Debunking moon landing conspiracy theories | QI - BBC

[@marycanary86]

the best argument is honestly that the soviet never even bothered to call it fake

[@rumfordc]

because they want to use the same lie against their own people. just like how rival gangs don't publicly expose eachother: they're both trying to avoid bringing attention to themselves.

[@BaeYeou]

​@@rumfordc How does that make any sense though? It would benefit the Soviets greatly to say "we were the first and only genuine cosmonauts, we sent out Yuri Gagarin before your faker Neil Armstrong" rather than weakly admitting that an American was the first one on the moon and even put up a flag of the USA there. It would've been great propaganda for the Soviets, to say that the Apollo 11 moon landing was faked, but they admitted it was real. Wonder what that says about the Statesians who refuse to believe it, despite the hundreds of people involved and all of the people who physically saw the rocket launch and all of the radio signals received from the moon by parties other than NASA.

[@lawrencedoliveiro9104]

They were deadly rivals, and yet they were willing to be co-conspirators to help each other look good. Because that’s how world domination works?

[@Plethorality]

​@@rumfordcparanoia does not make a person special.

[@rumfordc]

@@Plethorality who cares? that is a superficial concern

[@lhfirex]

My favorite conspiracy is the US government tasked Stanley Kubrick with faking the moon landing. He was so dissatisfied trying to create it in a studio that he opted to shoot it on the moon itself for the most accurate depiction possible.

[@1969Kismet]

🤣🤣🤣

[@CraigNiel]

The joke is that he was so dissatisfied that he decided to shoot on location.

[@fiddlecastro1453]

My favourite conspiracy is that steel framed skyscrapers can drop at freefall speed solely due to fire.

[@alexjones1027]

@@CraigNiel The joke is that he was so dissatisfied that he decided to shoot on location.

[@experi-mentalproductions5358]

@@fiddlecastro1453 And planes crashing into them idiot...

[@davidmartin5145]

Worth mentioning that Buzz Aldrin was very polite to that man until the man called him “a liar and a coward” whilst positioning his face within punching distance.

[@davidtomlinson6138]

I'd ve hit him aswell

[@yassassin6425]

Well firstly, Sibrel has a face that everyone would want to punch and the man is such a detestable human being, like Apollo 11, Buzz did it for all humankind. Secondly, having been abused, stalked and harassed for several years, can you really blame him?

[@dogwalker666]

@@yassassin6425 Buzz was a hero going to the moon, And was to be applauded punching that ignorant stalker crazy.

[@papalegba6796]

Worth mentioning that buzz Aldrin was an alcoholic before he was an astronaut. NASA love degenerates 😂

[@SwirlyGTung]

Because if you can't defend your position with words, defend them with violence!

[@JagoHazzard]

The incident of Buzz Aldrin punching a conspiracy theorist is worth watching - it wasn't just that he was tired of these people, but the guy in question (Bart Sibrel) came up, yelling and insulting him while he was with his daughter. I think it was less a case of Aldrin satisfying honour, more self-defence against a guy who appeared to be crazy and possibly violent.

[@egpx]

Woe betide anyone who accuses you Jago of persisting the hoax that Charles Tyson Yerkes existed.

[@loveserendib04]

Ignorance. He was neither crazy or violent.

[@cyberwomble7524]

Oi, stop your dillydallying and get back to Yerkes.

[@BaeYeou]

​@@loveserendib04 OK, but if you're the guardian of a child and someone goes up to you shouting and screaming about the moon, you'd rightfully be concerned over the situation. Those aren't the actions of someone willing to take things slowly and reasonably in the moment.

[@lawrencedoliveiro9104]

The judge certainly seemed to agree with Aldrin.

[@grampsinsl5232]

I watched Apollo 11 take off from Cape Kennedy (as it was then) and so I know that the launch part was absolutely real. There are people (including every last person running the service desk of my local hardware store) who mock me for believing that rockets can work in a vacuum, which they say proves that space flight is impossible, therefore the moon landings couldn't have happened. It's the old nonsense about "there's nothing for the exhaust to push against" and they just laugh if you try to explain about conservation of momentum because "that's book-learning, why would you believe those lies when your own common sense tells you it's wrong, you sheep?" Idiots!

[@entangledmindcells9359]

Just ask them one major technological invention or contribution these science deniers have made in the last 50 years..

[@konaaukai5541]

​​​​@@entangledmindcells9359, what an excellent idea! It baffles me that people can understand the idea of exhaust pushing against something, an idea I've never heard of before, but not basic laws of physics. I struggled so badly in physics in school, but I still understood that bit. "An object at rest will remain at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an unbalanced force," says Newton's first law of motion. How much more is actually needed? Maybe it works a bit differently than I imagine (like I said, I was terrible at physics), but common sense and that law combine to suggest that a rocket relies on the momentum it built up before exiting Earth's atmosphere to sustain flight in space. Even if that's wrong, it's still better than the idea of exhaust pushing on something. Come on, now, guys! (Not you guys of course; the idiot deniers, including the service desk folks)

[@BaeYeou]

My favourite response to conspiracy theorists is to just not take them seriously and toy around with the ever-deepening conspiracy. "Oh, you think the moon landing is fake? You're a sheep, clearly the moon itself is fake!"

[@konaaukai5541]

@@BaeYeou, dude that's amazing 🤣

[@lawrencedoliveiro9104]

The New York Times infamously published an editorial in the early part of the Space Age, claiming that space travel couldn’t possibly work because, in a vacuum, the rockets would have “nothing to push against” (Newton’s Third Law of motion notwithstanding). It was several decades, I think long after the Moon landings, before they published a retraction.

[@ddirtdid]

That's Tremendous, I have always felt compelled to pursue knowledge and power in order to contribute to the betterment of humanity. Been seeking a means to be influential and find out more knowledge about the human race and about the things not everyone is destined to know. I wish to fulfill the goal of enlightenment passed down by our forebears~

[@Margart526]

I can totally relate to your passion, if all that is what you desire then i think it's achievable. Joining the Illuminatus Brotherhood can lead to the enlightenment you seek and more. I am well aware that the idea of this group may sound mythical but it is possible to join.

[@ddirtdid]

@@Margart526 Hi, isn't the brotherhood a myth? I mean sometimes i just feel like it's just a conspiracy theory.

[@Margart526]

@@ddirtdid Yeah I acknowledge that misunderstanding can occur when people encounter what they don't fully grasp, especially in this internet era. The Illuminatus advocates for the acceptance of all religions. You can look up "Anthony Szymon". Will give you clarity and answers to any questions you might have.

[@ddirtdid]

@@Margart526 oh really, i just saw his website, which is interesting. I will leave him a message.

[@nikascupcakebar]

Yeah i do sometimes feel that too, prolly not exactly but i can totally relate.

[@dhbsvszvhsjs8177]

It's simple if Soviets accepted the moon landings it isn't fake.

[@john.premose]

That wouldn't convince a religious nut though. Most people who deny the moon landing are flat earth religious fanatics.

[@Мирич-з4е]

The fake moon landing conspiracy theories began in 1976 by the American, Bill Kaysing. At that time it didn't even cross the mind of the Soviet's that it might be fake.

[@PickeringSamuel]

What about the fact that they wanted to fake landing there too. They couldn't say USA were lying and they were telling the truth.

[@markojotic]

And they had an automated lander that would have picked up a rock and gone back ahead of the Moon landing, it crashed but obviously they were watching and they published a story about the landing in Pravda. BTW the Mythbusters debunked every argument against the landing scientifically, it is amazing to what lengths they went to test everything perfectly.

[@rumfordc]

unless the whole "cold war" narrative was part of the manufacturing

[@nigelliam153]

Half the conspiracy theories say they faked it , the other half say they had to air brush the aliens out of the pictures.

[@LisaAnn777]

The aliens being air brushed is definitely the more interesting theory at least lol I kind of hope that's true 😆

[@jesusramirezromo2037]

I love that some people somehow believe both... That there were real lunar landings, but they were secret and found aliens, and that what we saw was all staged lol

[@treble20]

The fact is that they didn't land on the moon or anywhere near it. They would struggle to get there and back safely with today's technology (see space shuttle disasters some 34 years later). They faked it for two reasons. One - they wanted to beat the Russians. Two - the US Government had invested so much money in the space program that they could not risk failure. So, they filmed it in a studio. Aldrin, was challenged to swear on the Bible (that he had walked on the moon) and punched the guy asking him. If I am right, Neil Armstrong was offered $1000 for his chosen charity if he swore on the Bible. He failed to do it as well. The gormless sheep will believe any nonsense they get told. Case closed.

[@lukeyznaga7627]

there is another group of conspiracy people who say we didn't go to the moon....BUT THE NAZIS DID....! Seriously.

[@jamescameron-clarke2560]

David Mitchell himself did a sketch about faking the moon landing. If you're going to have to launch the massive rocket anyway, then... you might as well just go? Everything else is mainly catering. (That Mitchell and Webb Look - Moon Landing Sketch)

[@jonsmith3945]

Mitchell is wrong. The launch was probably the easiest part of the project. Nazi Von Braun had lots of experience launching rockets.

[@NotJanine777]

Launching a rocket is one thing, going to place that you can’t physically get to is another…

[@treble20]

The fact is that they didn't land on the moon or anywhere near it. They would struggle to get there and back safely with today's technology (see space shuttle disasters some 34 years later). They faked it for two reasons. One - they wanted to beat the Russians. Two - the US Government had invested so much money in the space program that they could not risk failure. So, they filmed it in a studio. Aldrin, was challenged to swear on the Bible (that he had walked on the moon) and punched the guy asking him. If I am right, Neil Armstrong was offered $1000 for his chosen charity if he swore on the Bible. He failed to do it as well. The gormless sheep will believe any nonsense they get told. Case closed.

[@redrick8900]

@@NotJanine777 "going to place that you can’t physically get to" Proven wrong.

[@NotJanine777]

@@redrick8900 proven wrong? Where…?

[@nicholascrow8133]

"We are in trouble as a species if people would refuse to believe in things that they couldn't actually do themselves", wise words, good narrative on the source of pandemics, vaccines, and the entire Trump circus as a whole...

[@hhheidi1121]

Yes well said !!

[@JACKnJESUS]

Exactly...DNC pulls a complete Russian hoax...everyone just goes along with it. Leftists cry about Trump's hate speech...while comparing him to Hitler (an ultimate irony). It does not take much to fool the masses.

[@dogwalker666]

​@@JACKnJESUS Trump thought the moon landings were fake, The orange orangutan was the worst president in history, And a horrible person. Oh and his boyfriend Putin invaded Ukraine and is threatening the world.

[@dogwalker666]

Moon landings deniers are very low intelligence individuals, And so arrogant with their ignorance, Everything they claim has been debunked millions of times.

[@CB-xr1eg]

"the whole Trump circus as a whole". Excellent use of the English language. Stephen Fry would commend you for that.

[@katlehoyantlheptyltd7648]

The Soviets in 1969: How the hell did Americans land on the moon?! American scientists in 2021: How the hell can we land on the moon?!

