and hypothesis aren't synonyms.

You hit it right on the head.

Same for the recent Artemis images - the live pictures from the real on-board cameras showed no stars due to the limited contrast, while the animated scenes, being unlimited be such constraints, showed stars in the background of moon, earth and the spacecraft, apparently to look more appealing to the public.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/f9Ghipiqmc2YcYk.html why not the earth being pasted into this moon image from nasa?

You should be able to take a picture of stars out in a dark field at night. You should also be able to park a white car lit up with bright spotlights about 20 feet in front of your camera and still be able to see stars around the side of the car, right? Then if you can still make out any stars change the exposure and lens aperture to make the car focus in and not just be a big blob of light and tell me if you can still see any stars.

Very good point. I have always argued that pop culture has overtaken science.

Great comment although I don't think that deniers know what a lumen is or can comprehend quintillion .

@@peterharris38 good point, I probably should have included all the 0s. lol

Lighting things up? What do you mean? Like how, here on Earth, the Sun causes the atmosphere to glow blue, on a clear day? Except there is no Earth-like atmosphere on the Moon. So, your comment about your average street light being bright enough to wash out starlight, does not apply, because that is also dependent on the presence of the Earth's atmosphere. Nah, the argument is misrepresented and presented as a strawman argument here, yet again. It has nothing to do with photography. WE KNOW, using regular camera settings, stars won't appear on film. It's been established a long time ago. No need to keep recycling the same old, tired strawman argument. The issue is SEEING stars from the surface of the Moon, by Apollo astronauts allegedly standing there. And not one of them mentioned seeing what would have been a lunar sky filled with the brightest, sharpest points of light. No atmosphere means no twinkling. This guy, in this video, is conceding that the stars would have, should have, been there to see, but just wouldn't show up in the photographs. Fine. Except, as I said, no astronaut has mentioned ever seeing any. After Neil Armstrong said stars could not be seen, at the Apollo 11 press conference, that had to become the official word on the matter and, ever since, the issue of seeing stars in outer space, not just on the Moon, became problematic for NASA. Cue the excuses... _The astronauts had tinted visors._ Tinted visors that could be retracted up into the helmet. We have photos and video of that. _The Sun was blinding._ For every mission, the Sun was within a few degrees of 15 degrees above horizon. That is relatively low. Meaning, it would have been easy for an astronaut to turn their back to it. _The reflection off the surface was too bright._ Nope. The Moon's surface has an albedo of about 15. Meaning, it's about as reflective as worn asphalt. Not white as snow, as some Apollo imagery depicts it as. Go ahead and find the photo of Buzz Aldrin saluting the flag and try to tell me what is supposed to be the lunar surface, would be blindingly bright. Aldrin has his visor in the upright position, in that photo, by the way. _The astronauts were too busy to notice._ Yeah, sure.

@FakeMoonRocks - I'm happy to address this as soon as I get in the door. It's a it too much to go through over mobile.

@@FakeMoonRocks Even with the tint eliminated, They still had transparent solid glass or plastic over their faces, and sunlight lighting up the surface of the Moon. Turn the lights off in your house and try to look through a glass window and see stars in the sky. You might can see Jupiter or Venus (bright planets) but virtually no stars. Sirius might be bright enough to see.

I was born in 1972, but I knew about Astronomy from a young age and knew that the Moon landings happened because everyone else did, too. But decades later, to see a new generation of ignorant young people and older people deceived by the Internet defiantly state that the Moon landings were FAKE, all of a sudden, was extremely galling to me and most other people. No wonder Buzz Aldrin punched that young Moon landing denier in the face when accosted in the street, who claimed that his greatest achievement in life never actually happened DESPITE PHOTOGRAPHIC and FILM EVIDENCE to the CONTRARY!

You habt to wach morgen pictures they

You got hoodwinked!

@@johndough9020 Do you know that the Freemasons have a lot of Flat Earth Signs in thereTempels ?

@@eliot1625 I don’t know what you mean. Is English your first language? What are you trying to say because I am interested.

Just surprised there're no more Armstrongs born nowadays to repeat this feat. Or NASA lost the manuscript to return to the Moon?

@@chorianafricaltd.1835It’s incredibly expensive for little reward, we already know much of what we need to know about the moon. Only reason we would go back is to colonize and establish bases and that is extremely extremely expensive and intensive.

Not by all. Only some but I wonder if he had the choice would he have done it again

agree. this dave is not a photographer. this dave is try to debunk with obvious arguments that don't prove anything.

You're dense af

@@Iserate truth hurts

Heat and temperature are two different things. And the camera was modified enough in order to work with the gloves, the guy in this video. As for having it on your chest, they would have trained for that. Try duct taping yer cellphone to yer chest and go around taking pics without glancing down at the phone, after 5 mins you’ll find it ain’t hard.

@@niksandy7125 easy to say that.

Spot on. I lived in a small town and now in a big city, wandered through completely illuminated streets and pitch dark forests, and I have a telescope, too. Light pollution is a big hindrance for star gazing.

@nightmareTomek I live in a very small town and I still have problems with the 1 single light on the eclectic pole going to my house. It's so bright, I can't see anything in that direction!

@@ekojar3047 xD Kick that thing! I have that idea that cities should turn off all lights between 3 and 4am. So the nerds can see nice things. I guess that's not going to happen because everyone's too worried...

