NASA's Moon Mission - Mythbusters - S05 EP02 - Science Documentary

Join Adam, Jamie, and the Mythbusters team as they embark on an epic journey to uncover the truth behind the Apollo moon landing. Were the iconic images and footage shot in a studio, or did NASA truly make history? With over 30 years of special effects experience, Adam and Jamie dissect popular conspiracy theories, analysing photographs, film speed, and vacuum conditions to put these lunar legends to the test. Witness as they recreate a moon landing set, test shadows, and use vacuum chambers to debunk or confirm these out-of-this-world myths. Don't miss this astronomical episode full of revelations!
-------
Join the MythBusters in their thrilling quest to debunk myths, challenge urban legends, and test movie scenes in this action-packed TV series! With hosts Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman leading the charge, buckle up for a wild ride as they employ rigorous scientific methods, high-octane experiments, and jaw-dropping explosions to uncover the truth. From epic car stunts to mind-blowing special effects, witness the power of scientific inquiry as myths are either confirmed or shattered. Get ready for an adrenaline-fueled adventure filled with excitement, humor, and the ultimate quest for knowledge. Tune in now and unlock the secrets behind the myths!
-------
Welcome to Banijay Science, your premier destination for full-length scientific documentaries and intriguing tales from the realms of engineering, technology, and beyond. Banijay Science showcases real-world applications, top-tier documentaries, and award-winning TV shows that engage and enlighten.
Immerse yourself in the captivating world of science and engineering, with content from renowned series like Mythbusters and Abandoned Engineering.
Subscribe to our channel and stay updated with every breakthrough: www.youtube.com/@BanijayScien...
#fulldocumentaries #sciencestories #factual #science #engineering #technology

[@mugogrog]

I think these days what we need is reboot of Mythbusters called Conspiracybusters.

[@ArKritz84]

Very true.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

History is chock full of conspiracies, as are most historical documentaries. The theory part is debatable, but so many are coming true not many are still in the 'theory' stage. But until the clean rocks are explained, without earth weather, it remains a theory with evidence, that it was photographed on earth.

[@petervankas1352]

Well good luck with that. As most conspiracy theories are true. From the hoax 9/11 were luke Skywalker took out the entire twin towers complex, And recently the convid 19 scamdememic. The renamed common cold from the 1960s

[@Mrsevenbear]

the woke dumbasses and our govts. could not survived such a show ..........LOLOL

[@danielmussner]

It is sad that those myths still have to be debunked after more than 6 decades.

[@kevinjhonson5925]

I’m watching this in 2023 and I forgot how good this show was. Look what we have now shows about digging holes and ufos.

[@tomasotreasaigh111]

It really was a great show, the drivel that they have on these days can't come close to the logical and practical scientific approach that this show applied to its subject matter. As the saying goes "You don't miss the water til the well runs dry!"... and the well is bone dry 😅.

[@Michael-mo1lx]

Yes back then this show was the best there was

[@MrLince-hr4of]

lets see if NASA Artemis can land it in 2025 again, if not they never was there or they totaly sux 🤣

[@Michael-mo1lx]

@@MrLince-hr4of good point they need to filmed the vlag to show us 1 and for all we where there

[@fohrum4757]

​@@Michael-mo1lx Lol. As if that would make a difference. Do you honestly believe the moon landing deniers would accept video footage from people they don't already trust. Absolutely not! I wish they would, but they won't. People are too stubborn to admit they were wrong, so I guarantee you if Artemis were to land near any of the Apollo landing sites, the deniers would just call it fake footage anyway. Wouldn't change a single thing 🤷

[@NathanRichHotpot]

It's crazy how back then you could just talk about stuff like this on TV without being canceled and having "Context" crap forced all over your uploads.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

I can't even read my own comments here, youtube are terrified of what I say, like little cockroaches, scuttling away to protect NASA's lies. No First Amendment here!

[@geoffreymarkII]

Crazy, right? It's like people are infantile and incapable of forming their own opinion and thoughts without being told what to think first by some higher authority than their own selves, just insane! Isn't it so???

[@einarbarenholtz5952]

I've never trusted mythbusters since they made a whole episode testing if a daddy long leg had dangerous venom, and throughout the whole episode, they mistook celler spiders for daddy long legs!!! That is absolutely astounding!

[@shanktheglobe954]

because they're lying about the moon landings, why would the government cancel someone that supports their narrative? for example low gravity was simulated using bungee harnesses, not slow motion photography. This whole video is propaganda. Sad that some people still think we landed on the moon.

[@jamiebruvold6105]

I don't trust them what so ever. The way they make the term conspiracy theorist a shameful thing should immediately show a person this is propaganda.

[@The_Joker_]

Still hard to believe grant is dead. R.I.P. buddy. ❤

[@fiveleafcloverfpv4445]

oh. didn't know that. Just searched for it. Very sad.

[@stew6302]

sounds like vax injured

[@MasonTorrey]

@@stew6302 F*** off with your conspiracy theories

[@einarbarenholtz5952]

I've never trusted mythbusters since they made a whole episode testing if a daddy long leg had dangerous venom, and throughout the whole episode, they mistook celler spiders for daddy long legs!!! That is absolutely astounding!

[@MasonTorrey]

@@einarbarenholtz5952 So I can't trust you since at some time or another, you would have made at least one mistake in your life.

[@user-ve5ei2xe8h]

Regarding the footprint: As someone who has been into Tracking for many years I can say: given a substrate of the right grain size / structure you can get very very clear footprints without any moisture present. Just try leaving a footprint in dry campfire ash or cement. Those will be very sharp and visible.

[@Dabeyoun]

Exactly what I thought. The pictures make it look like very fine lunar dust. Never been to the moon, so I can't confirm it is not beach sand. :p

[@aerotube7291]

I didn't see signs of a campfire or construction materials though. That's being silly though! I always felt perhaps the earlier missions garnered up supplies on the moon while the other guys trained for the film shoot

[@aerotube7291]

Jokes

[@Osamabintardin]

​@@aerotube7291moon dust is very similar to cement

[@swingarmer1288]

yeah its called dry portland cement

[@TomKappeln]

My left ear loves this show.

[@TomKappeln]

@@SurfwidowBeaumont : Where is the fun then ?

[@baldurivar]

AirPods

[@authenticnoise9885]

😂😂😂

[@simonilett998]

Select additional settings, then stable audio, seems to fix the issue👍

[@DawnDupponmi]

I deal with Banijay for business. This fuck up is pretty typical for them

[@fredwicks8256]

This Episode blew me away 10 years ago, I didn't know people thought we faked the moon landing at the time. Either I was really naive, or it wasn't as well known, or probably a bit of both. Lol

[@ig2d]

My favourite apollo story is the "argument" between Harold Schmidt and Gene Cernan who both claim to be the last person on the moon. Harold Schmidt, the only civilian to walk on the moon was the last person to climb down from the LEM of Apollo 17 - making him the twelfth and therefore last person to step foot on the moon. When it came to leaving the moon however Schmidt was the first person to climb back into the LEM - leaving Cernan momentarily behind as the last person to stand on the lunar surface 😊

[@mako88sb]

Yes. Definitely Cernan. I read his book and he wouldn’t let Schmitt touch any of the LM’s flight controls. Not even in the simulator.