[@yassassin6425]

They knew and know exactly how it was done. The objective today is to achieve it with modern technologies.

[@eventcone]

@@yassassin6425 And the challenge is for a new generation of astronauts and engineers to achieve it, at a fraction of the rate of funding that Apollo had.

[@Arch009]

@@eventcone Not just that, while the apollo missions PUT us on the moon for exploration, the new space programs will try to make us ESTABLISHED on the moon (eg with a colony)... in this century. So, the focus of the missions is going to be different as well...

[@modjohnsenglishdisco]

Stephen finally correctly says Moon landings in the plural. There were 6 of them. A fact that experts who have done their own research seem to overlook. My favorite comeback from a conspiracy-addled friend was, "The *first* one was fake! It was a rehearsal!" His puzzled look indicated he hadn't heard about the others.

[@hairylittlewombat]

My favourite conspiracy theory is the lunar module was made from curtain rods and tin foil. Oh, wait...

[@yassassin6425]

...you think that it was?

[@hairylittlewombat]

@@yassassin6425 Well, I've seen more convincing school projects.

[@yassassin6425]

@@hairylittlewombat Have you? So you, like the entire field of aerospace engineering worldwide, are fully familiar with the schematics and the technical specifications of the lunar module - and despite forensic scrutiny of every nut, bolt, switch, rivet, wire, circuit, and finding no anomalies or irregularities whatsoever, you however are "not convinced". Perhaps you should point out what they've been missing for over half a century? - and don't forget to mention that the University of You Tube sent you. Alternatively, is it just possible, that there are people on the planet that have greater expertise, knowledge and insight than a random, non-achieving gullible, Dunning Kruger afflicted conspiracy believer on the comments section of a video entertainment platform? Just a thought.

[@hairylittlewombat]

@@yassassin6425 Don't waste your words on me, mate. Save it for the fanboys.

[@yassassin6425]

@@hairylittlewombat You mean other equally dim conspiracy believers?

[@martinwood744]

If they really went to the moon, how come their boots weren't caked in cheese?

[@cosmicdebris2223]

they missed out another important one, and that was the fact that many countries, including the Soviets, were tracking the conversations on the way, whilst up there and on the way back... and they all had to point their directional antennas in the right direction AND to the moon in order to be ABLE to eavesdrop them.

[@Vanit1]

RIP Sean Locke :(

[@wisteela]

Also amateur radio operators were able to listen to the communications.

[@peterbarton9856]

Yep, thousands of them, in fact. Also, an independent radio dish was used in Australia to help NASA/Apollo with communications.

[@pasisovi]

Why not, NASA sow people might have broadcasted on the wave air - there was no internet to spread the lies, like today

[@derp8575]

That's like saying "I saw it on the tell-a-vision, therefore it must be true"

[@wisteela]

@@derp8575 No it isn't.

[@derp8575]

True or false: The government can lie over radio waves? God y'all are stupid. @@wisteela

[@Dragonfly-0010]

Conspiracy theorists are just stoners with too much time on their hands.

[@rumfordc]

yes, not like the rest of us intellectual youtube watchers.

[@john.premose]

No they are religious zealots who can't stand that things exist that aren't in the bible

[@BaeYeou]

Conspiracy theorists are paranoid people with no faith in the scientific process it seems.

[@BaeYeou]

​@@rumfordc Also, who said we were intellectual? It doesn't take brains to look at someone who's spent their entire life dedicated to one thing and go "ah, they must know quite a bit about that one thing". To do otherwise would be like not trusting a professional chef to cook something for you, despite their years of experience.

[@rumfordc]

@@BaeYeou indeed my fellow believer 🔎 who said that? these are the important matters we should be questioning, rather than moon landings and war and such. we should consult with a professional who-said-that-ologist, to be safe.

[@tjjones621]

Confusion about space and a general mistrust of anything government is a symptom of an indoctrinated mind, usually because of falling for the flatearth prank.

[@papalegba6796]

Ok ChatGPT guy 😂

[@tjjones621]

@@papalegba6796 Ah, I see my proof has arrived...

[@papalegba6796]

Laws of thermodynamics prove its all fake. You're not programmed to understand them 😂

[@tjjones621]

@@papalegba6796 Do you always comment to yourself?

[@papalegba6796]

Do you always like your own comments? 😂

[@NocturnalRS]

How did they record the footage of the lander taking off?

[@Mark-Stone]

Ask yourself how those Ring doorbells can see who’s at the door, and send the video feed to a mobile in another country, then feel embarrassed that you asked such an obvious question.

[@marksprague1280]

The camera was operated by R. E. Mote, the cousin of the well known Kilroy of WWII fame. Like his illustrious cousin, he's been everywhere, at the bottom of the ocean, inside nuclear reactors, driven on the Moon and on Mars, flown by the outer planets and out of the solar system. He operated the camera to film the takeoff of Apollos 15, 16, & 17, under the direction of Ed Fendell who was in Houston.

[@mehallica666]

The camera on the lunar rover. The first ones weren't recorded.

[@inlee99]

You made a vary valid point but are getting stupid answers as I see.

[@Mark-Stone]

@@inlee99 you think it was a “valid point”? Well then you’re as wilfully ignorant they are. How pitiful.

[@maxmight9533]

Why did the moon rocks test as petrified wood?

[@marksprague1280]

Yawn. More nonsense from the Landing Denial Cult. Here's the actual story of your "petrified wood", all of which can be verified with a little effort. In 1969, US Ambassador J. William Middendorf II gave a specimen of petrified wood to former Dutch Prime Minister Willem Drees Jr. This was a personal gift, not an official act of the US government. In 1970, the Nixon Administration presented the Dutch government with samples of lunar rock and a small Dutch flag that had been carried on the Apollo 11 mission. These were housed in the Rijksmuseum Boerhaave (Dutch National Museum for the History of Science and Medicine) located in the city of Leiden. When Drees died in 1988, the sample of petrified wood was donated to the Rijksmuseum (Dutch Museum of Arts and History) in Amsterdam. (Note the different city and museum.) The curators there failed to do their due diligence, and the petrified wood was labeled as a moon rock. When the error was discovered in 2009, most of the news media jumped on the story without any background investigation. The conspiracy nuts all seized upon this tale, because it fit so neatly into their collective paranoia. Today, if you go to the Rijksmuseum Boerhaave in Leiden, you can still see the actual lunar rocks, right where they have been since 1970.

[@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth]

None ever did. Take care.

[@maxmight9533]

@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth 🤣😂

[@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth]

​@@maxmight9533 Are you now laughing at your own ignorance? Over 400 lunar rock and soil samples are released for research purposes from the Johnson Space Centre annually. To date thousands of scientist of one type or another have examined them and their lunar origin is not in doubt. Are you jus making stuff up or have you just gullibly swallowed conspiracy nonsense? Take care.

[@gives_bad_advice]

So you believe that of all Earth rocks NASA could have chosen to pass off as moon rocks, they chose pet the fried wood? Does that make sense to you?

[@christianneathey7403]

Facebook will not allow you to share this link. Now that is the proper conspiracy

[@morningstar5177]

It looks like a fake is a fake.

[@marksprague1280]

Let me guess. Your language skills advanced beyond grunts, howls, and squeals just last week.

[@papalegba6796]

@@marksprague1280 let me guess. You're a chatbot 😂

[@Ruda-n4h]

Looks fake as opposed to what? The Millennium Falcon and Starship Enterprise were fictitious.

[@BadAtTeaDude]

Gus Grissom. Hero Truth teller

[@yassassin6425]

Are you lonely?

[@mike.j3913]

Facts ! Gus Grissom and Thomas Baron are heros

[@jodybranson925]

my father worked for NASA in the 60s and 70s he always said, "if the moon landings were faked they would have looked better !"

[@Dontbeasheep33]

Nonsense.

[@princess_zemirah213]

@@Dontbeasheep33exactly 😂😂😂 his/father just didn’t wanna mess up his paycheck from them lol

[@Dontbeasheep33]

@@jodybranson925 did you not see the movies in the 60’s 😂😂😂

[@N0mad1600]

It seems silly that such videos need to be made, but thank you Stephen

[@derp8575]

Or we could just go back.

[@Ruda-n4h]

@@derp8575 'I can tell you nobody's going back to the Moon except for commercial reasons.' 1998. Pete Conrad, Commander Apollo 12. They're getting round to it 25 years later.

[@derp8575]

@@Ruda-n4h He forgot to tell Artemis. Enough excuses.

[@Ruda-n4h]

@@derp8575 That's recently been.

[@TeW33zy]

I didn’t believe it until I became an engineer.

[@martina3890]

Scuba divers carry two big tanks of air, which I suppose lasts an hour? The astronauts have one small tank of air in their back packs which seems to last for multiple hours. The suit air conditioning system is also in the back pack and removes the heat from the astronauts. On Earth AC systems must transfer heat build up to the atmosphere/air, eventually. There is no atmosphere on the moon and it gets really hot there. The backpack also has a small battery that is supposed to run all this stuff. Ever leave you car radio on for a couple of hours and see what happens? A 1960's battery?

[@marksprague1280]

Don't confuse the open cycle SCUBA system with the closed cycle systems used on nuclear submarines and spacecraft. In an open cycle system, every lungfull of air is exhausted when exhaled. In closed cycle systems the carbon dioxide is scrubbed out of the air and oxygen is added to make up the loss. In Apollo, the oxygen was stored is a liquid in two tanks. It was the explosion of one of these tanks that crippled Apollo 13.

[@marcmonnerat4850]

EVA duration: 2h30

[@marksprague1280]

@@martina3890 Don't confuse the open-cycle SCUBA system used by divers with the closed-cycle system used in spacecraft and modern submarines. With the open-cycle system SCUBA, every lung full of air that the diver exhales is discarded. In a closed-cycle system, the exhaled air is scrubbed to remove the carbon dioxide and enough oxygen is added to make up the loss. Since the oxygen used in each breath is only about 5% of what is inhaled, you can see why the open-cycle systems require such huge tanks. The batteries used in the Apollo spacecraft were silver-zink batteries with a cost of about $600,000. These were NOT the batteries that started your grandfather's car.

[@Scully-js4rk]

The astro nots did not go to the Moon. There is so much evidence and yours is one of many.

[@Ruda-n4h]

In a scuba every lung full of air is thrown away with each exhalation and must be replenished from a tank of compressed air. Apollo used a rebreather system similar to that used in nuclear submarines where the carbon dioxide is chemically scrubbed out of the air and pure oxygen is added from storage tanks. In the spacecraft the oxygen is stored in liquid form, allowing tremendous amounts to be stored in a small volume. Water from a tank in the backpack flowed through the Liquid Cooled Garment (a web of fine tubing within the spacesuit) into a heat exchanger and then out through tiny pores in a metal sublimator plate (turning from a solid directly into a gas) where it was exposed to the vacuum of space. The consequent pressure drop froze the water, forming a layer of ice on the outside of the plate. Once the water left under the plate cooled to a user-comfortable temperature, it was returned to the LCG and the water in the plate would re-freeze, sealing the plate and stopping the cooling process. Thus, heat rejection with automatic temperature control was accomplished with no sensors or moving parts to malfunction. 12lb of feedwater gave about eight hours of cooling. 279 Watt-hour and 390 Watt-hour silver-zinc batteries were used for the backpacks for the early and later missions, respectively. The design goal for the PLSS was to minimize power requirements, including the life support, communications, telemetry and controls and displays. With the limits put on EVA time, the batteries had sufficient power for each EVA.