Exactly why people say if you wanna see milky way. Do it far away and at no moon. You can than see it with your own eyes. Cuz there is no light source that big.

Sorry the Moons sky has no atmosphere to light the sky or distort the darkness of space, stars would be visible on the Moon on many of the shots, City lights will light up the molecules in the atmosphere on Earth, hence no stars visible in Cities, all they would have to do for a clearer immage of the sky is point the camera to the stars a little more so as to not allow too much moonlight to interfere with the image exposure to moon surface light

"On the moon shadows only work if a light source was let's say about 93 million miles away" Proof?

@@jonsmith3945 excuse me sir, DID YOU WATCH THE FUCKING VIDEO?

@@dr.cheeze5382 Yes, I watched the fucking video.

​@@jonsmith3945clearly you didn't actually watch the video since it completely disproves your claims.

@@5peciesunkn0wn Which of my claims is disproved ?

There will always be money in denying what other people say. Check out conservatives in America. Tons of money selling Trump merch.

@@SECONDQUEST you are stupide mixing science and politics, but non Wonder grom a probable leftist science denier

Agreed; these points are easily debunked. However, he did not address the more compelling oddities.

__ When they didn't get to the moon they had all this failed rocket science to dispose of so they invented leaf blowers. --Thor

Yeah the Kubrick claim kills me when you look at 2001 it's obvious he would have been outed as a fake in less than a year. Any surface examination shows dozens of mistakes that would definitely have shown it was all wrong.

lacking the basics. that applies to anything else in life ;)

That is precisely why I question the results. The photos are too perfect! The quality of the images in terms of focus, aperture, are just bang on. The amount of time, energy, and expertise required to accomplish the quality obtained is mind-boggling, which is not even factoring in the environment and astronaut gear! Not to mention, this was all done on film, and there was no ability for retakes

Your comment could have come from the algorithm itself. Broader reach etc.

Even better, if they think the video was faked, they could try recreating *that*.

yeah like photographing stars during a full moon with the same exposure as daylight shots that the astronauts used! funny how conspiratards never mention trying that as a debunking proof!

We are not on the moon

@@gowdsake7103 That's true! We haven't been there since December 14, 1972.

@@gowdsake7103 any other bleeding obvious pearls of wisdom you would like to share ?

Indeed he is. When NVidia tried to recreate the "Aldrin on the ladder" photo, they couldn't get it right _until_ they've realized that they haven't accounted for the light reflecting off the Armstrong.

In fact, if you look at the photo of Aldrin coming down the ladder of the LM, on his boot overshoes, you can actually see the reflection of Armstrong's white EVA suit. Look at the heels of Aldrin's boots and you will "see" Armstrong. The reflection is directed right at the position of the camera (Armstrong).

....suspecting he if facing the SUN to take a photograph? On MOON where she is very strong? Very strange behaviour with a LOW Sun.

@@narajuna Are you suggesting that Armstrong should have waited for better lighting to take this iconic photo? Or that Buzz should have waited inside the LM? Or that they should have moved the LM to face the Sun?

@@johnguilfoyle3073 That is thee Question! Am I or not.... far as I gather he is creating the Lighting ( standing in full sunlight to take the picture and blasting Aldrin with reflected sunlight), so if shaded would not be any "fill light" right? Lord o Apollo who knows what I am suggesting. ps: abnormal (or retarded?) to take a surface photo directly facing (low) SUN (no atmosphere= morning full blast SUNRAYS)

"As I recall, the two places you showed with the mountains in the background are actually quite far apart." About 1.5 Km

@@Jim_Jones_Guyana oh thank you, that's really interesting. I hadn't heard about that before!

the mountains would also look similar from different positions if they were a backdrop, which I believe is the case.

@@jonsmith3945 "the mountains would also look similar from different positions if they were a backdrop" Well no, because they would be 2D if they were a backdrop and so there would be no parallax at all so there would be no difference. Unless you are going to suggest that they used a 3D background, though then you would need to also have a huge place to film it all because you also have the added complication that all of this was also shown on live TV footage.

@@kylie_h1978 By measuring the parallax of objects in the foreground, you can determine how far away are objects in the background. A Russian scientist did this and determined the backdrop was about 100 ft or so distant. I believe the landings were faked and years of debating with landing believers has not uncovered any new evidence or made a new argument to change my mind. So, save your breath.

This sums it up ,kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b7uJfseos9q5nmg.html

Spot on.

You didn't run into him hard enough.

So you are attempting to use the same woeful logic used all through these comments... the fact it looks fake means it must be real. No, the fact it looks fake means it might be FAKE. The reason they did not add fake stars to the moon soundstage is because it would have been too difficult to reproduce accurately. It would have been possible for anyone on earth to do the calculations and check that the position of the stars in the pics. They would have had to project the whole sky and had it moving in synch with their claimed timings. It would have added a substantial layer of complexity with a chance of giving the game away

​@@trueriverking1976It does look real though, you might just not have a good enough grasp of how reality works. But who knows, maybe one day you'll go up to the moon and confirm this for yourself

@@Antigen__ Wow, powerful stuff. You've really got me there. You fake moon landing shills don't have anything, do you? So how does reality work, then?