[@gunternetzer9621]

It's Harrison.

[@gunternetzer9621]

@@mako88sb Dick Gordon his original commander was the same. As test pilots then had enormous egos, it might have been that Cernan didn't want a scientist to show that he could do the same. The astronauts were worried that people would say, 'oh well anyone could do it if they were trained' and it would take some of their lustre away. Schmitt was never fully accepted by them which is a shame as he must have had to bust a gut to keep up with them sufficiently to be chosen for a mission.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@gunternetzer9621 He was the 'geologist' who didn't notice that the rocks he was leaning on, were clean on top, which is impossible in a dust fall zone without weather. But in the Nevada desert, is so ordinary, no one notices..

[@connectthedots5678]

@@G-ra-ha-m They were on the moon and did geo study there. The moonlandings are not faked.

[@headintheclouds999]

Jamie had an especially good mood in this episode and i have to say, its one of their best episodes.

[@aerotube7291]

Yeah I hadn't watched one for years, really enjoyed it

[@Dazza19746]

You would be in a great mood too if you were getting well compensated for selling the lie

[@aerotube7291]

@@Dazza19746 come on old timer they proved it flawlessly didn't they??...(no offence Intended i just grabbed inference from your handle)cheers

[@headintheclouds999]

@@Dazza19746 you know, I won't criticize you on that, even tho I'm highly the opinion that there where no lies sold, even going so far, to call it a giving fact. But, you shall have you pov.

[@ichiroutakashima4503]

I mean, I'm not criticizing you, but I would like you to explain if the Earth is flat, then how come the moon isn't crashing down to Earth? If all planets are flat? @@Dazza19746

[@tiempoespacial6996]

I was on the moon at that time, drinking a beer, and waiting for these guys. They eventually arrived, and we had a drink.

[@acepilot3920]

😂😂 I was riding my unicorn on mars 89 years before.but its true because scientists also believed the convid vaccine was real and safe😂😂😂

[@tiempoespacial6996]

@@acepilot3920 I didn't meet anyone with covid on the moon. Pfizer was not happy, they told me I'm a complotist.

[@Shagnasty1956]

Ahr, so that was you? NASA missed out blending you into the landscape.

[@Shin-nr8ly]

I'm Going Back to the Moon. The Morrow then Again next week

[@Johny40Se7en]

Yeah me too, I was living on moon cheese and crackers for decades. It's absolutely lush, you should try it, just take a chunk out of it 😜🙃

[@captainahab2485]

Pete: right, we’ve got the moon set? Doug: yeah! Pete: astronauts ready to go? Doug: yeah! Pete: they’re about to put the flag in the ground? Doug: yeah! Pete: cool. Doug turn on the big fan in the studio. We need to get that flag blowing! Doug: what?!!!

[@user-ey6rc1uo3i]

The flag one always gets me. Supposedly NASA went to enormous effort to fake the landings - yet at the same time was quite happy to show something that would instantly prove them to be fake - ie the flag being blown around by the wind.

[@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098]

Don't be silly.

[@XtreeM_FaiL]

Fortunatelly that didn't happen because there is no wind in space.

[@madrums007]

He means that the conspiracy theorists are being silly, why would nasa let wind blow in the set, that's just dumb, it it was fake they would make an effort for the flag to be still​@@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098

[@G-ra-ha-m]

They didn't use much effort, actually. That's why there are so many holes in the story.

[@DavidncRobson]

Perhaps that's why they didn't bother to alter that effect because they knew that anyone with any sense would know that the flag would flap around in a vacuum and if it didn't everyone would then know for sure that the footage was faked.

[@ThcLipefe]

Yess, that’s the episode I’ve been waiting for so long to watch

[@einarbarenholtz5952]

I've never trusted mythbusters since they made a whole episode testing if a daddy long leg had dangerous venom, and throughout the whole episode, they mistook celler spiders for daddy long legs!!! That is absolutely astounding!

[@klearviewwindowcleaning8287]

@@einarbarenholtz5952daddy long legs have wings… crane flys

[@biraj047]

Are they showing it can be faked or are they debunking the myth? 😅😅 I believed they went to the moon, so next time when they go light up the flame or something that can be visible from earth while shooting a film on moon. That would be a solid ground truth.

[@hoogmonster]

We at the Flat Cheese Moon Society do declare that it is impossible to land a rocket on a badly made Margerita Pizza in space. It doesn't even have a tomato sauce base, let alone prospects for a moon base. Wake up sheeple!

[@Chakrawat-Pakshii]

Thanks for your presentation! Great.

[@orczy351]

seeing feather and hammer fall at the same time is just amazing

[@G-ra-ha-m]

Metal feather, works on earth too.

[@fabianmckenna8197]

​@@G-ra-ha-mWhaaattt...... a hammer and a feather falling at the same time. In a vacuum chamber yes, but in your house?

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@fabianmckenna8197 Try it: you'll be surprised.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@fabianmckenna8197 It's an experiment you can try at home.. have you?

[@shanktheglobe954]

too bad it was done in a studio.

[@anthonythomas1735]

Second time watching this, I have to refresh my conspiracy busting skills because you never know when an actual "LUNATIC" will pounce!

[@doug8060]

Jamie said it best about conspiracy theories: Conspiracy theorists never ever bother to test their conclusions. That is the biggest difference between science and ignorance.

[@thiemovanbost1589]

you're all ignorant.. and quit dumb.. think about it.. they landed on the moon... with what?? piece of junk wrapped in foil.. With A ROCKET on it.. what does a rocket do .. when it lands.. it makes a mark ... so de f-ing ground should not be smooth.... Jeez .. i got youtube video that proofs its fake.. even voice tapes with hearing in the background now talk in whispers... to make it like they had a slow connection.... the first astronauts of conspiracy were killed ... what more proof do you need and look at the shadows ... muliple light sources ... and the van kuiper belt RADIATION... now they say its unable to go to the moon.. even elon musk says it.. and he wants to go to mars :s and start new life there . radiation gets u killed

[@AdeptusCaeiusIII]

Rare instances occur where they try and are shut down by the feds for nebulous reasons, but by-and-large, he's not wrong. Hell, Bezos and Musk have offered to fly landing deniers TO the moon on their own dimes. Weirdly, they (the deniers, I mean) seem to have other things to do when asked to go on the trip...

[@Arcessitor]

cringe. Tell me, scientist, are their racial differences in IQ? I'll wait.

[@user-zc6kd7un1p]

You don't have to be ignorant to know that the moon landing was FAKE

[@G-ra-ha-m]

Jamie only has to mention that phrase to bolster a flawed argument. The data stands alone, and shows the scam.