[@Tsunami_Japan_]

A signal would take a bit more than 1 second from moon to the Earth! Then the signal would take a bit more than 1 second from the Earth to the moon! That's a scientific fact! So everything was filmed in Hollywood.

[@SelwynRewes]

There would be no delay to the response of the receiver if the recording was made at one location..that is a scientific fact ..so you are definitely an idiot...

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

As has been pointed out, the recording was made from the mission control side of the conversation, so when the astronauts speak, by the time it is recorded at mission control, it is ALREADY delayed. Then mission control will respond as though they are talking to a person standing right next to them. So there is no delay between the astronauts addresses to mission control and mission control's responses back to the astronauts. There IS a delay between missions control's addresses to the astronauts and the response making it back from the astronauts, and if you listen to the raw and unedited transmissions, that delay is ABSOLUTELY there.

[@Ruda-n4h]

The broadcast signal was 325 lines at 10 frames per second. Radio waves travel perpetually in space, so the 238,000 miles distance to the Moon is tiny compared to Voyager 1's 14 billion miles, which is still broadcasting a signal back to Earth but with a 22+ hr delay. The delay from the Moon and back is only 1.33 seconds.

[@BlackPrimeMinister]

Same people who say Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman.

[@WilliamMann-co8un]

The dickens you say!!!! You have stats to say that. So what has you convinced that Apollo did not happen as told? Also one conspiracy theory at a time. Apples and oranges.

[@BlackPrimeMinister]

@@WilliamMann-co8un Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic in 1927. 12 years later, commercial flights. It was expensive and dangerous, then becomes cheap, safe, commoditised. Nothing escapes this trajectory under capitalism. Look at Everest? The same. Once it took Herculean effort. Today? It's a tourist day-trip. Apollo 11 reaches the moon in 1969. Over 50(!!!) years later: nothing. Not a peep - just bull💩and false promises. Wouldn't you like to go to the moon? Whiz around the Dark Side, like Apollo 8? It should be possible today for the price of a trip to the Bahamas; market demand would be off the charts. This unexplained gap is the smoking gun; the detail hardly matters. Bottom line: the critics are rational and the besmirching by those who should know better is a simple clinging to sacred cows.

[@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth]

@@BlackPrimeMinister So any actual evidence to back up your personal incredulity? Take care.

[@yassassin6425]

@@BlackPrimeMinister Sending humans to the moon is not comparable to anything that you mention in terms of both risk and cost. And no, summiting Everest is not a tourist-day trip. I assume you mean visiting base camp, which is also a substantial trek. How is that analogous to placing a manned vessel on the moon ffs?

[@BlackPrimeMinister]

​@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth Your question is not reasonable, because you ask for too-high a burden of proof from a man sitting behind a desk with no access to classified documents. The fact that nobody has returned, nor is close to returning more than fifty years later - roughly the same timeframe between the Wright Brothers first flight at Kittyhawk and Apollo 11 - is damning. Technological processes don't work like that. Moore's Law is inescapable. Your car has internal heating and GPS today whereas it didn't in 1969. Questions for you to answer, kind Sir!

[@VanessaMagick]

I mean... atop 3000 tons of rocket fuel, where else could they have been heading when they blasted a bunch of astronauts into space? Frankly I think the moon is probably the most believable destination.

[@rowen7643]

Why is it then that we can’t go back to the moon rn ??????

[@papalegba6796]

3000 ton rocket? Impossible but ok chatbot 😂

[@tweakernation]

@@rowen7643 Artemis 2 mission launches next year to have a manned flyby of the Moon, then Artemis 3 takes place the year after for a manned landing.

[@ataxpayer723]

@@rowen7643 Uber is planning trips to the moon.

[@josephwhite519]

Mars. They faked the moon landing...on Mars.

[@J.L.Media.]

My favorite part of this is David’s sincere disappointment at those figures. He encapsulates my own feelings on the subject.

[@piplee1439]

So you’re vaccinated ( faux) I take it?

[@tjjones621]

@@piplee1439 Ask dead skiba about vaccines...

[@paintltbiack2780]

exactly. it blows my mind hearing people and even some friends say they believe the moon landing is fake. and they are educated people but how can they believe it is fake?! one even suggested the did launch the rocket with the astronauts but they came back without setting a foot on the moon and possibly aliens had something to do with it. thats not a joke! he is serious about it!

[@KH4444444444N]

Agreed.

[@jonsmith3945]

A shame that more people haven't caught on to the ruse.

[@superkoopa3695]

One of the best explanations of the moon landing being real because all the conspiracy theorists were taught when they were stranded on an island and they went mentally insane.

[@happycamper8809]

Explain how they went through the van Allen Belts unscathed?

[@williammann9176]

The radiation has become such a big bugaboo when really it was not that much of a challenge. There is a lot of documentation about how Apollo went through the belts. I would also suggest looking up the comments from Dr. James Van Allen. Yes that Dr. James Van Allen, the Van Allen the belts are named after. Read what he had to say about Apollo going through the belts named after him. That it was not an issue for Apollo.

[@eventcone]

Explain why they would not have done.

[@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth]

Explain why you believe NASA and Dr. James Van Allen when they tell you that these belts exist?

[@travisn346]

​@@williammann9176why is Artemis sending Mannequins to test radiation levels if it's no concern? If the suits from Apollo worked, why was Artemis delayed for not having functional suits?

[@WilliamMann-co8un]

@@travisn346 Valid question. The answer is at your fingertips. Yes Artemis 1 used mannequins to test protective gear. No Apollo mission lasted longer than 12 days. For that amount of time Apollo had all the protection is needed. Most Artemis missions are going to be a lot longer. For that it is felt the radiation protection needs to be upped for Orion. The depay of Artemis 2 has nothing to do with radiation. It is to redesign improvements into the heat shield mainly. The answer to your questions are literally at your fingertips.

[@Par590ty42]

There were six manned moon landings (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17), not just one. Each mission brought a different pair of astronauts to the lunar surface; each mission required the launch of a huge and very expensive non-reusable and impossible-to-fake Saturn V rocket; each mission placed scientific instruments along the lunar surface and brought back to Earth ever-increasing quantities of lunar rocks; each mission was covered by the media and could be monitored from the ground by independent observatories and radio amateurs, including the Soviet ones. This is enough to close the debate and understand, once and for all, that man really went to the moon.

[@marksprague1280]

Where did you get the silly idea that Flat Earthers, Bible Thumpers, or members of the Landing Denial Cult are rational?

[@marksprague1280]

@@viclimited9081 List some of your "evidence". Crickets.

[@Par590ty42]

@@viclimited9081 My point is, if they really faked Apollo 11, why the heck would they make the same hoax for others five times? It doesn't make any sense: they would only needlessly increase the risk of being discovered. And why did they fake even a failed mission like the Apollo 13? Even this doesn't make any sense! And what about all the preparatory missions before the landing? There were Apollo 8 and 10, which sent astronauts around the moon; Apollo 9 and 5, which tested the Lunar Module in Earth orbit; Apollo 7 that tested the CSM; and Apollo 4 and 6 that tested the Saturn V. Not to mention all the missions of the Mercury and Gemini programs. When exactly would the real missions end and the hoax begin? Even better question: why would they make all these preparatory missions if the moon landing really was all fake? No conspiratorial theorist can ever answer that. Can you answer that?

[@solryder7131]

Yes. Neil himself said you can’t get past the ferment

[@marksprague1280]

@@solryder7131 Source? Of course not. Just another pathetic lie.

[@seamusblack5876]

People say the light in the photographs is at the wrong angle for the Sun rays but they forget that the actual spacecraft might have had artificial spot lights

[@jonsmith3945]

According to NASA, no extra lighting was there.

[@johnkean6852]

Aldrin has admitted on 2 occasions since: "We never went."

[@marksprague1280]

Source??? Of course not. What was I thinking? You freaks never have sources or proof.

[@randyschissler5791]

No, he never did. Looks like you got fooled, not once, but twice.

[@derp8575]

Liar! He did say it. @@randyschissler5791

[@treble20]

He assaulted one guy for asking him to swear on the Bible (that he had walked on the moon). Neil Armstrong was offered $1000 to go to his chosen charity if he swore on the Bible. He failed to do it as well. The gormless sheep will believe any nonsense they are told. It was filmed in a studio. Case closed.

[@redrick8900]

You admitted on 50 occasions that you made that up.

[@les2935]

During WW2 if the French resistance could only use a radio for more then a couple of minutes or the Germans would locate it. I think the Russians would be smart enough to tell whether the video broadcast was coming from a film studio in Texas or the moon.

[@marksprague1280]

You don't even need RDF. Just pay attention to the periods when you can hear the telemetry and when you can't. If the moon is in the sky and you can't hear the telemetry, they're in orbit. If the active and inactive periods coincide with the moon, they're on the moon or approaching it.

[@MartinA-kp8xg]

All of the signals were sent from a ground relay station. None were received direct even the control center were receiving only from this relay. Easy to check this. The aledged direct signal from the moon to the relay station was strangely not detected by anyone, strange isn't it

[@marksprague1280]

@@MartinA-kp8xg Do you really think that a directional antenna can't tell the difference between a transmitter on the ground and one in orbit or on the moon?

[@MartinA-kp8xg]

@@marksprague1280 did I say it couldn't . Those are your words not mine. It was not hidden by the way just in case you didn't know. It was not a secret that there was a relay station, you act as though you thought it was.

[@marksprague1280]

@@MartinA-kp8xg I don't know why you have to lie so stupidly.. The direct signal from the moon was received by many, both other governments and civilians.

[@voxelvoid]

I didn't know Melchett got his own tv show, nice

[@outlawbillionairez9780]

Zontar here... Yes, believe talking humans. Many humans on your Moon. Not staged. Thank you. We come in peace 🕊️. Tuesday.

[@dsmyify]

Kneel before Zontar!

[@kirbyhans5261]

Thank you Zontar , we await your arrival 😁

[@jaffaxl]

Monday Vercelli bunking

[@hoatzen7887]

hearing these men try to sound intelligent is like nails on the chalkboard

[@yassassin6425]

I assure you, the combined IQ on that panel is an order of magnitude higher than your own shoe size/room temperature figure. What is "nails on the chalkboard" is hearing intelligent individuals challenge the crap online junk sold to you by dumb internet grifters and conspiracy theorists that tell you what to think about a subject you have absolutely zero knowledge of whatsoever.

[@redrick8900]

They sound like people of average intelligence. That's just smart compared to you.