Oh dear

Lol I can get photos of stars from earth.

Hahahahahahaha 😀

Exactly non of the deniers can handle the retro-reflectors it always shuts them up.

@@dogwalker666 the funny thing is that it's an experiment they can do themselves another thing they can do is track the ISS the ISS even rotating around the earth proves the existence of globe and gravity... They claim gravity doesn't exist then how is the sun even in the sky how is it rotating none of them can give an equation or scientific theory to how this even happens and just say well "God" God is what they think is a scientific theory

@@dogwalker666 Nah. They usually claim that "we can bounce lasers off the bare surface of the Moon!", unfortunately.

@@Jan_Strzelecki they tried that however when I explain that "Retro" Reflectors rotate the polarised laser light 90 Degrees which is why they are used in Industrial sensors, They spit out their dummies and run away.

@@dogwalker666 Ah, okay. Fair enough. I'll need to remember that for the inevitable next time 🙂

“As well as also”?

@@johndough9020 What, you don't like repetetivity, redundunancy, and repetitiousnessess?? Then you probably don't like saying the same thing twice or saying the same thing twice and you probably also don't like saying the same thing twice or saying the same thing twice also... 🥴

You think that video and the laughable collection of comments under it prove the moon landings were real?? The only thing they "prove" to me is that 60 years after the event you still haven't come up with a half way feasible story

@@trueriverking1976 Your ignorance and your confidence in your ignorance are truly astounding. How someone can be SO WRONG and yet believe they're so right to the point of mocking others who actually know the truth, is truly amazing. And just for the record, it was a little less than 54 years ago.

Only an Indoctrinated Monkey would believe we landed on a Light bulb.

Yup. But even funnier is the fact that these denier blockheads 'think' (loose term) that white dots on a black background are impossible to fake for some reason.

@Andre Doesn't surprise me. YT algo's are extremely snowflakey these days.

The camera bodies and the magazines protected the film against most of the radiation, but they weren't able to fully protect them and so some of the film does show some damage from radiation. People have this idea that all radiation requires lead shielding - indeed someone the other day tried to tell me he'd been taught in the armed forces that four feet of lead was needed to shield from the Van Allen belts - but that is not the case. The shielding provided by the craft and the spacesuits was enough to protect the astronauts (and the film) from most of the radiation.

I've did a follow up video which addresses many aspects of the film & cameras including radiation: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nrKIe9WClrHJkZc.html

or from the vacuum, a fact about the Hexagon Spy Satellite: "The whole camera system operated in a vacuum, except for the film which was in a pressurized container," explained Pressel.

Glad you enjoyed it

One of the missions had their on-board computer fail. Requiring the crew to land the mooner lander by hand. The irony was that in the panic of having to deal with their on-board computer failing, they completely overlooked the fact that they apparently had a backup computer they could have used...

@@hanro50 Because the computer was ‘blind’ and couldn’t compensate for sudden increases in gravity fields, it could put the lunar module down in a crater or on a steep slope, so the commander always took manual control in the last minute or so to ensure a safe landing area. Also, no self-respecting test pilot would let a computer do his job.

It has been pointed out that while walking on the Moon in direct sunlight, astronauts could not make out even the brightest stars, because their pupils were constricted in reaction to the bright sun, and this is partially true. The Sun’s radiation is very harmful to eyesight outside of our protective atmosphere and the astronaut’s EVA helmet that was worn over the ‘bubble’ helmet of the pressure suit had two moveable visors. The outer visor was gold coated to protect them from this radiation and also filtered out relatively dim light sources such as stars. Several Apollo astronauts reported that when they stood in the shadow of the lunar module and lifted their visors, they could easily see stars. But with the combination of both bright sunlight and the visors, it was impossible.

@@gunternetzer9621 good point. It's like driving at night. Oncoming headlights- especially driver who drive with their brights on (a-holes!) make it hard to see anything due to glare and pupil contraction.

@@gunternetzer9621 the astronauts had to be looking through the equivalent of arc welding shields in the harsh light of the sun which was like a bright carbon arc light. Try looking through a welding shield at the night sky and let me know how many stars you see.

Thanks for the extra details Bob, much appreciated :)

@@DaveMcKeegan You're welcome!

IF YOU CANT DAZZLE THEM WITH SCIENCE BAFFLE THEM WITH BULLSHIT

@@williammcconnell2576 Interesting comment, which I've heard variations of for the past 50 years or so. But I'm not sure which side of the discussion you're on, just from that. (Oh, and the ALL CAPS mode is only required if you intended to be "shouting" the comment, FYI.)

@@williammcconnell2576 yup

Firstly as I explained in the opening - this is a photography channel, so I wanted to keep the video in the context of photography principles which can still be applied elsewhere However I am now already planning another video which will look into the other camera related aspects such as the film and why they wouldn't be totally destroyed. Reasons such as the special emulsion coatings that Kodak put on the film's to help reduce damage from such elements The fact that the radiation exposure on the moon is only around 10x greater than Earth and film lasts years on Earth - so a week in space won't be a problem Or that the cameras were specially modified to be silver coloured rather than the standard black to reflect light and control temperature (in exactly the same way as why the astronauts suits are white, the CSM is silver and the LEM is covered in reflective foil)

@@DaveMcKeegan regardless why not cover everything ? There's way more flaw's then just lighting It never happened we both know it By the way Nasa gets billions and billions of our tax money so don't go thinking it was not worth them lying

​@@DaveMcKeegan The film and the camera were both reported as being normal.