[@theem0139]

i miss this show... so glad I can watch it now

[@shanktheglobe954]

why? it's all lies and childish nonsense lol

[@brentg8600]

​@shanktheglobe954 why are you even here then 😒

[@jonathanseddon3816]

Great show - good job!

[@gacattack1234]

This is going to be epic! Not a big possibility but these guys should get back together, minus Grant, RIP, at least on a regular but much reduced schedule, might work. The scale of lighting probably doesn't match sun. Of course if light comes from a single source shadows at two different sides of a photo won't be parallel. In all honesty though, do you think that NASA and Stanley Kubrick, trying to fake the moon landing, would make the amateur mistake of using multiple light sources.

[@matthewlo7868]

I don’t know if THAT will ever happen.. Adam and Jamie aren’t exactly on friendly or speaking terms… Heck, I’m pretty sure they’ve got a beef going.

[@telx2010]

Nasa and Stanley didn't care as the sheeple wouldn't notice.

[@michaelgrey7854]

The mission commander stripes were only used from Apollo 13.

[@flightsimpilot4455]

That was why Buzz Aldrin punched one man in the face when he followed him yelling that they Astronauts were liers. It is painful to risk your life to do something that others downplay or say that you faked it.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

No one gets that angry if they have the truth. There's no need.

[@tommythecat4961]

@@G-ra-ha-m he's a senior and had been harassed for hours by a guy calling him a liar, anyone would have punched him. If he hadn't punched him you'd say "come on, he's been on the moon and doesn't even get angry when questioned? suspicious..." because no evidence is enough for you. Also, who says you don't get angry about the truth? If someone called my mom a whore (which she isn't) they'd get a punch too.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@tommythecat4961 You are making excuses. Rationalising. Maybe he was simply stressed as he was caught in a big lie, that he was unable to expose. He nearly confessed to a little girl.

[@tommythecat4961]

@@G-ra-ha-m yes, rationalizing, because I'm being rational. Also, "nearly" confessed? So he didn't say anything. But it's ok, I know I won't convince you and I'm not trying to, just wanted to point out that suspicions are not the same as proof. The fact you think you wouldn't react to something a certain way doesn't mean everyone is the same. Some people never get angry, others kill over a parking spot dispute.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@tommythecat4961 Find the footage where he talked with the young girl, it's quite touching. I don't blame him, pressure can be applied to the best of men. But they never went, I see that in most of the photos, the evidence is very clear: the photos are from earth, and are impossible on the moon, due to the landscape and the rocks.

[@darren6202]

Never let the truth get in the way of a good 'ole American conspiricy theory!

[@jameshodgkins559]

Yeah like the tax funded CIA murdering JFK

[@carr16k]

The fact mythbusters gave one whole episode's attention to idiots is already something they should be grateful for their whole pathetic lives.

[@iwanttodie2946]

Who hurt you?

[@minttablett780]

😂 whats ur life then?

[@TheSplitMind]

you sound miserable

[@carr16k]

@@minttablett780 hello to real life moon landings denials, triggered you didn't I?

[@carr16k]

@@iwanttodie2946 hello to real life moon landings denials

[@PBMS123]

6:00 It's perspective. They have a spotlight which is NOT parallel light. They have a point source of light, and the shadows appeared parallel. But this is like god rays.... Flat earthers claim the sun is super close because the god rays look like they diverge. God rays are parallel, but because of perspective, i.e. the clouds being close, they look like diverge onto the ground. Same thing happens with train tracks. Train tracks are parallel, yet they appear to converge.

[@aujay]

.....And what is the Sun? .....Forget the fact that the suns light is traveling through space and undergoes no atmospheric refraction(s)!

[@normmcinnis4102]

In a vacuum, propulsion would not work, neither would radio signals be able to transmit. An atmosphere is needed.

[@lukepepper3949]

The moon dust at 1/6th Earth pressure, moves in an entirely different way to on Earth. Hence, even if footage was slowed down, you'd still be unable to replicate that fact. Plus all the hard shadows in every piece of film stay where they should, even whilst traversing by foot or Lunar Rover. There is good footage of the Lunar Rover travelling in 360 degress over a mile with far distant hills, all with the same one light source; no light fall off anywhere in any of the thousands of pics/films. We have footage from over 50,000ft up to landing on the moon with no edit cuts in the analogue film. You'd need one hell of an outside studio to film from that height, with a view of hundred of miles! Every divet, crater and dip, all perfect in the footage/pics, that would later be shot over 40 years later, using hi-res probes from China, India, Japan and the USA. No night-time flying bugs to spoil any shot! Not one word from foreign intelligence aiming to show-up the USA's (with many British staff) achievements....plus actually building Apollo rockets from nearly 3 million working parts, all designed to do what they were created for - going to the moon. We know how far the moon is from us, thanks to 3 seperate laser reflectors left there and we have seismic readings from their scientific equipment that was set up....oh and all 6 landing sights have also been photographed by numerous other countries over the last few years - all as they were, every foot print, lunar track and LM bases. Using 1968/9 to 1972 technology, it would be impossible to fake going there 9 times and landing 6 times - in fact, Hollywood tried to recreate it in a couple of recent movies, using modern tech/CGI and couldn't get it right. Go to 'March to The Moon' website to view thousands of their photographs in massive RAW files. If you were trying to fake something, there'd be a handful of pictures and a few short bits of grainy footage. Or, go to 'Apollo 11 in Real Time' website, to watch the complete journey from lift off to return. Every bit of dialogue, with films/pictures in 'real time' during the mission. (There's also Apollo 13 and the last 17 available)

[@genogenov981]

It’s seems you know a lot can u explain to me how they survived the vast amount of radiation please

[@Gazr965]

They can't.@@genogenov981

[@nevyngould1744]

Re the light in the Aldrin shot, there's also the light reflected by Armstrong's suit, re-reflected by Aldrin's suit back to the camera. Those suits reflect over 90%of the sunlight hitting them.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

But the self cleaning rocks are still a mystery, unless there is weather.

[@connectthedots5678]

@@G-ra-ha-m there is a small atmosphere.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@connectthedots5678 In an exosphere, the gases are so spread out that they rarely collide with one another. They are rather like microscopic cannon balls flying unimpeded on curved, ballistic trajectories and bouncing across the lunar surface. In the moon's atmosphere, there are only 100 molecules per cubic centimeter. Not enough.

[@pjimmbojimmbo1990]

Should have used Talac Powder for the first Boot Print test. Armstrong's Suit didn't have the Red Stripe on the Helmet Cover, Apollo 14 was the first Mission to do so The pic of Aldrin at the Foot of the Ladder, was taken as He came down, he had no dust on his legs, so why did they put dust on the Models The idea of simulating the Lunar Gravity in a Vomit Comet, was great. They also increased the Walkers Mass to what it would be fully Suited. Good Job

[@gunternetzer9621]

They weren't allowed to advertise beer.