[@SgtHawk13]

u play games and watch cartoons... but wont belive real scientists and engineers. LMAOOOOO.. my godness the world is ffd

[@SgtHawk13]

keep being a no life watchnng cartoons and video games LMAO loner

[@vandreren4290]

Only brainwashed normies believe we landed on the moon.

[@ApolloKid1961]

@GutLordLarry Why would you need a lot of fuel in space? A push and you'll keep moving forever. There are no documents lost at all. Where do you get this nonsense from?

[@marksprague1280]

Perhaps you can find an engineer or a scientist who will agree that the landings were fake. But don't hold your breath while you're looking.

[@pasisovi]

A current domestic toaster has more computer power than Apollo!

[@yassassin6425]

No it doesn't. Did the ludicrous Apollo Detectives tell you that or Bart Sibrel? The AGC was very compact and a brilliant piece of kit. What you people fail to understand is the fact that it was purpose-built, and did what was required incredibly well. It also could handle overloads by resetting itself without losing the instruction stack it had which was prewritten onto rope core memory, and would re prioritise those commands on the fly. IBM engineers also developed the mini integrated circuits that meant computers could be small enough to fit inside a rocket or spacecraft. It was a brilliant piece of technology for the time. You also likely had no idea that this was supported on the ground by the Real-Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which was an IBM computing and data processing system at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston. It collected, processed and sent to Mission Control the information needed to direct every phase of an Apollo/Saturn mission. It computed what the space vehicle was doing and compared that with what it should be doing. RTCC worked in real-time -- so fast, there was virtually no time between receiving and solving a computing problem. IBM 7094-11 computers were used in the RTCC during NASA's Gemini program and on the first three Apollo/Saturn missions. Later, IBM System/360 Model 75J mainframes, plus peripheral storage and processing equipment, were employed. Two computers were used during a mission: one was primary; the other operated identically but as standby. Why are you making what you assume to be authoritative comments about subjects that you have no knowledge of whatsoever?

[@pajanightbadger1713]

@@yassassin6425 Are you being paid to do this or did they find your porn stash and blackmail you? Those are the only 2 options, unless you're hopelessly in denial

[@yassassin6425]

@@pajanightbadger1713 Who precisely are "they". And do you also believe that the Apollo AGC in addition to the RTCC IBM System/360 Model 75J mainframes are comparable to a domestic toaster? Righto then. Wait you mean I can actually derive an income from humiliating you goons? Where do I sign and how do I claim my arrears?

[@pajanightbadger1713]

@@yassassin6425 What did your father teach you about lying?

[@yassassin6425]

@@pajanightbadger1713 What did your Father teach you about anything? Lying? Then you'll have no problem demonstrating where. Go ahead. Do you also think that at domestic toaster has more computer power than the Apollo AGC and RTC?

[@peterdavidallison]

Sean never got to go to the moon and meet the Soup Dragon.

[@lukeyznaga7627]

Excellent quote from the comedian who wears the white shirt on the RIGHT of screen. "we are in trouble as a civilization if people don't actually believe things that they can't do themselves." If they could do it, then they believe. wow.

[@uncletimo6059]

"Why do people doubt the moon landings?" Because they are not gullible idiots. Next question, please.

[@yassassin6425]

Said the online conspiracy believer.

[@TexMex421]

Because they are not gullible idiots? But they did believe the 3 YT videos they saw claiming it was fake.

[@beans9288]

@@TexMex421Fr. Guy I know saw one video and has started telling everyone he knows about this shit. Infuriatingly dumb

[@Ruda-n4h]

Because they are totally ignorant of science, and the procedures and equipment used. They just make a series of conjectures and assumptions that have no basis in scientific or historical fact. There are three types of conspiracy theorist: Type 1 do not know much about science or the subject but when presented with scientific fact and evidence, can be reasoned with. Type 2 just aren’t very bright; they can’t work out who held a camera and why an astronaut looks bored at a press conference, and are easily taken in. Type 3 like to think that they have some sort of special insight that experts don’t have, and whatever evidence you present to them they will just dismiss it as impossible or lies, and the more you argue with them the more entrenched their views become, because for them it is a matter of belief. I also suspect that a lot of this type know that the moon landings were real but get a perverse pleasure out of being bloody minded.

[@jonsmith3945]

@@Ruda-n4h You don't need a science degree to spot fakery.

[@benjya]

And that for the huge number of people involved with the whole project, none of whom have let on - the cost to bribe all of them to keep quite would have been so expensive it would end up costing more than just going to the moon in the first place!

[@alanmusicman3385]

To me that is the main thing. Details of events like the killing of Osama Bin Laden were supposed to remain top secret - but it wasn't long before those involved were taking big money for "tell all" books or TV appearances. To suggest that moon landing fakery could remain a secret for decades in a society like the USA beggars belief. Yes, I know there are one or two people who claim to have been in on it - but such a fake would have involved dozens or even hundreds of people directly, plus the thousands of people at NASA and its contractors all on the project in some way. So, there would be a LOT more than the few that make this claim if it had any worth (beyond making a few people a lot of money from advertising revenues on their conspiracy theory YT channels).

[@peterbarton9856]

100,000s have worked for NASA from all around the Earth yet these facts don't matter.

[@nowifi8063]

And none of these people have ever come out about any hoax and people working for NASA today would’ve called them out on the bs if it was hoax. Russia would’ve exposed our ass long ago. This is waaay too big to fake.

[@Ddotkay]

You committed a logical fallacy and 18 other people thought it was logically sound... *sigh*

[@amazingdragonboy1202]

@@Ddotkay You committed a logical fallacy and no one else thought it was sound.

[@josephmorin8941]

The funniest thing about this clip is the man in the middle pretending to believe what he is saying.

[@klouishtshsgvi5]

this comment section - its so over for humanity. great video btw

[@Aurora666_yt]

Ikr 🤦🏼‍♀️🤣

[@Shadowband]

Did not have the technology to *Fake* it back then. No CGI, no Green screen, no Digital cameras, no Editing software, etc..etc..😮

[@morricone1900]

That's admittedly the best argument that it happened of all. :)

[@Laufeyson_Loki]

They didn’t have the technologies to go to the moon back then if u think of it like that

[@ZondaFRoadster]

​​​@@Laufeyson_Loki All the things listed above were dependent on the microchip revolution of the 1980s. The technology that took man to the moon was largely mechanical, save for some radio equipment and the crude, heavy computers of the 1960s that could only handle fairly basic calculations (certainly not the kind of processing power capable of generating graphics)

[@Shadowband]

@@Laufeyson_Loki Rocket technology has been around since the 1930's. Slide rules were used back then. Atomic reactors and bombs were designed and built without computers as well. You can do a lot of things with an 8bit operating system, but *Graphics* isn't one of them.

[@count69]

Hollywood?

[@adamplace1414]

This is Stephen taking four minutes off of comedy just to make sure everyone knows they landed on the moon.

[@freezoneproject567]

There was nothing special about the material used in the flags. NASA added some thin metal rods sewn in horizontally to hold the flag away from the pole.

[@mikereed8181]

So where is all the data gone have they recorded all over it

[@marksprague1280]

It's there. Just the backup tapes were recycled. You ignorant nut cases have built an entire conspiracy around what was normal practice.

[@Ravaxr]

Only a few Apollo 11 tapes were reused, nearly all the data exists in backups, and we have complete records for the FIVE OTHER MOON LANDINGS. Seriously, we did not go once and call it a day. There is easily found footage of driving a car on the moon. That was not brought along on 11, but it was for 15, 16 and 17.

[@papalegba6796]

Nah it's all gone 😂

[@yassassin6425]

@@papalegba6796 *_"Nah it's all gone"_* Has it chatbot? What data precisely? Could you detail what you mean?

[@marksprague1280]

@@papalegba6796 I see that you are still lying, Maggot.

[@lancebrunt9]

Werner Von Braun's 'Epitaph' (Psalms 19:1) "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the Firmament sheweth his handy work" ✝️

[@yassassin6425]

Indeed, he was a Christian and a rocket scientist, so a highly apposite choice.

[@Mark-Stone]

That’s nice. It’s totally irrelevant to the fact that the Apollo missions occurred, of course.

[@kevinskinner4986]

Von Braun's intent was probably allegorical, not literal. He spent 20 years before his death criticizing people that rejected science for religion and visa versa, trying to merge them and promoting space flight as the way to explore God's creation because he believed there was more out there than just us.

[@derp8575]

What is the firmament? @@yassassin6425

[@derp8575]

Do you always make excuses for nazis?@@kevinskinner4986

[@TB12710]

26 September 2024: 1) if humans went to the moon: why hasn’t there been a 50th anniversary go back landing ? You know how everyone loves a 50th anniversary right, so where is the 50th anniversary trip to the moon ? 2) When they tap the lower half of the flag pole into the moon surface, it taps in “like a piece of cake”: isn’t that convenient !? 3) In deep outer space one would have to properly assume that one must be super aware of his or her surroundings as not to injure one’s self, correct or not ? Right. So why are the “Apollo Astronauts” jumping hopping and falling down on “the surface of the moon” ? I guarantee no astronaut is going to enjoy the feeling inside a punctured space suit! Three very valid deep space questions ? ? ? !

[@marksprague1280]

You apparently don't realize that the "space suit" was actually two garments. The pressure suit was the inner garment. The outer coverall was made of materials that were the forerunners of the modern bulletproof vest.

[@Ruda-n4h]

50th Anniversary idea is ridiculous - to do what? The flag pole was difficult to get in actually and falls over after lift off of Apollo 11.

[@rachelconradie8480]

Guess everyone here also took the mrna vaccine, because everything the government says is safe and effective.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@ataxpayer723]

Twenty five percent of Brits also believe that they invented Chicken Tikka Masala.

[@thelegendboy1234]

you think in the heart of mumbai, they're all eating chicken tikka masala?

[@JungleOfMeat]

Well considering most brits are now Indians then there's a good chance that's true

[@BigGordon112]

I saw another scientist point out that the TOTAL cost of faking EVERYTHING to do with that landing, eg designing the rockets, drawing the plans, building everything, etc, would have far exceeded the cost of actually sending the three astronauts there and back

[@mohammedyounas1749]

I believe we didnt go to the moon,not because we didnt have the will or resources or drive to do it but because we realised we as humans will never be able to leave or inner space and venture into the outer spaces,thats when it dawned on whose clever foxes in nasa,if its impossible to go for us then its impossible for every other country,thats when the apple landed on the lap and they came up with hey lets fake it,nobody will be able to prove it because nobody can go there so its true until proven false,those sad astronauts before they went they were so gappy and joyful and when tgey came back there faces were sunken and sad like they been lied too and now there scared just incase they say something off script,

[@Jacob-bn1nj]

Do you have the video name? I've been trying to find it for a while

[@bradsmith97]

Neil degrass Tyson said it I think

[@count69]

@@bradsmith97 Neil degrass 'just take the shot' 'follow the science' Tyson! haha that guy is such a grifter! What would he know?!