@@johnshaw359 Reported by who? Hasselblad themselves openly state that the cameras were heavily modified (and they should know given it was them who modified it) And Kodak's records show that film was specifically designed for NASA, based on a series of film they produced especially for high altitude cameras

Ask and you shall receive: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nrKIe9WClrHJkZc.html

Bodvarson They were there at Lunar morning. The sun is shinning. No need for secondary lighting.

@@williammann9176 I meant if it was faked on a studio

@@bodvarson1933 Baseball stadiums don't aim for making it look like it's the sun shining.

@@bodvarson1933 The fact that there are no stars in the Apollo photographs simply shows that NASA knew how to work a camera, because of the short exposure times required to take pictures, given the brightness of the Moon's surface in daylight. Photographic techniques of the type required to hoax a moon landing did not exist then.

There's an interesting video from one of the landings where the two astronauts see what they think is a small hill nearby and decide to go check it out. They are hopping over there for a minute or two while chatting before realizing they aren't getting any closer. It was at that point that they realized the small hill nearby was actually a large mountain far in the distance. We are adapted to using atmospheric haze when gauging distance, and the lack of atmosphere really messes with that ability.

Biggest problem I have is we don't have the tech today to land there. We were more advanced in the past than the present. Seems odd just saying..

That quote is always taken out of context The technology from the 60's is gone because it's been completely superseded by new tech The companies that built the components don't currently have the manufacturing systems needed to build those components because they've moved onto far newer components Look into the navigation computer for Apollo - it's not a silicone chip like all current computers, it was a hand built computer with each memory module individually placed by hand

They picked the landing site for Apollo 11 so that it would be flat and relatively boulder-free. Therefore you're not going to see much in terms of mountains and the like. Later missions did land closer to mountains/hills, albeit not large ones. The video shows an example of this from Apollo 15. Mars is twice as large as the Moon, so its horizon is farther away than the Moon's. Mars has an atmosphere (albeit thin compared to Earth's) while the Moon does not. Atmosphere affects distance judgement. We use its effects as an aid to determining distance. The fact is, other than the 12 men who walked on the moon, not one of us has ever seen anything with our own eyes that isn't in air. (if we're not under water, obviously) Our brains are used to evaluating things that way. We look at the photos and film from the moon and try to interpret them based on our experiences. Unless someone has either an expert eye, or takes time to break the images down as Dave did in the video, they're just not going to easily be able to make good judgements of distance.

The biggest problem you have is in not understanding that because the moon is half the diameter of Mars, the landscape might NOT go on "as far as the eye can see". The moon is 1/4th the size of Earth, and half the size of Mars which means the horizon is much closer than on either. Also, Earth and Mars have an atmosphere, which causes a haze, making things look farther away than they do in a vacuum, such as on the Moon, which has no atmosphere. Another problem you have is that you are not realising that if you noticed a "problem", that NASA would have as well.

@@critthought2866 the whole, none of the rest of us have been there, is an argument I have used. People want to declare how things would behave on the moon as a counter-argument, when the reality is they wouldn't know how it would behave. The thing about the flag and the footprints are the most common. "They wouldn't be like that!" Well, you don't know that, and I would say that since that is what happened then yes it would be like that. More of your typical "this hurts my argument so I want to ignore or discredit it" type BS.

I know your comment is a year old, my apologies, but ngl bro that dog is 100% smarter than any of these "ThE mOoN lAnDiNg iS fAkEd!!11!!" people

Ah yes black walls that have to extend millions of miles away 100% possible

@@jetpond7904 wow, sounds like a very big STUDIO..😀

@@mikeches7992 exactly you have nothing to say about that do you?

@@jetpond7904 I have to say THANK YOU WHOEVER CONSTRICTED SUCH A BIG STUDIO TO FOOL EVERYBODY ...THEY PROBABLY SPEND A LOT OF MONEY FOR THE BLACK PAINT..?!😀😎👋

@@mikeches7992 and you just proved my point. Congrats! JT. GNTRN HR NYMRJYMYRJRRYJMRYYJRMG

My pleasure :)

It makes perfect sense when put into the right context Firstly the radiation belts vary in thicknesses, we can't travel through the thick areas over the equator which is why Apollo missions flew away towards the poles where the radiation was weaker. The overall radiation on film is equal to the exposure of a about 6 months on Earth ... Film can survive for years on Earth. As for having the technology - before Artimas, the Saturn V was the only rocket powerful to fly man to the moon, that rocket took multiple companies and some 3 million parts to put together, after the program was scrapped, much of the details of individual components was cast aside and the factories producing them were reconfigured to build something else ... To build another Saturn V now, is not a case of throw together one in a few weeks, it would take months alone reverse engineer the design and how to rebuild old school computer components etc etc For the time and money it would take to rebuild an old, outdated design, they might as well build a new, modern rocket from scratch

@@DaveMcKeegan thats not how technology works. where are all the new iterations on the rockets? being that the design was " successful " one would conclude that they would have built upon the platform over the years. its should not be a question of recreating what was