[@TheBassgoddess]

Thanks for posting this episode. Would appreciate it if you would add the original air date of the episode in your description.

[@LongWhiteCloudNZ]

If anyone is wondering why NASA doesn't just send a probe to the Moon and photograph the landing sites (all six of them) in order to prove they did, infact, land there, check out the vid I uploaded. It features the images NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission returned back in 2011 when instructed to descend to within 25km of the lunar surface.

[@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098]

Why would they waste money trying to prove the moonlandings to airheads?

[@bnewson33]

Bruce sees all.

[@petetimbrell3527]

Just watched your video. Nice one man. Subbed to your channel on the strength of that. I watched the Apollo 11 landing as a kid. We got up in the middle of the night to watch it here in the uk.

[@LongWhiteCloudNZ]

@@petetimbrell3527 Thanks! Too few people know about the LRO mission and those images it took. Unfortunately, many would say they, too, are just NASA fakes. I also followed the Apollo missions back in the day, which is something I'm truly grateful for, as it was a golden age for space flight.

[@Jan_Strzelecki]

Other countries have also photographed the _Apollo_ landing sites - most recently India.

[@Simmonique]

The images from 1969 showed the astronauts quite fit from such a journey after 8 days, 14 hours, 12 minutes and 30 seconds. Test yourself in weightlessness during that time, drop into the sea in a unit attached to parachutes. Open the door and step into a rubber boat as fit as the astronauts.😉

[@artyerlich3514]

I wonder why others have not travelled to the moon since. Where man goes, others usually follow, but this is not the case since the moon landing despite advancements in science and technology.

[@Ni5ei]

​@@artyerlich3514To do what? Back then it was a race against Russia to get the first man on the moon. We're living in different times now and spending billions just to have a few people risking their lives to hop around there is a waste of time and money.

[@coldicekiller1352]

@@artyerlich3514 but they did, apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 were crewed landings, the reason there hasn't been any landings after that is that there is simply no incentive to do anything besides droned sample taking. much of the push behind the apollo missions was due to the red scare and the constant technological battle between the USSR and the US regarding the use of space and the moon as a weapon, after the collapse of the USSR and the knowledge that anything regarding weapons on space and the moon is far too expensive to be practical world goverments saw no need to spend a massive budget researching the effects of people on the moon. you can actually watch a bunch of JFK calls to James Webb and Nasa to put things into perspective. kzbin.info/www/bejne/roupn4d4iLd-mck

[@Kittenwhisperer24]

@@artyerlich3514because 1) it’s bloody expensive 2) nothing can be done on the moon, no building, no residential buildings etc 3) it was more about beating the soviets and once it was done it was a massive success for the Americans and NASA

[@bnewson33]

Bruce sees all.

[@kevingpotts369]

Fantastic video

[@cometochristtoday]

Another test should have been testing the Hasselblad film cameras in a vacuum with extreme temperatures. I dont think any photos would be clear.

[@nevyngould1744]

They did test the cameras in vacuum, and cold and radiation.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

With radiation too - but ALL the deep blacks are perfect.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@nevyngould1744 Can you prove that?

[@nevyngould1744]

@@G-ra-ha-m In a roundabout way, not in regard to the Hasselblad but an analogue camera and emulsion film use in space... Quote: "Ansco Autoset that John Glenn bought for $40 at a Cocoa Beach, Florida, drug store. Glenn used it to take pictures from orbit on Friendship 7 in February 1962." Those picture came out fine, the Hasselblad was just a more expensive camera, about 400 dollars, and retro fitted with some adaptations, for thick gloves and aiming while wearing a fairly rigid suit. So yeah, tests of the process and technology had been done, in vacuum, radiation, and cold completely off the cuff by an astronaut of his own volition. NASA hadn't even forseen the need or want for photographs before that.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@nevyngould1744 Hmm, your argument is circular, you assume they went, and that proves the film worked in those conditions, so that cannot be used to prove they didn't. The fact the the photos 'came out fine' gives us many many problems: Composition, focus, exposure, exposure dynamic range, radiation, temperature extremes and simple evaporation in a vacuum. Mathematically the probability is earth based photos, which is backed up the the rocks in the photos.

[@Bahamuttone]

That can't be Neil Armstrong suit. On Apollo 11 they did NOT have the red stripe on the commander suit. They started putting them on because it was difficult to identify who was on camera.

[@eskertoo]

He didn't say it was Neil Armstrong's suit.He stated that it was not even a real suit.

[@fabianmckenna8197]

Neil Armstrong's spacesuit is at the National Air and Space Museum and I don't think they'd be happy about loaning it out for experimental science.....

[@LonestarTaoboy]

Busted!

[@Jitendra021984]

I think NASA should send a rover with high resolution cameras to the Apollo landing sites and take some footages and shut the moon landing conspiracy debate once and for all.

[@ArKritz84]

I think NASA shouldn’t blow hundreds of millions (at least) on gathering footage that still won’t convince the tinfoil hatters. It’s not about evidence. There’s plenty of it. It’s about feeling special.

[@MrEjwheeler]

What's wrong with the pictures of the landings sites that we already have from lunar orbiters?

[@rozzgrey801]

No, no-one should concede anything to conspiracy nuts, they ignore and dismiss anything that proves them wrong. They don't really care about truth, it's just an ego-trip for them.

[@motleydude73]

A Japanese Rover in 2010 took a photo of the lunar landscape that exactly matches the Apollo photos.

[@noisyboy7443]

You could send them to the moon and put them on the landing sites, and they would still claim that it was all faked.

[@nettibert]

Great job.

[@KeithApp]

When I was a young kid, there was a woman living over the road called Stella. Her daughter, Lisa married a man called Neil Armstrong. But he wasn't the real Neil Armstrong. He was just a man with the same name. He hasn't actually been to the moon. They named their first son Louis.

[@signalmentor]

Spacecraft from China, India and Japan have also spotted these landing sites, providing further independent verification of the landings.

[@Bonddm2002]

Yet those 3 countries are yet to provide a single image of these alleged sightings!

[@xxisecolo9584]

And Santa Claus will certainly bring you those pictures taken by those countries.

[@aulzhoefer]

Sure they did!

[@icehorns1990]

they all in on it

[@burgess11100]

All it proves is they have landed stuff on the moon, doesnt prove people were on whatever landed.. like the 7 rover's for example

[@yawmonte7707]

We proved the moon landing didn’t occur in a studio by proving it in a studio 😂😂😂

[@javiergilvidal1558]

No. They proved in a studio simulating moon conditions that the landing might have occurred on the moon

[@alerigali]

@@javiergilvidal1558 No, not at all. Specially the photography conditions, they were not replicating what supposedly happened. They didn't bust anything, just adding misinformation to help Nasa

[@Lordwebmerlin]

Another Conspiracy Theorist!