[@bradsmith97]

@@count69 don't shoot the messenger

[@schrapnellcotton3413]

American Moon on Odysee is a good documentary going over what moon landing disbelievers think.

[@yassassin6425]

Have you ever thought to question precisely why it is in Odysee? (although I think it can be found on You Tube also). If you have no knowledge about the Apollo programme or the science, technology and history of spaceflight whatsoever then I can see why it seems superficially plausible. If however you do, it's immediately obvious that it is full of ridiculous assumption, inference, deception, scientific and historical inaccuracies and tenuous correlation. The producers of this know exactly what they are doing, because it is their stock in trade and there is a market for it. I knew it was farcical, but I hadn't appreciated quite how bad it actually is until watching it again recently. It's an appalling supposed 'documentary', one sided, dishonest, deceptively edited, badly researched and aims to bombard the lay audience with a farrago of falsities, erroneous claims and supposition so as to bamboozle and misinform. I was astonished by the level of inaccuracy and intentional misrepresentation. Amazingly, it even incorporates the David Percy scam. It was made by Massimo Mazzucco, a particularly vile breed of professional con artist and a cheat. After all, nothing says trustworthy like a man that killed people for money shilling fake medical treatments. Seriously, why don't you independently and objectively learn about the actual science, technology and history of the Apollo programme, then you won't allow yourself to fall victim to these charlatan's ludicrous and dishonest claims?

[@tjjones621]

Really??? A very good documentary??? Do you even know what a documentary is?

[@schrapnellcotton3413]

There are lots of logical fallacies and yours here would be under ad hominem. Check out videos on logical fallacies for reference. Not addressing the issue in the statement or theory or argument but attacking the person. To clarify and be more succinct, my point of view is that American Moon is a good documentary for the outlining of some of the concerns some disbelievers have on the moon landing. That is my comment. Please tell me WHY you do not agree with it and we can go from there.

[@yassassin6425]

@@schrapnellcotton3413 *_"There are lots of logical fallacies and yours here would be under ad hominem."_* Actually, no. Everything in my response is independently verifiable including Mazzucco's propensity for fraud and deceit. Read my post again. What would you like to contest? *_"Check out videos on logical fallacies for reference."_* I don't need to. I am fully aware of them and if you are so au fait with the latter then why to you choose to ignore the fact that Mazzucco's 'American Moon' is replete with them? I can list them for you if it helps, because evidently, you didn't spot them for yourself. *_"Not addressing the issue in the statement or theory or argument but attacking the person. To clarify and be more succinct, my point of view is that American Moon is a good documentary for the outlining of some of the concerns some disbelievers have on the moon landing. That is my comment. Please tell me WHY you do not agree with it and we can go from there."_* It does not outline "the concerns that some believers have on the moon landing" - it promotes them from an entirely biased and one sided approach. There is no objectivity, no balance whatsoever. Like Sibrel, Mazzucco absolutely knows this, because that is his target market. Conspiracy believers, with zero prior knowledge of the science, technology and history of spaceflight and the Apollo Programme, seeking instant gratification in the form of confirmation bias and reinforcement. Moreover, these claims are either deceptive, historically incorrect/disingenuous or based upon fundamentally flawed science. Furthermore, it's simply the same material that has been consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over again and debunked ad nauseum. Perhaps you should select your singular and most compelling persuasive best example of one of the "concerns that some believers have on the moon documentary" and I'll demonstrate why this is so flawed...and we can go from there.

[@tjjones621]

@@schrapnellcotton3413 Easy... it's not a good documentary. Documentaries are based on facts...

[@NotJanine777]

Two examples of why we never went to the moon: One. It’s impossible to have a vacuum (space), next to a pressurised system (the earths atmosphere) without a physical barrier separating the two. This is a law of physics and cannot be broken (and don’t give me any rubbish about the ‘theory’ of gravity being able to magically side-step the fundamental laws of physics). Two. If we somehow in someone’s dream did manage to break the above law of physics, how is it possible for a man in a pressurised space suit to remain and look perfectly normal as though standing on earth when he is in a vacuum? The suit would expand like a balloon and he would look like an over inflated Michelin Man. The astronauts look like they are just walking across a park in their Sunday best - no sign of any effects of a pressurised suit fighting against the 100% vacuum of ‘space’. The only people who believe we went to the moon are those that have never bothered to look beyond what their governments and propaganda arms (TV and news papers, etc), tell them. QI, in this instance, is the perfect example of this. The renowned brain box, Mr Fry, is here telling you why we went to the moon without having any means of backing up his comments other than hearsay from other sources. You are expected to believe everything he says without question because of his reputation. I suspect that Stephen knows the truth but part of his job is to make sure you don’t.

[@yassassin6425]

*_"It’s impossible to have a vacuum (space), next to a pressurised system (the earths atmosphere) without a physical barrier separating the two. This is a law of physics and cannot be broken (and don’t give me any rubbish about the ‘theory’ of gravity being able to magically side-step the fundamental laws of physics)."_* Conspiracy theorists and flat earthers that try to invoke the "laws of physics" whilst selectively ignoring "laws of physics". Could you account for the decrease in pressure with altitude? Thanks *_"If we somehow in someone’s dream did manage to break the above law of physics, how is it possible for a man in a pressurised space suit to remain and look perfectly normal as though standing on earth when he is in a vacuum? The suit would expand like a balloon and he would look like an over inflated Michelin Man. The astronauts look like they are just walking across a park in their Sunday best - no sign of any effects of a pressurised suit fighting against the 100% vacuum of ‘space’."_* Because the internal pressure was only 4.3 psi whilst the near vacuum of of the moon's surface is simply the absence of matter. There is nothing to "fight against". *_"The only people who believe we went to the moon are those that have never bothered to look beyond what their governments and propaganda arms (TV and news papers, etc), tell them."_* Nope, that'll be entire branches of science such as astronomy and geology, related specialisms and cognate disciplines including aerospace engineering worldwide, Nobel Prize winning physicists, Pulitzer Prize nominated independent investigative journalists and each of the 76 other space agencies on the planet to name a few. Also, known science is not a question of 'belief'. Meanwhile, online conspiracy theory is entirely and unfailingly honest, unwaveringly accurate and consistent, not in the least bit intentionally deceptive, misleading, fallacious, exploitative, opportunistic or manipulative and with your best interests at heart is entirely free of vested interest and agenda? Ok then. And at what point have you yourself "looked beyond" the conspiratorial nonsense that you consume and regurgitate? *_"QI, in this instance is the perfect example of this. The renowned brain box, Mr Fry is here telling you why we went to the moon without having any means of backing up his comments other than hearsay from other sources. You are expected to believe everything he says without question because of his reputation. I suspect that Stephen knows the truth but part of his job is to make sure you don’t."_* This is simply a light hearted and at times irreverent panel show. Everything that Fry says can be independently verified. The sole problem is that very simply, it isn't what you want to hear, just as you won't like my reply to you.

[@NotJanine777]

@@yassassin6425 If you want to believe we went to the moon, you carry on. My points above still stand as you haven't 'debunked' any of them.

[@marksprague1280]

​@@NotJanine777Tell me, clown. If the earth's atmosphere is within a container, why is the pressure at sea level 14.7 psi while at the same time the pressure atop Mt. Everest is just under 5 psi? Until you can answer that, just STFU.

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

The whole "vacuum next to a pressurized system" argument does nothing more than display your sheer and utter ignorance of how the Earth's atmosphere works. The reason the air on Earth is under pressure is due to gravity. The closer you are to the surface, the more air there is weighing down on you - thus creating a greater pressure. The higher up you go, the less and less air particles there are to weigh down, so the pressure decreases. It decreases gradually more and at some point, you are virtually above all the air molecules. It's not like there is a vacuum directly adjacent to an atmosphere pressurized to 14.7 psi. That's not how it works. You're just embarrassing yourself.

[@yassassin6425]

@@NotJanine777 *_"If you want to believe we went to the moon, you carry on."_* Known science is not a question of belief and at no stage have I mentioned either that or my own. Nothing to do with me, the evidence in support of the moon landings is demonstrable and incontrovertible so I'll go with that thanks. *_"My points above still stand as you haven't 'debunked' any of them."_* Your 'points' are simply ill-informed nonsense or pure conjecture on your part whether I or anyone else debunks them. On the subject of which, I addressed and summarised all of the content of your post, so let's see shall we? Firstly you claimed it is impossible to have the vacuum of space next to the Earth's atmosphere, so from that I conclude that you are one of these deranged space deniers and flat earthers. In response, I asked you to account for the decrease in pressure with altitude. You failed to do so, so that's that. Secondly, you asked how it is possible for anyone in a pressurised suit to "look normal" (whatever that means) insisting that "he would look like an over inflated Michelin Man". I pointed out to you that would not be the case as the A7Ls were only pressurised to 3.7psi (4.2psi current suits). I'd hardly call that "over inflated" would you? You then insisted that "the only people who believe we went to the moon are those that have never bothered to look beyond what their governments and propaganda arms (TV and news papers, etc), tell them." To clarify again, in addition to entire branches of science and specialist fields/disciplines worldwide, the Apollo missions have also been examined with forensic detail by historians and investigative journalists whilst also bearing scrutiny from individual nations, independent third parties and each of the 76 other space agencies. In short, areas of expertise and individuals far more accomplished, skilled and clever than a random, insignificant, gullible conspiracy junkie that thinks that consuming and regurgitating junk online conspiratorial crap over the comments section of You Tube makes him sound significant, informed and knowledgeable. Finally, you absurdly stated that Stephen Fry is unable to qualify his comments in spite of the fact that they are all independently verifiable, You then went on to say that part of his job is to make sure that people don't know the truth for which you have zero evidence in support of, so as the one making the claim, the burden of truth is incumbent upon you, not me. Should you need any further clarification, then do not hesitate to ask.

[@Neshek023]

All they can do is ridicule.. and censorship..

[@Mark-Stone]

Correction; all they have to do is ridicule. Believing that the moon landings were faked is ridiculous.

[@derp8575]

It's the same with Covid, Russia/Ukraine, etc. Idiots fear truth.

[@darren2722]

Hardly debunking it.

[@yassassin6425]

It's more lampooning it, and deservedly so. This is nothing more than a light hearted panel show. The moon landing conspiracy theories meanwhile have all been comprehensively dismissed and since it's the same old horseshit gullibly consumed and endlessly regurgitated by the morons that subscribe to it there is nothing left to debunk.

[@pajanightbadger1713]

They're debunking it in the eyes of their unsophisticated audience and that's all that matters

[@Doctor180185]

Buzz punching that lunar-tic Bart Sibrel was one of the highlights of his career! Forget the moon landing, I'd sooner watch that any day!