The rockets were successful in flying to the moon but their design was highly inefficient - pretty much none of the Saturn V was reusable and the load capacity was limited Hence the switch to shuttles as a way to develope a vehicle which was more reusable The technology was nothing close to even a concept for the likes of SpaceX relanding the rocket to be viable

@@DaveMcKeegan based on today's tech it's highly inefficient. if it succeeded in its day, why not continue to develope the concepts? SpaceX isn't nasa. where's their continuation of their " successful "model? it's not due to lack of funding. also, why did no other nation make the trip? once pandoras box is opened, you don't just put the lid back on..its all highly questionable

Because the costs involved in such infant technologies were insane and being a government agency the costs had to be justified The public had lots of interest at first but once the race to the moon was won, interest in Apollo 12 was significantly less and nobody cared about 13 until it was nearly lost Public interest in moon landings faded as people turned attention to things like the Vietnam war etc Hence the shift to the shuttle because it was sold as the start of the development of public flights to space

There aren't any. Geologists all over the world have examined lunar samples and not one has concluded anything but that they were not of terrestrial origin. And before you or anyone else brings up the Netherlands and their supposed moon rock, that story has been debunked for quite a long time.

@@critthought2866 "they were not of terrestrial origin." Yes, but that doesn't prove they came from the Moon.

@@jonsmith3945 That's true. But it does show that, unlike the initial claim, they were not "regular rocks," nor were they somehow found as pieces of meteorites that fell to Earth, another claim made by landing deniers. Their structure is consistent with having formed in a near-vacuum under low gravity conditions, and having been bombarded with micro-meteorites and radiation as is found in the solar system.

@@critthought2866 The point is that all those attributes you list could be true of rocks formed elsewhere in space. There is nothing in there identifying the rock as specifically lunar. Furthermore, the rocks could have come from meteorites. Remove the crust and voila! NASA had a device to simulate micrometeor strikes. It wasn't until after Apollo that Scientists could identify lunar meteorites. Because they had the same attributes as the samples they were previously given by NASA. Then again, the Moon rocks are said to be remarkably similar in composition to Earth Rocks.

Yes, even the RHCP can smell the cheese 🧀

They had aperture and focus control on the lens - it also had shutter speed control on the camera There wasn't a viewfinder but it was fixed on a holder on the front of their suit, which means the camera always looked where ever their chest was pointing - and look through the full archive and you'll find plenty of bad shots, they just don't get shared much for obvious reasons

@@DaveMcKeegan That’s no control. Dials without feedback offer zero control. Not one bad shot was taken. All are masterpieces. Complete sham.

@@FFE-js2zp You don't need feedback when there are markers written clearly to see - There are lenses still sold today with aperture & focus control without feedback, they still work ... All cine lenses work like this And I'll repeat my previous suggestion, go and look at the Apollo Lunar Surface achieves, most shots are boring, mundane things and many with mistakes - Buzz had 4 attempts trying to photograph the plaque that they left behind to try and make sure there was a good one

@@DaveMcKeegan No cine lenses work without viewfinders. That’s absurd.

But the lack of viewfinders and no control over composition or exposure isn’t the big problem. The big problem is a half dozen photos with occluded registration marks. Plus 250F film that melts at 150F, dropping to -250F that cracks in shade, also exposed to the raw solar wind of radiation so intense it disintegrated NASA’s metal probes into dust. That’s a little more than an airport X-ray, which erases film.

And that's the most in depth research that a conspiracy theorist has ever managed to do 😂

Ok, so what did the Russians stand to gain when they claimed to have tracked Apollo 11 all the way to the moon and back? What did the Japanese, Chinese & Indians stand to gain when they announced their own lunar probes had inspected the landing sites and confirmed the landings happened? Surely they all stood to gain far more from Americans downfall than they'd ever hope to gain from siding with them

@@DaveMcKeegan Who says they had to gain anything? All the space agencies are members of the same exclusive club, so they'll support each other's fakery and lies. What would the Russians, Chinese, Indians, etc. gain from exposing the fakery, and what could they offer as proof? If they were able to expose the fakery, it would seriously undermine public trust in authority, so it's in the ruler's advantage to support the myth.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nNyoqsKAsLe7dJs.html For expert british research.

Research has shown flattards are idiots

fair play to you sir :)

....used to since when? Did you school give you that education?

@@narajuna Bro there's no need for insults. This ain't the playground. I was referring to believe conspiracies on the internet.

@@stevengrantofthegiftshop1549 insults? You claim to have been a "Hoaxtard"? And you never seen (real) insults???? Apollo conspiracies are *NOT THE PLAYGROUND???* what shell you crawled under from? No background on this dude, but others all have demeaning introductions, shills start with, as your heroes Mythbusters and Attivissimo.

Halleluja you are saved for god's sake. You see the light now. Halleluja.

The missions were tracked by radioamateurs.

@@quinlan1977 well that settles it.

__ When they didn't get to the moon they had all this failed rocket science to dispose of so they invented leaf blowers. --Thor

Indeed the camera was mounted on the rover. And it was only luck they got it right on the second attempt.