[@alerigali]

@@Lordwebmerlin You spelled realist wrong

[@murph8411]

@@javiergilvidal1558for the photo of the shadows all they had to do was go outside and they’d be able to take a photo with diverging shadows quite easily using only the sun as a light source.

[@petethewrist]

How to win an argument. First start off by saying lots of silly things your opponent never said. Then when pulled change the subject over and over. Lol

[@yassassin6425]

That's online conspiracy theorists for you I'm afraid.

[@daveyjones5702]

even easier way to win an argument: set up a fake opponent who says stupid shit that's easy for you to refute.

[@daveyjones5702]

@@yassassin6425 'conspiracy theorist' is a term made up by the CIA to manipulate the weak minded.

[@petethewrist]

@@daveyjones5702 basically that is what they do. They say people say things when they don't, that let them. Make bull shit videos. But the brain dead believe people did say ridiculous things

[@lenlennox1432]

strawman arguments @@daveyjones5702

[@Lubomir_Drinka]

There were four sources of light sun, earth, moon and the sun shield on lunar modul.

[@ArKritz84]

The astronaut's EVA suits also reflected a considerable amount of light, to the point where there were noticeable hot spots in some close-up photographs.

[@thecritialtruth]

Sun is the only source numnuts, objects in its rays are merely lit up by the sun. are you 12?

[@Lubomir_Drinka]

@@thecritialtruth really, what about night on moon?

[@larsausa3453]

Nope, those aren't sources. They reflect light from the sun. The things you named don't provide light on their own

[@Lubomir_Drinka]

@@larsausa3453 I know and all know, I think english hasn't term for it, has it?

[@Nivola1953]

As Professor Dave pointed out many times, these Flat Earthers / Conspiracy Theorists always think themselves as smarter than rocket scientist and special effects professional, who somehow were so stooopid to miss out on these “obvious flaws”, which their superior skill and intelligence immediately picked up.🙄🤦

[@doug8515]

Flat Earthers? What's that got to do with faking the moon landings? I think you ought to stop believing the bs you read on the internet sonny. Here's a little reality check. The vacuum in space, LEO and the moon is measured in Torrs, go check it out. On Earth it impossible to reach beyond Torr -6 or so, the extreme vacuum of space to check seals/spacesuits etc. In low Earth orbit it's ok, about Torr -6. On the moon it is about Torr -12. Nasa's hand-stitched, zippered holywood space suits would never hold any seal to vacuum. Now go and educate yourself like any who want to REALLY know .

[@jesseakers7298]

I like it when someone like you believes that they know the truth using your limited understanding.

[@midiprog2266]

@@jesseakers7298 No, he doesn't believe that he knows the truth using his understanding. But he *is* capable of accepting this, and therefor he knows the truth by listening to people who *actually do* know the truth. That's a major difference. Are you willing to do the same? Or are you rejecting the truth because you believe that you know an alternative truth simply by using your limited understanding?

[@jesseakers7298]

@@midiprog2266 Someone with limited understanding knows the truth in their hearts and mind. But who knows? Did I really eat Jiffy peanut butter when I was a child? What if we all really live in the matrix? Two people could be on the same earth yet it could be flat for one and round for the other. Both could be truth. I'm the son of a minister and know and have read the story of Adam and Eve and how they were the first man and woman on earth. But that's no longer in the Bible along with my favorite Jeffy peanut butter that never was on this planet. No one can prove we are living in a simulation and no one can prove we aren't. Therefore no one has the facts for us all. My earth is round but I can't speak for everyone. Peace.

[@RoyBenson-is7mu]

​​@@jesseakers7298 I think it was Jiffy. If it was jeffy i would of remembered it since i knew somebody's name as Jeff. Need to see old advertising & older movies.😊.

[@davehoward22]

You wouldn't use 20 odd different men,go half a dozen times,and film thousands of hours of footage if it was a hoax

[@efwaves4665]

Oh no ? Think twice ! Maybe continue to sleep as you did your whole life. But I hope you do your research and stop “believing” things.

[@efwaves4665]

This video is for dummies that believe anything without doing their own research. It’s easier to swallow whatever BS than take time to research and use your brains.

[@antlerr]

​@@efwaves4665right how sad is it that people forget about the Van Allen rad belt, the distance the belt is from us and far away the moon is, and most important how big a single computer system was in that era a entire wall just for one computer nasa mission control would have needed over 30 computers just to run the radio one to send one to receive, one to watch each little thing, the lunar lander was tin and aluminum..... no led no room for one single computer of the day yet people are buying the nasa launch controls computers did all the work and sent wirelessly the signal far beyond are orbit..... when the radios of the time could barely pass 50 yards on earth were forced to buy the entire bs of the moon landing was real...

[@liviuteodorescu2891]

First off all, i love you guys. Second.. im the only one who bearley can hear the narrator? Im watching this on my phone, and for what reason i hear him only on my left speaker.

[@ExperimentIV]

the only thing adam got wrong is that they didn’t add the red stripes to commander suits until apollo 13 (and the first time they were seen on the moon was on apollo 14)

[@ruudbremer]

the audio is not like we are used to. The show is on the right ear and the voice over is on the left ear.

[@uxartmusicvideo-andphotogr2043]

Switch to mono 😅

[@Hevetmusic]

​@@uxartmusicvideo-andphotogr2043I even tried to use earphones, same issue

[@trex0021]

I'm just pretending Robert Lee himself is providing narration from the other side of my loungeroom

[@LonestarTaoboy]

Sounds like another conspiracy to debunk their findings.

[@simonilett998]

Select additional settings, then stable audio, seems to fix the issue👍

[@lu-uf8zj]

very impressed with how thoroughly you tested this and i learned quite a few things I didn't know by watching it.

[@charles_preston]

Obvious bias!

[@uriituw]

@@charles_prestonWhat bias? Be specific.

[@charles_preston]

@@uriituw You can't be serious?

[@uriituw]

@@charles_preston Is that a question?

[@charles_preston]

@@uriituw Correct.

[@automateTec]

The "breeze" theory is said to be flag movement as the astronaut passed close by. If that be the case, it fails to explore the spacesuit itself, with it's own venting, static build up, etc.

[@quails5931]

There’s no air on the moon. The only time a flag moved was when it was being touched.

[@Chakrawat-Pakshii]

We should try to estimate the weight of the fuel + oxidiser together required for the to & pro journey from the Moon and the cylindrical dimensions of the Apollo 11 space craft!

[@KPL400]

history.nasa.gov/alsj/CSM08_LM_&_SLA_Overview_pp61-68.pdf ...your welcome.

[@quails5931]

The descent stage had a propellant mass of 8,200 kg. The ascent stage had a propellant mass of 287 kg

[@nickp4872]

Awesome job guys! 👍

[@zeckham100]

Never trust Americans

[@petersinclair3997]

Communication of the Lunar Landing came through Australian earth stations.