[@williammann9176]

This is a short history of why the Lunar Missions stopped in 1972. Also why it is taking so long to get back. Congress started cutting NASA's budget even before NASA got to the moon. 1966 was NASA's biggest budget year. They got approximately 4.6% of the U.S. G.D.P.. This is while they were still building the infrastructure for Apollo and they hoped an infrastructure to get them beyond the moon to Mars by 1981-2. After 1966 NASA's budget went on a steady decline. Originally the first phase of Lunar Exploration was to go to Apollo 20. NASA had built in the infrastructure for a continuous supply of CSMs LMs and SaturnVs. Plans were in the works for upgraded CSM, LMs and SaturnVs. NASA even built prototype pressurized LRVs for use on planned Lunar Colonies. There were plans for more then 1 Skylab as a stepping stone for larger Space Stations. Original plans for the Space Shuttle were for a much more elaborate system to ferry astronauts and equipment to and from the ever expanding Space Stations. They were even looking at plans for making the Saturn V's first and second stages recoverable and reusable. Originally Launch Complex 39 was to have 5 launch pads. Then it got cut to 3, then only 2 were built. They built 3 mobile launch towers, but only 2 were ever used. All the working plans and proposals are still there to be seen. With NASA’s budget being cut after 1966, bit by bit NASA’s ambitious plans started to dwindle. After Apollo 11 it was planned to have 4 Apollo launches a year till Apollo 20. This soon got cut to 2 per year and at the same time Apollo 20 was cancelled. In late 1970 future contracts to build more Apollo CSMs, LMs and Saturn Vs were cancelled. The remaining 5 CSM: 3 would be used for Skylab of which there would only be 1 Skylab now. One CSM was planned for the then hopeful Apollo Soyuz mission and the last CSM(now in a museum) was modified to hold 5 people as a potential rescue mission for Skylab crews. One of the remaining three SaturnVs would be used to launch Skylab, the last two are now museum pieces. NASA’s budget continued to get cut and along with it Space Shuttle kept being scaled back from what NASA wanted. In 1975 NASA started to redo Pad 39A for the coming Space Shuttle. But NASA kept begging to get Apollo going again and maintained Pad 39B for Apollo and tried to maintain as much of the Apollo infrastructure and talent as they could. But by 1977 it was clear Apollo was dead. So NASA let the Apollo infrastructure and talent atrophy away. Through the terms of Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama, NASA was pushed and pulled in many directions with start and stop goals given and taken away. All of them with plans to return to the moon. Bush 2 laid out the most promising plan for a return to the moon in 2004 with the Constellation Program. It called for a return to the moon before 2014. In 2010 Obama cancelled Constellation after a lot of money and effort had been spent. All with budgets nothing like the had in 1966. The current Artemis plans which rose out of the ashes of Constellation are 12 years old and moving at a snails pace on a shoestring budget. Another reason it is taking so long. Go look up NASA’s plans and dreams. Would have been amazing had they been allowed to carry on. NASA was thinking exploration, human expansion and potential research science and resources to gain. The government thought, beat the USSR and not much more.

[@bf99ls]

Excellently précis, and I learned a fair bit too. But deviate will still insist that. ASA claims they lost the technology (probably down the back of the sofa). One of the reasons it’s taking so long now, all the very real dangers of radiation exposure while passing through the Van Allen belts. Plus the need to pay greater attention to the risks of micro meteors, and the razor sharp lunar dust, which can easily rip through flimsy space suits. It seems unlikely that under current Health and Safety legislation, the original Apollo missions would have been allowed to go ahead. Although I am basing that assumption on British Health and Safety, not American, of which I know very little.

[@williammann9176]

@@bf99ls Apollo missions were no longer then 12 days. For that the Apollo CSM had more then enough radiation protection going by the dosimeters the crews wore. The Artemis missions will tend to be a lot longer. Orion's 2 flights through the belts show that Orion is good to go through the belts. but the longer term exposure to deep space radiation is a bigger problem. Thus the sensored up mannequins in Orion on Artemis 1. Orion seems to be protected well enough that the next flight will be crewed. The Apollo spacesuits were anything but flimsy. Again for missions the length of Apollo there worked very well. But again it will be the long term effect of the lunar dust on suits in longer missions that seem to be the issue. Micro meteorites have always been a concern, but is all the years of crew space flight I think there has only been one confirmed strike. On the ISS a few years ago now.

[@bf99ls]

@@williammann9176 It was micrometeorites hitting the moon that I meant. Apollo suits did suffer minor damage on the moon. Flimsy was meant merely as a comparative. Your explanation is more accurate than mine anyway.

[@DrCash7]

It's not short but definitely a story lol

[@mrhobs]

Thank you. Reason still lives.

[@frednurk5158]

The mere fact that no country can get a manned spacecraft out of LEO 53 years later definitely means that the US was such a superpower that aliens are now visiting them.

[@Kajojek]

It's not that they can't, there's no need to .

[@frednurk5158]

@@Kajojek You need to do a modicum of research before posting erronious comments. Last year NASA sent Artimis around the moon. Here's the information from the NASA website: "With Artemis missions, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon, using innovative technologies to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before. We will collaborate with commercial and international partners and establish the first long-term presence on the Moon. Then, we will use what we learn on and around the Moon to take the next giant leap: sending the first astronauts to Mars."

[@David-135]

@@KajojekThey can’t, NASA has openly admitted that, since they have lost the technology.

[@Ruda-n4h]

They did it last December.

[@Ruda-n4h]

@@David-135 They did it last December. 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 after such a long time. Much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s. Rocket technology has not progressed much at all and although modern computers are far more sophisticated, they are far more vulnerable to particle radiation than those that used low density integrated circuits and magnetic core memory, both of which are extremely radiation hard, so a new solution has to be found to a different problem. All these issues are what has caused it to take so long this time around.

[@georgeburdine5660]

Shit like this separates the sheeple from the people.

[@yassassin6425]

Bleated the gullible believer in dumb online conspiracy theory.

[@georgeburdine5660]

@@yassassin6425 hey ass ass, do you know what the word gullible means.

[@yassassin6425]

@@georgeburdine5660 The irony - was it intentional?

[@DrizzyDrayg]

right that sorts it then, a bbc state commissioned broadcast debunking nothing and calling anyone who believes in the theory a moron. that definitely puts my mind at ease!

[@Aurora666_yt]

That refutes nothing.

[@DrizzyDrayg]

@@Aurora666_yt neither does this video. The difference is one claims to

[@Aurora666_yt]

@@DrizzyDrayg This video DOES refute something. It refutes you tinfoil hat wearing science deniers.

[@DrizzyDrayg]

@@Aurora666_yt tinfoil hat, another manufactured insult designed to discount anyone who questions the mainstream narrative. I don’t necessarily believe the moon landing was faked but I am suspicious because the bbc specifically tells us we’re crazy and foolish for question it

[@marksprague1280]

​@@DrizzyDraygNo. It's just a shorthand summation of a third-rate grade school dropout from the shallow end of the gene pool.

[@Sonship1000]

If you believe we went to the moon... You're still fast asleep..

[@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth]

I believe that you have provided zero evidence.

[@treble20]

@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth The fact is that they didn't land on the moon or anywhere near it. They would struggle to get there and back safely with today's technology (see space shuttle disasters some 34 years later). They faked it for two reasons. One - they wanted to beat the Russians. Two - the US Government had invested so much money in the space program that they could not risk failure. So, they filmed it in a studio. Aldrin, was challenged to swear on the Bible (that he had walked on the moon) and punched the guy asking him. If I am right, Neil Armstrong was offered $1000 for his chosen charity if he swore on the Bible. He failed to do it as well. The gormless sheep will believe any nonsense they get told. Case closed.

[@Alosipher]

@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth Explain how they got past the Van Allen radiation belts.

[@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth]

@@Alosipher The Van Allen Belt's are not the insurmountable obstacle that some moon landing deniers seem to think. "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." Dr. James A. Van Allen.

[@pajanightbadger1713]

@@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth NASA fund the flat earth society You're welcome

[@AtomicExtremophile]

With all the proof the landings happened, if people can't accept it, how are the able to breathe unaided lol

[@piplee1439]

In a vacuum 🤣🤣🤣

[@jonsmith3945]

What proof? There is none. Not the retroreflectors, not the alleged Moon rocks...nothing!

[@Xernive]

More proof it didn't but people don't want to talk about it 🥱

[@jonsmith3945]

@@Xernive There's evidence that the landings were faked, but no proof.

[@blaze1148]

.....lol....I first read that with *never* inserted and gave a thumbs up 👍

[@Splattervision-qh1sd]

There seems to be a fair percentage of flat earthers in the U.K. as well.

[@Thest-qu9ly]

People are waking up to the lies👍

[@Splattervision-qh1sd]

@@Thest-qu9ly No, they just don’t know how things work. They’d rather embrace KZbin conspiracy videos than learn.

[@Splattervision-qh1sd]

@@xavierharding8938 I don’t want to wind up like a coworker, got sicker and sicker…finally said f**k it, I need to go to the hospital. Dead two days later. Guy could bench 500 lbs but was into all that conspiracy sh*t. Left a wife and two children, and a lot of upheaval with his job. I only got one jab tho. Got the virus but it was no worse than a bad cold. Oh and yea…..masks reduce exposure. Don’t be selfish and not use them if directed.

[@Aurora666_yt]

That's just sad.

[@HeteHangijzers]

We never landed on the moon.

[@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth]

You never provided any evidence.

[@DemonDrummer]

Prove it. Bet you can’t change history with a YT comment. 😊 Do better, learn.

[@redrick8900]

You didn't. NASA did.

[@HeteHangijzers]

Haha incredible people still believe this nonsense based on no evidence 🚀😂

[@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth]

@@HeteHangijzers Yo still have provided no evidence to back up your claim. Take care.

[@pasisovi]

One day I was stupid enough and believed men went to the moon!

[@derp8575]

Sadly most people are stupid. Actual r3tards have more intellect than NASA fanboys.

[@arz7413]

Given the facts for both sides of the argument, we get to make our own minds up... Why does it annoy these people that much? Just get a grip and move on. Let people wonder.

[@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth]

So remind us again of the evidence and "facts" that show that the Apollo Program did not occur? Take care.

[@marksprague1280]

The intelligent often find deliberate ignorance to be extremely annoying.

[@SMHman666]

@arz. I can't believe I have to state the bleeding obvious...... it's annoying because it breeds a multitude of misinformed, uneducated and deluded people who then need to make educated choices on their lives and those of others. Are you seriously an advocate of living in a fantasy?

[@davidbroman8391]

My absolute favourite conspiracy theory was the video of the the Apollo 17 lunar module lifting off from the moon. The conspiracy theorist said that footage was impossible because they would have left the cameraman on the moon to die. 😂💀🌖

[@Love-hx6nb]

so alot of the conspiracy theory are false ? im not asking because i believe it i ask because some people believe every single one

[@davidbroman8391]

@@Love-hx6nb yes, there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there that have been proven to be false. In many cases people with vested interests perpetuate these conspiracies for notoriety and profit. Many people believe these theories for their own reasons often to belong to a group or due to a deep distrust of any authority. Facts are dismissed as CGI, faked or dozens of contrived reasons often with no evidence or misinterpretation of facts. Elvis is still alive, Paul McCartney is dead, the earth is flat or the young earth. Many of these conspiracy theories perpetuate their religious beliefs or incredulity.