The remote control on the rover camera was operated by a guy in mission control named Ed Fendell. Due to the approximately 2 second delay, Fendell didn't get the first two launches very well (Apollo 15 and 16). He practiced a lot for the final Apollo mission and when it came time for the launch, he got it. Third time's a charm.

@@brabanthallen - That's some fantastic info, thank you!

Sinclair J Lots of photos were not perfectly framed. In fact one of the most iconic photos from Apollo 11 of Alden has the top of the PLSS cut off. Also they practiced with the cameras during all Lunar EVA training. They got pretty good at aiming for the most part. They also used a 60mm lends which on a Hasselblad is a bit of a wide angle lens so that helped in framing the photos as well.

They are good at CGI , kzfaq.info/get/bejne/isWIldOYlprRk4U.html

@@jmatasomo2660 that video is so bad it hurts, literally every point he said is wrong

Between SciManDan, Planorwalk and yourself, sorry for butchering the spellings maybe, I get my fix of outside the US English accents haha.

Yeah, with technology from 2023, not from 1960s technology. Also I'm still sure that their are differences in it, even if they are very small.

The Apollo missions were not "without any accidents". Regardless, Apollo shows what you can achieve if you throw insane amounts of money at a project.

@@maxfan1591 That's why NASA faked it, because it was too hard to do at the time, so they went to plan B. This was not for science & exploration but a show of power purely for political gain.

The Lunar Roving Vehicle - LRV was attached to the right side of the LM looking at it face on. On Apollo 15 you can watch the video of them deploying and setting up the LRV.

There were claims that parts of the crosses disappeared behind objects which would point to the crosses being drawn on after the photo was taken Except this is only ever seen on low resolution versions of the images due to compression, the crosses are all visible in the high resolution scans of the film

Nonsense. Everything was real except the walking on the Moon part. They didn't fake the paper work or the technology.

And.. you know the photo is not a fake because....?

@@jonsmith3945 Because there's no evidence that the picture is a fake.

@@jonsmith3945 it’s like what Jong said. But there is further evidence, the fact that radioactive fallout from the explosion at Chernobyl was found on the hills of northern England, which led to a three month ban on eating beef, lamb and dairy from local farms in the area. With this in mind it wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine that such photographs exist. And furthermore, why would you fake pictures of men on a roof of whom thousands died? The Russians tried to cover up as much of the effects of the Chernobyl accident as possible, which could explain why the Russian soldiers who took over the Chernobyl power plant during the early days of the invasion of Ukraine possessed maps that predated the explosion. They dug trenches in the Red forest, the most contaminated area in the exclusion zone. So again why the photographs? Of course, one could argue that the Russians, who supposedly were involved in the moon fakery from day one, did fake these photographs in order to bolster the idea that it was possible for NASA to take photographs on the moon….?

@@jonsmith3945 Ah, the answer to every conspiracy ---> just keep adding more conspiracy.

@@ReValveiT_01 If you studied the subject, you'd know the real ones are all connected. The rest are 'fake' conspiracies like Flat Earth, promulgated by the Intelligence Agencies to muddy the waters and keep you from examining the real ones like the New World Order, now rebranded as the Great Reset. Yes the real conspiracies run far, far wider and deeper than you can even imagine. But I'd advse you to stay away frrom conspiracy theories. Instead, enjoy your bliss while it lasts.

Apollo 11 took 1409 photos over the course of the entire mission They had 3 cameras & either 8 or 9 film rolls (1 camera with 3 rolls stayed in the CM, 1 with 3 rolls stayed onboard the LM and the rest were the ones to go out on the surface) Each roll was either 160 shots (colour) or 200 shots (if it was a B+W roll) No the cameras were not sealed against dust, only 1 was going outside, for 2 hours, and stayed attached to their chests, and all outside cameras were left on the surface of every mission rather than carry the extra weight home Camera were shot generally at F11 on a 60mm lens, although they would drop to F5.6 when shooting in shadows Shutter was kept at 1/250th (they were told in extreme situations they could go to 1/125th if necessary) Gravity didn't affect the operation, however the lack of atmosphere would normally impact the focus, however the lens used was produced by Zeiss, specifically designed for use on the moon so they accounted for the vacuum problem Hope that helps

@@DaveMcKeegan Thanks for replying!! Did they weigh that much that they needed to leave them? You would think something as valuable as this not meaning the cost but in terms of what they accomplished they would have brought at least the first one home.

@@tsmith3286 In the grand scheme of the Apollo program, the surface cameras were relatively inexpensive and they were never being used again. They had loaded up with over 20kg of moon rock samples, the weight of which had to offset, especially given that the ascent engine wasn't as powerful as the decent stage and if they didn't make orbit then it was game over

@@tsmith3286 "You would think something as valuable as this not meaning the cost but in terms of what they accomplished they would have brought at least the first one home." The rocks collected by the astronauts were many times more valuable than the camera.

A lot of detail on the Apollo photos can be found in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.

Space drones - a.k.a probes, have been back China, Japan & India each set their own probes that examined the landing sites, all 3 acknowledged that there is hardware left on the moon by Apollo and that the landings happened

@@DaveMcKeegan no I really meant a drone like ordinary ppl have, but could go where ordinary ppl can't, to investigate these flag and footprint sites non of us can investigate, because we don't have space equipment. It's alright for ppl to say THEY'VE seen these sites, but we cannot, is my point. China would never confirm USA landings, as they threatened to land there just before lockdown, and NASA panicked :-y

@@finjay21fj So you're completely ignoring what Dave said, as well as the fact that 3 different countries have all photographed the sites and confirmed what's there. Why?