[@tonyzed6831]

Wait... but the pictures should have been upside down then!!!!

[@ThiHambrook]

Great show guys 🎉

[@unclequack5445]

I hated seeing Mythbusters end I loved the show felt like the end of an era.

[@Tyresong]

couldn't you just speed up the frame rates of the original footage and see if the movement looks natural then?

[@ArKritz84]

You can do that right here on yt. There are long, boring videos of the EVA's. Here's a hint, though: it doesn't.

[@Agarwaen]

@@ArKritz84it's quite a bit like 80s cop shows with car chases. you can make a small part of the footage look like it should by speeding it up (ie, make cars appear to be speeding much faster), but nothing else behaves normally.

[@quails5931]

The video camera used on the moon was a slow scan camera with 10 frames per second and low resolution of only 100 lines. Once received on earth, it had to be converted for broadcast to 30 fps with 3:2 pull-down for NTSC and 25 fps for PAL.

[@marc-antoinepelletier4039]

I did remember all the photo remake, but I forgot about the laser experiment. I didn't remember at all when I watched The big bang theory when they redo the experiment (not for real). I can't believe they stole a page for the Mythbuster playbook for that episode.

[@PEACEOFFICERTV]

Yes, I'm being followed by a moonshadow Moonshadow, moonshadow Leaping and hopping on a moonshadow Moonshadow, moonshadow

[@Rain-Dirt]

I just came here to see how Mythbusters would handle the conspiracy-theorist's (ridiculous) claims. I'm fully convinced they could have made the show much shorter, but fo rthe sake of showbusiness, made the episode longer. (... because some people need a longer ramp in order to understand the path of the logic presented. Which simply means 'ignorance'. The word 'ignorance' here is not used in a demonizing way. Nobody knows everything, nor a lot from the start.) I'm glad Mythbusters did this episode tho!! Science ftw! Physics ftw!

[@GrandePunto8V]

Episode just proved that you can shot all this on Earth... So what's "busted" here really?

[@Rain-Dirt]

@@GrandePunto8V Did you even watch it? lol It proves quite the opposite. What we can do today, could not be done back then, cinematics wise. Unless they actually shot on location (the moon).

[@tonyzed6831]

@@GrandePunto8V The episode proved that the "evidence" that conspiracy nuts claim to have can be disproven, that's what this episode does.

[@steveclawson3288]

I was hoping someone would comment that man has been to the moon and found out it's hollow and aliens are based there :P

[@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098]

You just did.

[@steveclawson3288]

whyfiles is fun @@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098

[@G-ra-ha-m]

Perhaps you are unaware, but there is quite a lot of historical writing that we had no moon before about 4039 BC. Perhaps they were mistaken, but there are many such legends. If so, how did it get it's almost perfect orbit and captured rotation, within known human history?

[@gunternetzer9621]

@@G-ra-ha-m The historical history MIGHT be wrong you know.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@gunternetzer9621Multiple ancient records say the same thing, so it's rather better corroborated that your fantasy moon trip. Are you also aware that there's also many writings, in detail, before 713BC of a 360 day solar year, a different pole star and no precession? Have you read the evidence that Velikovsky found, decades ago? Have you wondered why all the wikipedia accountd of the 'building' of the old world structures are bogus? Here's a game for you: Find a nearby beautiful old building - an old station, post office or town hall: Look it up on wikipedia, and then dig for the timescales, logistics, who designed it, where they lives, what else they did, same for the builders who cut the stone - you'll rapidly run into a solid wall of 'no data'. Yes, the gradualism history we are told is a joke, even more so, than the moon trip story.

[@stefanbachrodt7072]

How on earth did you get the copyrights to this!?? 🤯

[@OneElkCrew]

Another thing is that the main rival the soviet union did not object to the landings claim by USA.

[@RickL_was_here]

It actually took them 5 seasons to do this episode???

[@dazzapeacelove1651]

Surely it would be easier now than 55 years ago. There is astronauts saying how we have a challenge getting through radiation belts but I thought they've already gone 😮

[@ArKritz84]

Nope, the technician was saying that the electronics of the Orion spacecraft needed to be tested going through the VABs, seeing as how modern, miniaturized electronics are FAR more susceptible to radiation than the old Apollo era stuff. So this obviously posed a challenge. And then it was successfully tested during Artemis 1 in 2022.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@ArKritz84 But the old film had perfect blacks: no fogging. What type of radiation affects silicon chips but avoids photographic film?

[@gunternetzer9621]

@@G-ra-ha-m The camera film was derived from that used for high-altitude photo reconnaissance, which was designed to withstand temperatures from 490°F down to - 40°F, and it was housed in aluminium magazines covered with reflective passive optical coatings. The radiation exposure level on the Moon from the distance of space was not enough to damage the film. It was much less than that of an airport x-ray machine’s direct radiation from a distance of less than a few feet. It had the same effect equivalent to leaving the film on a shelf for six months on Earth. And, in 1969, film was often left on shelves for far longer in many cases and still used. Furthermore, there are signs of radiation contamination in some of the images, if you look carefully; for example, lines running through the film, bright spots and a decrease in contrast and colour response. These effects are not easily detectable to the untrained eye and without access to the original material.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@gunternetzer9621 Kodak said it was ordinary film, it's in the record. You assertion that there was not enough radiation to cause even a small sign of fogging is circular - it assumes they went. Project Orion says different - they feared the radiation. You are claiming that going to open space for 2 weeks, crossing the radiation belts twice, with film in a regular camera doesn't fog, while a few seconds near a weak medical X-ray machine fogs film completely. Your argument is bizarre and not backed up by any science or data. The photos content show weathered scenes and perfect blacks - solid evidence of earth based photoshoots.

[@gunternetzer9621]

@@G-ra-ha-m You are making it up about Project Orion (they were talking about radiation effects on modern computers) and probably about Kodak too. Either that or they are in error. Their sources on this aren't very reliable - even the project manager didn't have a clue. There is no shielding for ordinary film going through an x-ray machine at that short distance, whereas there was in Apollo at a much greater distance. Low energy electrons were the main ionising particles that the astronauts had to navigate through and not electromagnetic waves e.g. ultraviolet, infrared, gamma etc. Electrons can pass through living tissue without creating much damage as they are very small. The command module’s outer hull was made of stainless steel and the (upper) heat shield from epoxy resin, which along with the fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls was a very effective form of shielding against protonic radiation. To reach the Moon and return safely, the Apollo astronauts had to cross the quarter of a million miles between the Earth and the Moon. They also needed to operate safely while in orbit around the Moon and on the lunar surface. During the Apollo missions, the spacecraft were outside the Earth’s protective magnetosphere for most of their flight. However, they were not exposed to particle radiation for long enough on a short 8-12 day round trip for it to be a significant risk. In 1968 the Russian Zond 5 sent a number of biological samples around the Moon and back, including two turtles and these specimens were recovered alive upon their return to Earth. The astronauts would have been at serious risk of electromagnetic wave radiation from energetic solar flares, however the Apollo flights coincided with the height of the solar cycle, the periodic waxing and waning of activity that occurs every 11 years. The increased strength of the Sun’s magnetic field that permeates the solar system acts like an umbrella, shielding the Earth, Moon and planets and therefore lessening the impact on astronaut radiation doses. That's in the record.