[@jesusramirezromo2037]

​@@Love-hx6nbI'd say 90% are false, 9% have some truth, but are greatly exaggerated or miss something, and only 1% are real

[@Love-hx6nb]

@@jesusramirezromo2037 some people talk about bill gates letting out thousands of mosquito to let out a virus or the one about no wanting people to used their 3 rd eye did you hear about those conspiracy theory what do you think about them oh and that bill gates bought 80% of farms to plant foods with no seeds.can you help me prove there false? the ones that are false?

[@derp8575]

And you will NEVER specify which are true and false. Throwing out random numbers means nothing. @@jesusramirezromo2037

[@KH4444444444N]

As a Humanist, I HATE IT when people deny the moon landing.

[@grahambeyer6254]

You may need to revisit this question. Ask Bart Sibrel.

[@yassassin6425]

Right - because after all, nothing says informed, honest and accurate like a former cab driver and convicted felon, ex stalker and religious cult member, one time advertisement maker that managed to get himself ostracised by the entire industry and a proven liar and fraud turned conspiracy theorist with absolutely no specialist knowledge or scientific expertise whatsoever. "Ask Bart Sibrel". This is about as dumb as it gets.

[@tims5268]

I wouldn't ask Bart Sibrel how to spell his own name.

[@viniciuss4529]

You're kidding, right?

[@Digibeatle09]

This Fry chappie should be shown the “modified” Hasselblad camera that the still photos were taken with - and reminded, too, of the properties of the Kodak film - again, the film was “tweaked” - but not a whole lot - used in the Hasselblad - 100 degrees plus centigrade temperatures in unshaded places - and, of course, the vacuum of space which a school goer could demonstrate - using a vacuum chamber - is seriously detrimental to the photo chemical qualities of film (unless special precautions are taken which demonstrably weren’t if you look at NASA info) - that and other considerations lead informed people to doubt the authenticity of the Hasselblad photos - we all know Fry is a clever chappie - a bit of research by him on these particular points might, however, result in a humbling experience for “our Professor”.

[@yassassin6425]

*_"we all know Fry is a clever chappie - a bit of research by him on these particular points might, however, result in a humbling experience for “our Professor”._* Er - right. Appreciating that "research" does not involve self-proclaimed overnight armchair 'expertise' following a squandered evening consuming junk You Tube videos, cherry picked click bait confirmation bias, quote mining, false equivalence and circular self-referencing pseudoscientific conspiracy websites, do feel free to share - how precisely did you do yours? Firstly, heat and temperature are two different things. Heat is concerned with thermal energy, whereas temperature describes molecular kinetic energy. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy, whereas temperature is a property the object exhibits and describes the motion of molecules. Since the moon is essentially a vacuum there are very few of these to be excited So temperature is essentially a measurement of how excited air molecules are. The higher the temperature, the more frenzied molecules become and the more they bounce off each other-and this interaction between particles is what creates heat. The surface of the moon is virtually a vacuum. There are very few particles, and what particles are present are spaced far apart. This is why temperature is meaningless. In the absence of an atmosphere there is no convection whilst conduction is limited. Therefore the main source of thermal energy transfer is radiative heating from the sun - and the film was shielded from this. The temperature extremes that you mention are surface temperatures - extremes. Objects take time to build up to their equilibrium temperature and the length of the lunar daytime is 15 earth days. This is why all of the Apollo moon landings were timed to coincide with the lunar dawn. The temperatures that you mention were never experienced. Contrary to your claims, Hasselblad *_did_* significantly adapt and modify their 500EL cameras for the Apollo missions by removing the viewfinder, modifying the shutter, replacing the usual plastic black outer surface with reflective silver body, the internal plastics were removed and using special lubricants resistant to vacuum and high temperatures. They also collaborated with Zeiss to produce a custom lens for the lunar cameras. The lens couldn't be used on a regular camera because Hasselblad removed the mirror mechanism and the viewfinder, The moderate speed and low sensitivity film types that were used were well protected. In fact, the camera films were doubly protected as they were in custom built aluminium and steel magazines that were a lot thicker than the standard Hasselblad ones. Also, as explained, heat transfer is not significant in the absence of convection. Regarding the film itself in more detail - firstly radiation. X rays, which can be destructive to film vary in their energy. By way of example, a CT scanner will be 60KV, and airport baggage scanner 80KV - where in comparison the radiation produced by the sun is less than 5KV. Anything less than 10KV can't penetrate anything greater than 1mm of aluminium. 5KV can be stopped by a piece of paper. Kept within a metal container, the X rays from the sun simply weren't strong enough to damage the film. The only time that they would present a risk to film is during a solar flare/CME/SPE - and in that scenario, the main concern would have been the safety of the astronauts. The radiation dosage for a year on the moon is between 110 mSv and 380 mSv. On Earth, that dosage is 2.4 mSv, or higher, depending on where you are exactly. Bottom line, the few days in Lunar orbit and on the surface would have aged the film due to radiation between 50-150 days/ day in orbit maximum, thus it would be the equivalent of film that was aged a few years at most. The environment at the Moon is more likely to have high energy effects, and there actually *_are_* signs of radiation in some of the images, if you look carefully. Regarding vacuum. A fallacious and flawed experiment found on the conspiracy website Aulis and frequently shared and referenced by conspiracy believers attempted to demonstrate the effect of this upon the film used by the Apollo missions...except is wasn't. The Kodak ektachrome used E-100 is off the shelf, whereas Apollo used ektachrome EF (S0168) and ektachrome MS (S0368) both of which were developed expressly for use in space utilising different emulsions due to higher UV and eliminate blue haze. In the 'experiment', the E-100 film was tested in a vacuum chamber for four days, before being pressurised and then a vacuum again. Yet if we take Apollo 11, the film would only have been in a vacuum for the duration of the EVA, which was around two and a half hours. The longest total EVA was Apollo 17 at 22 hrs for the three performed. The experiment also neglected to contain the film. The heat extremes that it was subjected to were as explained, never experienced. They also used the E6 process to develop the film as opposed to the E3 process used by NASA and ignored the fact that a calibration chart was used for adjustment at the end of the process, to correct for issues with the colour. The conclusion of the experiment actually illustrates that the colour shift was compromised not due to vacuum itself as they claim, but pressurisation cycling between a vacuum and atmospheric pressure and extreme heat which the Apollo film never experienced. Also, the LM and CM were pressurised by pure oxygen to 4.7 psi as opposed to the 14 psi nitrogen/oxygen that we experience on earth. The most absurd thing about this 'experiment' is that is was conducted by three people - the ludicrous self-appointed 'Apollo Detectives'. They set out to prove that film won't survive in a vacuum - but when you factor in all of their inaccuracies, it proves exactly the opposite. It sounds like you've mistaken watching a Gary Fong video on You Tube for actual research.

[@c0i9z]

The reaction of photography is 2 AgCl(s) + hν → 2 Ag(s) + Cl2(g). None of that requires exposure to air.

[@marksprague1280]

Yawn. The usual claptrap from the Cult of Willful Ignorance. The moon rotates about once every 28 earth days, relative to the sun. 14 earth days are spent in daylight and 14 in darkness. It takes several days of sun to warm the lunar surface from the low of nearly 300 degrees below to 32 degrees, and another 7 or 8 days to reach the 200 degree mark. The astronauts always landed while the temperatures were still below freezing and left long before the temperatures became dangerous.

[@Ruda-n4h]

There is no atmosphere on the Moon to efficiently ‘bind’ lunar surface heat to devices that are not in direct contact with it. The camera film was derived from the ones used for high-altitude photo reconnaissance, which were designed to withstand temperatures from 490°F down to - 40°F, and they were 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.

[@craigcorson3036]

I just LOVE Stephen Fry!! Funny as a barrel of monkeys, and smart as a whip! One of my favorite humans, and that's a very short list.

[@MartinA-kp8xg]

Quick witted with humour maybe but hardly intelligent if he thinks man landed on the moon in 1969

[@craigcorson3036]

@@MartinA-kp8xg Go troll someone else, DA.

[@MartinA-kp8xg]

@@craigcorson3036 I do like Steven fry myself he is funny, but they are all too arrogant and smug the moon landings in 1969 didn't happen, it's just safe for them to follow concensus, this how most successful people get on. I like him but not the closed minded concensus they all portray.

[@craigcorson3036]

@@MartinA-kp8xg Anyone who thinks the SIX moon landings between 1969-1972 didn't happen is a gullible halfwit. I have been a keen observer of manned space shots since Yuri Gagarin's first orbits around the Earth, and I watched every moon landing mission very attentively. Absolutely no part of it was fake in any way. If you don't want to believe ME, ask the RUSSIANS, who had every reason to expose the USA to ridicule, but COULDN'T, because they knew it was real. Now as I said before, go troll someone else. Any further replies from you will be reported as the harassment they are.

[@frankgallagher7812]

Bet Mr fry has had his covid vaxx and 4th booster aswel........ Don't worry folks. Covids making a comeback on mid September. Masks will be mandated again. This time ffs. Resist!

[@zorak1997]

I salute the reference to The Soup Dragon!!!! Lets not forget The Iron Chicken, too!

[@count69]

A camera strapped to the chest, with no view finder? And yet all the photos are perfectly framed and in focus?

[@Ruda-n4h]

Research the subject. The surface camera was modified to be used with gloves. The shutter speed was fixed at 1/250th of a second and the ISO rating of the film was calculated to properly expose the surface of the moon. The astronauts had a limited choice of aperture (f5.6, f8 & f11 depending on whether they were shooting down-sun, cross-sun or into shadow) and a choice of near, medium or far focus. The camera was fitted with a wide-angle lens to help with framing and had a larger than normal shutter release and an aiming arrow or paddle on the top of the lens barrel. The astronauts also trained extensively with them, even taking them on holiday. There are hundreds of over-exposed, under-exposed, out-of-focus, motion-blurred and poorly framed photos in the archive. Most of the photos you find in the NASA archive have been brightened and colour-balanced for publication. The famous ‘Man on the Moon’ photograph of Aldrin by Armstrong shows a clear tilt at the horizon, portions of the spacesuit are significantly over-exposed and there is clearly only one light source that is obviously at a large distance.

[@TexMex421]

Yea! Like a go pro. No viewfinder. Nobody ever used one of those!

[@Ravaxr]

If you use a tight aperture, then the depth of field i.e. the range of distances that are in acceptable focus, gets larger. This is why your phone camera typically has almost everything in focus beyond 3 feet or so. The widest aperture on the moon camera was 5.6, which is still fairly tight. The astronauts were also trained in judging distances by eye, and the camera lens was marked with distances they could set it to to get good focus. Almost every camera you can swap lenses on has this feature, especially in the medium format realm. Most lenses even have markings to show how wide the depth of field is for a given aperture. Some street photographers use this 'zone focusing' method because it is quick, allows you to not worry about nailing focus and still get good results. It was a situation of 'Bright scene, so tight aperture. Eh.... 25 feet?' Set the focus distance, hold it where you think you've got it in frame with a generous buffer on each side and press the shutter and hope for the best. Then do that hundreds of times. You'll get some crap images, but you can get amazing images as well.