@@critthought2866 maybe I'm wrong, but you asked why. I keep saying that non of us have anything to go on but what we're told, I can't blame anyone for assuming what hey are told is correct as they see it. But we don't see it, we merely hear what ever they tell us. Religious believe "this meat is unclean" all the way to accepting their righteous leaders can freely burn so-called "witches" at the stakes. We were happy to let them do that as we believed the propaganda they told us, we had nothing to go on, we believed what they said, innocent ppl burned. Today we still believe whatever they tell us - from lockdown to "dangerous ecigarettes" to things we can't confirm, like lunar landings. We simply believe what we are told, unquestioning, like willing lambs to the slaughter. Foolish tho it was, we went into not one but TWO world wars, willingly, like lambs to the slaughter. We simply believe what they tell us so willingly - now believe what you want, you'll believe exactly and fully what they tell you, as is their want.

@@finjay21fj Solipsism may be interesting in philosophy, but it's a terrible way to live life.

It also has a much bigger fill light, consisting of _the rest of the lunar surface_ to the left of the image. The Moon's reflectivity is not especially high, around 6% in the mare where Apollo 11 landed, but the area makes up for that.

True but you have to consider how dark those shadows are and the shadow is just a slightly darker ghost of a shadow. This would not happen on Earth in a desert because the atmosphere scatters some light before it bounces off the ground. Another thing that surprised me is the fact that there was so little shadows in the details of the space suit. I would think the light bounced off the surface would create more distinct directional lighting shining up. The fact that it's not there means that the fill light came from light being bounced farther away because of space being open all the way towards the moon's horizon. Also it's possible that there was a slight hill there bouncing the light. Trying to recreate those little details would be very difficult in the studio as the clip from the movie shows. It was so obviously light that was close to the subject. They spent tens of thousands of dollars on the light source but still could not recreate the real thing.

@@fotticelli Tens of thousands of dollars, even in the 1960s is not a lot of money for a project like this. If they were going to try to do what you are claiming they did, they would have spent orders of magnitude more. Even now the technology to do what you are saying they did all but doesn't exist. At that time it straight up simply doesn't exist. So they could only have gotten these shots the simple way. They went to the actual moon.

@@fotticelli What point are you trying to make, exactly? Are you saying you think the landing and the photos were all faked in a studio, because the details in the image don't match _your_ ideas of how the lighting ought to look in a very different environment? Have you considered the possibilty that your ideas about that could be wrong, and that what is in the photo exactly matches what would be seen on the lunar surface because _that is where it was taken?_

@@grantharriman284 They didn't change the emulsion of the materials, they are listing film types that were commercially available at the time. There would be no point, there was no alternative to pig gelatin and three layers of silver halide. Apparently Hasselblad made a film back for them that used 80 mm IMAX type film. Not sure why, probably to have the sprockets. The width of the film that is useable to expose is only 65 mm, not much different from the standard medium format (60 mm). I don't buy the 200 shots on a roll, don't care how thin the substrate was. The standard sizes were 120 (12 pictures with paper backing) and 220 (24 pictures, no paper and thinner plastic substrate). They could do it if they made a bigger back but all the pictures I've seen show the standard sized Hasselblad back. I don't know. I have to read up on it. I used all the types of films mentioned and a similar Hasselblad camera. The one they used Hasselblad EL had electric film advance which was draining the battery like crazy and was not popular. So I'm pretty sure about the film emulsion was the commercially used stuff that Kodak put on different substrate, the film type meaning the IMAX size. Not sure about how thin the substrate was or what frame format they used.

Haha, I think just going to the moon would be easier ;-)

no they don't have to jump anywhere.. they just edit it today.. and say it's an original when it's clearly not. and no one can prove or deny.. same thing with watching a nasa live feed. it's all bullshit cgi animation

and again.. that aren't going to let anyone try to prove it or deny. they'll be quick to call you crazy though.. and argue with you like a bunch of 16 years olds.. lol

image retouching was the term they used in those days. So it was possible. But........ They did land on the mood...... And the earth is a sphere.

@@kylegroenewald8341 Do you want to challenge my story telling capabilities? There are two time machines. One built by Tesla (the man not the car). The other was brought by Little Green Men to area 51.

1) Rover folded up into a box and went into a compartment in the base of the LEM - The LEM was designed with this compartment from the start 2) Only the inner radiation belt is dangerous, they flew around that and stuck to the outer belt 3) They communicated via radio waves - it's how they were still talking to the Voyager probes after they'd left the solar system - and they could do it today if there was anyone on the moon 4) They didn't lose the technology, they lost the ability to make that technology because it's 50 years old - none of the companies that produced the components could easily remake those components today - it would be like phoning Ford and asking them to rebuild an original Model T Yes we have far more advanced technology which is why they've developed a whole new rocket system from scratch based on the new technology

@@DaveMcKeegan 2) they actually didn’t know what was dangerous and what was not. Even today they are trying to assess whether they can cross through safely.