[@greghayes9118]

You win, the conspiracy theory becomes a conspiracy myth.

[@Rutgerman95]

Love Tory's silent "Sweeeet!" at 18:34

[@AntonioRockGP]

Why not point a powerful enough telescope to the moon and see if the stuff left behind is still there?

[@omarmotouy]

The problem is that you dont know anything about telescopes. The telescope that you need to see the stuff on the moon , doesnt exist .

[@AntonioRockGP]

@@omarmotouy you're right. I don't know nothing about telescopes. But now I'm curious! I'll investigate

[@omarmotouy]

@@AntonioRockGP my friend, there are images about the stuff on the moon , but they are satelites images. Search on google.

[@lenm2857]

@@AntonioRockGP You would need a telescope 10 times larger than any on Earth. They have taken pictures of the stuff from Lunar orbit however.

[@LongWhiteCloudNZ]

NASA sent a mapping probe, called Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, to the Moon in 2009, and while there, got the probe to take photos of all SIX landing sites. I have uploaded all of those images, so check them out.

[@1980VINZ]

39:50 This is maybe the coolest thing I’ve seen this year. Reproducing the Moon’s walk (RIP M.J.) and jumps in perfect conditions was absolutely incredible. I cannot imagine the memories Adam got now for the rest of his life……….. He was walking on the moon like Buzz……..!!!! That’s too cool….

[@thegoodguy44]

The year is young my friend…..

[@Countryboy071]

Loved mythbusters

[@philgreen815]

With boot print test? You also have to consider the lesser gravity on the moon. This would cause the boot print to stay in shape, where as on earth gravity may pull the boot print out of shape Slightly ?

[@GALACTUS-WORLD-EATER]

as a sand blaster, I can tell you that when using garnet for blasting, after 4 recycles it becomes so fine in dust that you simply cannot make a boot print.

[@sailorman8668]

The moon's soil (regolith) doesn't have the same molecular composition as fine sand/dust. It's made up of sharp and very adhesive particles, which help to bind it together, allowing the pressure of an astronaut's boot to form a stable imprint.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@sailorman8668 Nice theory, zero evidence.

[@randycarey7487]

your sand blaster is NOT in a vacuume chamber so that means very little boy

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@randycarey7487 If dust can be too fine to hold a footprint on earth (common in Africa along car trails BTW), then in the lunar vacuum it's not going to suddenly start sticking is it?

[@fabianmckenna8197]

​@@G-ra-ha-m Did you actually watch the presentation.......

[@petrucioci07]

To the vacuum chamber technician . So do you know how to use this thing? He's answering.: Ofcourse i use it on the fake lunnar landing recording 😂😂😂

[@derekmccormack5862]

whether you believe the moon landings are real or not , The part that gets me is the statement from NASA why they haven't gone back , the statement "we had the technology but lost it says it all , the moon landing was in 1969 so in reality it's the same as saying we lost the 1920s technology in 1969 and can't do it again , when you look at the electronics alone the who Houston ground base had as much computing power as a modern smart phone , this doesn't mention material engineering and propulsion that we are capable off , could it be the extreme radiation of the Van Allen Belts when you get a bit away from the Protection of the Earth . This is why I question if they did it or not

[@manuell3505]

They never said that. Also, the idea is dumb af. Exactly which technology is lost? Computers or rocket engines?

[@waveygravey9347]

They haven't gone back because there is no reason to go back with humans. A drone is far better.

[@davidpersson4927]

We did lose other technologies as well. Ask Ford if they can build a Model T for you. The knowledge of how to build a Saturn V is lost since no one needed that technology since the demand to go back after Apollo 17. To construct a new moon rocket today requires a complete redesign with the technology of today. We can't use the same Apollo era computers and systems. New computers are more sensitive to the van Allen radiation and have to be tested again. Since the Soviets monitored the moon landings and didn't say anything we have some very reliable witnesses to the landings.

[@ovidius2000]

​@@davidpersson4927RusiaAndUsaAreFriends.SoTheyCoverTheLiesOfEachOther.

[@ovidius2000]

TheyWentToTheMoonButNotWithRockets,ButUfos.

[@nelsonj.tagapulot9384]

Great show

[@matthewsecord7641]

Conspiracy people are all X. Now, the point is that you can't prove they aren't, so its possible. So, replace X with any adjective you like, good or bad. You can't prove a negative argument.

[@Spiderantula]

"The shaft is a little tight in the hole" 😂

[@charles_preston]

Not funny.

[@Spiderantula]

@@charles_preston yes it was.

[@alessandromagatti4863]

inside a space suit the low pressure make u a baloon, thats was proved by Gagarin experience

[@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098]

That's why it is filled with pure oxygen @ 1/5 pressure - to reduce this effect.

[@alessandromagatti4863]

i know but problem still exist

[@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098]

@@alessandromagatti4863 'Problem' was resolved this way.

[@nzfalcon6578]

The footprint test is incorrect .....even though it looks dry the sand there will be a certain amount of moisture in it

[@AsadKhan-kk8ms]

An object in motion stays in motion unless an external force is applied (in a vacuum that is what happens) the flag just moves whichever direction the momentum is in….no wind to stop it

[@G-ra-ha-m]

The flag is not the problem. The rocks in the photos are the problem.

[@Shin-nr8ly]

We want that Old Nasa Clip that Shows a Cable Attached to the Astronaut Flash just he was falling that Clip Caused some Oopsies with nasa back then.

[@G-ra-ha-m]

@@Shin-nr8ly The whole apollo show is just ridiculous, once you can see, it's all amateur hour! What's more concerning is how frightened authority is of people seeing it's fake. Is their crumbling empire really that fragile? I think it is.

[@Shin-nr8ly]

@@G-ra-ha-m Isent that why Thay want to kill of trump he has all those Top Secret documents Thay'll let Him Live Till those Documents are Resecured. News Flash Ex President Trump died from a Unknow heart Issue today the Ex President was know for Up roar in witch his protesters Rioted the Well We all know the rest.

[@polnoeceloe]

46:55 The reflector could have been left on the Moon by an automatic module, without human presence. The Russians did this and received the same signal. You don’t consider the Russian reflector as evidence of the flights of Russian cosmonauts to the Moon, right?

[@podeveloppements3428]

génial !! merci

[@markbongersbongo7758]

For the first test you must use the light of the sun. With a lamp so close, the shadow does indeed go both ways. Yes, right?

[@ArKritz84]

To use the sun, you must go outside.

[@ThePonderi]

Well done.