[@marksprague1280]

​@smeeselfThese clowns never do any genuine research. They merely repeat whatever the last conspiracy guru whispered in their ear.

[@papalegba6796]

The photos are fake so there's no point looking at them, time wasting ChatGPT guys 😂

[@santiagosicairos]

Every top youtube search for “moon conspiracy theories” being debunking videos - especially this one by the “BBC”, makes me disbelieve the landing even more TBH

[@redrick8900]

Ignorance noted.

[@WilliamMann-co8un]

So what has you possibly convinced that Apollo did not happen as told?

[@scottb.3905]

Classic conspiracy theorist mindset - There is no way to be proven wrong, because people explaining why you're wrong makes you entrench in the conspiracy even more. Kinda sad, really. People are out there to explain it to you and you take that as more proof of a conspiracy.

[@DemonDrummer]

Reality isn’t subject to your belief nor ignorance. Fix yourself.

[@papalegba6796]

All the chatbots in the comments attacking doubters doesn't help either 😂

[@aldoraine1400]

Where did the rover fit?

[@marksprague1280]

In a cargo compartment of the lunar lander.

[@blaze1148]

@@marksprague1280 😆.....yeah and the 1st Rover had pneumatic tyres 😆

[@marksprague1280]

@@blaze1148 IIRC, it had the same wire mesh tires as the next two did. But then I'm not surprised that a Limey or one of their rejects would think otherwise.

[@johnguilfoyle3073]

The pyramids must not exist since nobody can explain how the massive stones were cut, moved, and stacked without modern machinery.

[@Channel29andHalf]

Wow

[@redrick8900]

Yes we can. It's not hard if you have unlimited slave labor. You can see KZbin videos of people doing it now.

[@danielwesterlund1905]

They probably used pulleys to move them.

[@TheBeanGreen]

​@@redrick8900Just cause there were slaves doesn't mean they had superpowers.

[@StevenRoller]

Nixon’s call to the moon was real, too.

[@yassassin6425]

It was indeed - but you probably don't understand how that was done either.

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

You people are idiots. Nixon didn't place a call to the moon....and some telephone rang on the moon. The call was patched into the radio transmission. It's a pretty simple concept.

[@blaze1148]

😆

[@DrCash7]

@@yassassin6425 what's to understand when all you need do is have a little faith and believe?

[@yassassin6425]

@@DrCash7 Congratulations. You just inadvertently summed up the idiocy of online conspiracy theory in a sentence.

[@jonhworth9629]

How did we get the film of the lunar module lifting off?? Did they airdrop it or email it off the moon?

[@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth]

Transmitted via Unified S-Band frequencies. Take care.

[@Ruda-n4h]

On Apollo 15-17 the TV camera on the lunar rover was left running and pointed at the lunar module to film the lift off from outside and panned up by a radio telescope beam from Earth. It took three missions to perfect it on Apollo 17. The LM was filmed from the back to keep it in sight for as long as possible. If it had been filmed from the front it would have flown over the rover when pitching over and then very quickly been out of sight.

[@22Dessie]

The moon is in Nevada! Mars is in Canada!

[@marksprague1280]

And you have an IQ of 290.

[@Clowning_Myself]

I hear we somehow lost the technology to go back, and are unable to replicate it even 60 years later.🤔

[@JohnHazenhousen]

Maybe lay off the conspiracy videos for a while, then.

[@TexMex421]

They found it.

[@bradleyrex2968]

You can see the tech sitting in museums open to the public. The documents are all online. You heard someone say we destroyed the technology to rebuild Apollo infrastructure. And you and others changed it to "lost the technology". Which is sad and funny at the same time.

[@Clowning_Myself]

@bradleyrex2968 , I actually didn't hear that, or make any changes to the rhetoric.

[@bradleyrex2968]

@@Clowning_Myself OK well show me someone from NASA saying that they lost the Apollo tech, and are unable to replicate it. I'd love to see it. Give me links, or just name the title of the video. Make sure they say "lost" and use the word "Apollo" and say they are unable to replicate it.

[@LL-fb8wz]

They sent the lunar reconnaissance Orbiter that orbits the moon and it has photos of all the landing sites the lunar lander and the Rover you can see from the pictures. You could even see their Footprints trails that they made.

[@CS-mo7xp]

if we'd actually landed on the moon the official narrative would be that we didn't.

[@seeddub3536]

That makes zero sense. We did actually land on the moon and the official narrative is that we did.

[@joshuagleeson4776]

Your logic: -Humans: set out to achieve something incredible -Achieves that something -Also humans: Okay, let's pretend we didn't do that

[@dsmyify]

America's enemy... at the time... That didn't age well

[@danielburger1775]

The USA placed the Communists in power in Russia. The White Russians were winning the War following the overthrow of the Czar. It is ONLY US military intervention that led to Lenin, Stalin etc. being in power in the first place.

[@Robert-py4ce]

The reflecting panels experiment is used all the time, and the data is highly accurate and reproducible.

[@kevvo26]

But Buzz Aldrin has said more than once that they never went .

[@Ravaxr]

Quote mining is not impressive. Read the transcript of his whole answer. He went on to say that he is disappointed that public interest waned, and money was cut that would have allowed more missions.

[@kevvo26]

@@Ravaxr it’s actually quite crazy how people think we did actually go to the moon though. Even you must admit that the footage is very questionable?? I mean look at the so-called moon landing last week by India , that footage was laugh out loud funny 🤣😂

[@Ravaxr]

@@kevvo26 Everything is consistent with the video technology that was available at the time and what would be expected in a low gravity, vacuum environment.. And we've got scores of hours of footage of this; Humans have landed on the moon 6 times. Now I'm curious what you think is so laughable about India's mission. Could you link to what you mean?

[@TexMex421]

6 nations have verified the Apollo landings with dozens of unmanned missions. Russia did it with a ground based radio telescope... If there was any real proof of Apollo being fake would it be necessary to use conjecture like Quote mining 92 year old Buzz?

[@kevvo26]

@@Ravaxr are you serious ?? The graphics on the Atari from the early 80s were more realistic than the footage of the Bindi’s moon landing vehicle .

[@nunyabiz1780]

Fake. When was the LM above the CSM to photograph it?

[@papalegba6796]

NASA can't even explain how the astronauts went to the toilet, they're hopeless 😂

[@Ruda-n4h]

@papalegba6796 Solid waste was collected in plastic defaecation bags which contained a germicide to prevent bacterial activity and stored. Urine was likewise collected in bags via a tube and were dumped out into space through valves in the command module. During extravehicular activity the innermost layer of the astronaut’s spacesuit was nothing more complicated than a nappy, though urine could be collected through a tube into a reservoir within the spacesuit.

[@PJ-vj4jb]

All the comments questioning this have been moved to the bottom of the comments section. Is that another conspiracy or pure fact? Conspiracies do exist if you understand the definition of the word and I doubt the majority of the people that use the term know what it actually means.

[@yassassin6425]

No they haven't - you can order them most recent first. Yes, of course conspiracies exist, unfortunately conspiracy theorists and believers in their nonsense aren't remotely interested in real ones.

[@papalegba6796]

@@yassassin6425 that makes no sense at all, chatbot 😂

[@marksprague1280]

​@@papalegba6796Still judging otherscby your own ethical shortcomings, loser?

[@papalegba6796]

More chatbot gibberish 😂

[@yassassin6425]

@@papalegba6796 Why are you wasting your time trolling a supposed 'chatbot'?

[@eazypeazy33]

The truth of everything being a stage scares people so much they tend to disbelieve or just stay ignorant.

[@yassassin6425]

What?

[@S1L3nCe]

​​@@yassassin6425 This: "[...] there is a tremendous reluctance among the American people to let go of the notion that we sent men to the Moon. There are a couple of reasons for that, one of them being that there is a romanticized notion that those were great years - years when one was proud to be an American. And in this day and age, people need that kind of romanticized nostalgia to cling to. But that is not the main reason that people cling so tenaciously, often even angrily, to what is essentially the adult version of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. What primarily motivates them is fear. But it is not the lie itself that scares people; it is what that lie says about the world around us and how it really functions. For if NASA was able to pull off such an outrageous hoax before the entire world, and then keep that lie in place for four decades, what does that say about the control of the information we receive? What does that say about the media, and the scientific community, and the educational community, and all the other institutions we depend on to tell us the truth? What does that say about the very nature of the world we live in? That is what scares the hell out of people and prevents them from even considering the possibility that they could have been so thoroughly duped. It’s not being lied to about the Moon landings that people have a problem with, it is the realization that comes with that revelation: if they could lie about that, they could lie about anything. " - David McGowan This text can be obviously extrapolated to everyone who believes that fairytale, not just the American people. I just to believe it too, until I started asking myself important questions and stopped being scared of the fact that we are living in a lie.

[@marksprague1280]

McGowan, whose books can be found in bargain bins everywhere. Try again.

[@yassassin6425]

@@S1L3nCe *_"This"_* Dave McGowan? - are you actually attempting to be serious?

[@amazingdragonboy1202]

Bro took that one Shakespeare quote literally.

[@BadAtTeaDude]

The only space related intel Fry has is taking a shot in the asteroid

[@yassassin6425]

Are you alone? Do you need friends?

[@coeusdarksoul2855]

Mythbusters debunked every single one of these, including the angle of the light :P

[@tedspence-f7i]

Because that's what they were paid to do ....

[@joshuagleeson4776]

@user-yz8ln4fq8p were the Soviets also paid not to accuse the Americans of faking the moon landing?

[@NotJanine777]

So Mythbusters debunked every single moon landing conspiracy and they did all that whilst standing on earth, not in the supposed vacuum of space or even the apparent 1/6 gravity of the moon. Yeah, right…

[@joshuagleeson4776]

@richardsmith273 lmfao bro thinks he's cooking

[@tedspence-f7i]

@@NotJanine777 Mythbusters are paid schills ....How about the Van Allen Belt ...or the multiple shadows ...

[@bartofilms]

I’m a real fan of Fry, but I am afraid he’s wrong about the Moon missions. There are counter arguments for each of those he gives in this.

[@PierreBrandominiBrandomini]

All arguments from Moon conspiracy theorists have been demolished. That wasn't hard

[@Ruda-n4h]

There are are no counter arguments.

[@yassassin6425]

Please present what is to you, the most compelling and irrefutable 'counter argument' in support of the allegation that the Apollo moon landings were faked. I absolutely guarantee that I've heard it over and over and over and over again and that it's been routinely debunked innumerable times.

[@LurksNoMore]

Yes, and every last one of those counter-arguments are wrong, ignorant, and stupid.

[@NotJanine777]

@@Ruda-n4h of course there are. The Apollo programme was an illusion to fool the American people into believing the globe earth narrative. They will do anything to hide the existence of the creator from the general public.

[@liamc7097]

I bet Sean is up there now mooching around looking for a Soup Dragon. RIP