@@DaveMcKeegan 4) again, no one has said this… you are adding a context to the quotes that no one gave. You are literally explaining away with whatever excuse you could think of

They knew because they'd sent Apollo 4 & 6 as unnamed rockets with instruments to measure radiation, way out beyond the belts It wasn't until Apollo 8 that they sent humans out through the belts so they knew how much exposure they would face before the left Today isn't trying to assess if they can pass through safely, Orion is going to hang around in the belts so they can get a measure of weather the craft can protect crew for months at a time

@@DaveMcKeegan again adding context and pretext. Here is the quote: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a7aRipOhtdGshok.html

The problem with that is that parallel rays from a tiny light source would only fall on a tiny spot.

The middle section of this is how it was done for "From the Earth to the Moon". kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g5iTetqG07WwZ3k.html Not sure how you lite this "set". upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/AS17-140-21493%2BAS17-140-21497.jpg

You can just use the actual sun on a sunny day in a roof-less studio that has open walls behind the camera (as to let all the light in)

@@bobsmithinson2050 the “sky” is completely black. That wouldn’t be possible back then and likely not possible today.

The railtrack lines are 100% parallel, you can choose any distance for your light source it does not change the fact when you tilt the plane of the sensor in relation to the plane of the shadows, they will never ever look parallel, no matter how far the Sun is

Technically it was early morning not a day. :P

No. Standing in a shadow would not stop light from the sunlit surface of the Moon all around them from coming into their eyes (or cameras).

George Soros is paying you to leave these false comments

Oh, come on, Eileen. Everyone says that you're paranoid.

Lmao!!! Check my vids out at ironwork92000. I talk about the bs and the holes no one has spoken about about artis and Webb telescope

That's a dumb argument. It's been 50 years since Apollo. Why would you want to reuse 1960s computer technology, or a design made for 1960s manufacturing processes? Adapting the Apollo design for today's tech would cost so much you're better off starting with a clean sheet. Then they were hobbled by political meddling to reuse Shuttle technology. Artemis hasn't failed yet. Its first launch has been postponed, which is not a big deal.

@@h.dejong2531 Oh yeah, in your head they've successfully launched and came back, many times and you've partied with the Astronauts!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@@h.dejong2531 haha what you fail to realize is that their claim is that they cannot remake the technology. Not us being stupid, but NASA being the liars that they've always been. Just getting caught again.

@@cocobeware9442 NASA did not lose the technology to go to the Moon in the sense that it was forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappeared. A lot of the blueprints still exist on file; but the individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost. Most of the engineers and technicians are now retired or dead. And on top of that, much of the equipment is incredibly dated, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better.

Bill Carson: No....if the exposure was adjusted enough to show the stars everything else would have been "bleached out".

Think how dark it needs to be to see stars. On a bright sunny day even if you’re in dark shadow then you still don’t see any stars.

You'll see some of the very bright stars occasionally but not lots If you look at the high resolution copies of the moon photos there are occasional stars which appear

@@DaveMcKeegan I don't think so, Venus does just about manage to appear in some photos. What some think are stars are merely defects in the emulsion appearing as bright specks. I was told that somebody had identified some real stars in photos taken on the surface but I remain doubtful. If you have information confirming real stars (in photos taken from the surface and not from the Apollo 16 UV camera) then I would be very interested.

Have you ever tried to photograph stars? try it. and in space, with sun thats always there? you can only see stars in the morning before sunrise, never afterwards. But like i said, try photgraphing stars when another light source is present. You wont be able to

That’s fine but you know much about night photography with a film camera.

@@CLERIC_58 is your name humorous or are you an actual cleric?

Camera on the lunar rover, remotely triggered from NASA Houston.

That dog loves you very much!

People who know what they are talking about annoy you huh

There is zero credible evidence that Kubrick was involved.

The dust isn't deep. Moon rock has little impact craters, that make it look like a dusty surface even when seeing the rock. Around the little ridge with the flags there is disturbed ground. Behind the flag there are prints, but as the ground slopes, they are not recognizable at this resolution. They are better visible on other pictures though. So nothing surprising is to be found there.

Single, hard edge shadows are physically impossible from close up studio lights Shadows appearing to travel in different directions are perfectly plausible on uneven surfaces 🤦🏻‍♂️

@@DaveMcKeegan The source of the light determines the direction of the shadows, not the shape of the terrain.

Yes the source determines the direction but the terrain determines how the shadows lands - uneven terrain means the light has to travel further to reach some parts than others That coupled with perspective determines how it appears to be cast from the viewers perspective Hence it's possible for shadows from a single light source to appear to travel in varying directions It's not possible in any relm for a single light source to produce single, harsh shadows on an evenly illuminated large area with a light source that is anywhere close to the subjects And it's impossible for multiple lights to have been used yet only produce 1 set of shadows on an evenly lit landscape

@@DaveMcKeegan Terrain may change the size and shape of a shadow, but they should all line up, and consistent with the source of the light. So the shadows might cast longer, but still consistent with the source. On the Moon there is only one light source. So all the shadows must line up with the source, regardless of perspective. Other than the moon, can you please provide a demonstration of what you're trying to say?

@@swervedriver5260 On a sunny day stand in front of an iron fence (or similar) with the sun to your back - the shadows will not appear to run parallel from your standpoint because of the perspective shift