[@Hunger_Strike_Guy]

Whoever was taking the pictures was reflecting the second light source??! And if you take into account the white suit reflecting the Sun that would illuminate the astronaut to the level of the original photo... I think you missed a bit in the experiment!

[@paulderksen5852]

Just like you missed having some brains 🤔🙄😕

[@robynwatt4291]

Nope.... How did they get through the Van Ellen belt.. They've never been.

[@Agarwaen]

why do you think the VABs even exist?

[@PierreBrandominiBrandomini]

It is Van Allen. And the one who told you about them has laughed at you. Those are belts. you can pass "up" or "down" them and avoid most of them. They are made of particles : a few mm of metal stop them. You really guessed you could be right versus all physicians for 55 years after a video on KZbin ?

[@paulderksen5852]

You mean you've never been 🙄

[@imaok4721]

When the module takes off, it is filmed, back in them days I don't think they had CCD so who went back for the video ? The CCD was still in development... CCD = charged-coupled device

[@marcop1563]

They used SSTV. In the '60s they already had live televison for years.

[@GravityBoy72]

There's a simpler explanation for the shadows which can be demonstrated outside in sunlight - the sun as the light source. The camera itself will do it. There are plenty of examples of it in Google images... trees, posts... the shadows appear to fan out in the pictures.

[@ytfanlingeric]

How about the video that shows the shadow of the astronaut greatly elongates as he comes close to the camera. If the light source is the far away sun then should the length of the shadow stay about the same? Would love to learn the theory behind.

[@GrandePunto8V]

Yeah, they "debunked" only the easiest effects and proved...that you can stage all this on Earth.

[@alexc-man7711]

​@GrandePunto8V exactly. The light source thing proves nothing. It proves that the lighting effects can be replicated in a studio. Therefore, the supposed real moon landing still could have been in a studio. And when you realize this, you have to question the legitimacy of all of their "busts".

[@chtwrone1]

The moon's surface is very undulating, with many little hollows and peaks. When light hits an undulating surface at a sharp angle, as was the case during the time the Apollo 11 mission was on the moon, the length of shadows can elongate or shorten quite significantly - you didn't know this?

[@ytfanlingeric]

@@chtwrone1 Have you seen the video showing the fast changing length of the shadow as the astronaut comes close to the camera?

[@alexc-man7711]

@chtwrone1 that doesn't prove it was real... studio magic. All we see is NASA telling us a story and a video and some audio to go along with it. You can replicate anything with a few camera tricks. They proved that in this video.

[@ebrassy]

I wouldn't want to be in the capsule when they empty it and then have to get out if there are air bottles in it

[@gregorycooper1335]

I think most people would classify that as a plane crash. The landing gear broke, wing and engine partially removed from the plane from impact. Sounds like a crash to me. My take is loss of power, caused a hard landing which severely damaged the plane.

[@bastiaantepaske6756]

12:20 Welp the Red commander stripes were inmplemented on Apollo 13 and onward Neil wouldn't have had those

[@polnoeceloe]

15:41 the light in the photo with the toy is much brighter (the ground is completely white), but the toy is still less lit than in the original photo. If you match the ground to the original photo, the astronaut will turn out much darker. In the original photo, the astronaut’s figure is illuminated much better and evenly over its entire height, but the toy is illuminated worse and unevenly: there is less light at the bottom, more at the top. So, the experiment confirmed doubts

[@secular13]

They should have got in vacuum chamber in the suit, that would be really something😂

[@genogenov981]

I like that

[@socialmeaslesinpartnership1252]

Fun stuff!

[@umerouno3934]

When they flay back to the moon? Need my telescop pre order😊

[@Agarwaen]

artemis 1 already went into lunar orbit. artemis 2 will happen this year or 2025 (manned lunar orbit), with artemis 3 or 4 landing humans on the moon again. and while you will be able to see those crafts in orbit, and doing TLI, you really won't be able to see much more with a telescope.

[@wbjorkman]

Anyone else feel the conspiracy theorists cringing in shame 🤣🤣🤣

[@TrueSlice]

No because the goverment gives you plenty of reason to always be suspicious and it’s good to not be gullible and it’s good to be a complete skeptic I find it more cringe that people just nod there head and agree to everything the goverment say, personally still think they didn’t go, the technology was apparently lost and so many other sketchy reasons, I do think the earth is a globe tho 😂

[@wbjorkman]

@@TrueSlice All governments all over the world lie and are suspicious but that's not the point. Who said I nod my head and agree to everything the government says. That wasn't even the discussion, the theme is around the moon landings and it is a fact we landed on the moon, unless you are claiming that every single space agency on the planet is lying, and all the scientists, and astronuats, etc are also all lying i.e. a huge global lie!

[@uriituw]

I don’t think they cringe or feel shame. Just look at the bullshit conspiracy theorists go on about!

[@uriituw]

⁠@@TrueSlice”…nod there head…” The gullible one here is you. I don’t think you know what skepticism is.

[@TrueSlice]

@@uriituw who says I’m a conspiracy head? I’m just saying I don’t trust anything the goverment say or do.. they are not in our best interest, they only want control and power.. just look at all the censorship that’s happening around the world, and especially in America, there 1st amendment is being breached by there own goverment, freedom of speech is dead, and with everything they do.. I SIMPLY DONT TRUST I stay away from politics.. doesn’t matter who’s in charge the world still runs the same way

[@Floki255]

What is going on with the sound?

[@christianmirto1597]

Ye it sounds weird

[@headintheclouds999]

The narrator is in mono, I guess a bug when loading it up in high definition.

[@uxartmusicvideo-andphotogr2043]

Even on my phone speaker, the narrator is in mono and flat

[@LonestarTaoboy]

Definite proof they did not go to the moon. The audio results prove it.

[@simonilett998]

Select additional settings, then stable audio, seems to fix the narrators volume level👍

[@maticko666]

If you investigating someone, you dont play by their rules with their equpment in their facility. Helps credibility a LOT

[@arg0nnut]

Loved the show, But, All it proved to me is that all of it could (and probably was) be done on earth

[@ArKritz84]

Not to a level that stands up to even the slightest scrutiny, though.

[@bluehorizons2508]

​​​​@@ArKritz84But its only SOMEONE ELSE'S 'proof, huh-huh', anyway, no?.. Means nothing in the minds of those who, totally regardless of such 'proof (huh-huh, again)' can and WILL ignore the FACTS presented to them, and probably just 😉 & say, 'All THAT is good & well, but when you know, you just know [as ME & MY THINKALIKES clearly do], yeah?'... (As in muppet brains WILL ALWAYS be muppet brains!)...

[@Leeuwy]

I think this entire episode is made in a studio

[@charliexxoshauna2159]

What you say us only a theory.it was really made on the moon.

[@samzerafa3185]

Yawwwwwwwwn.....

[@zoewilliams8038]

Probably the same or similar studio to the real thing...