NEW PROOF We Landed On The Moon (Apollo 17)

Dave does something no one else has done before - compare the original Apollo 17 16mm ascent camera footage to the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) photos.
Will footage from 40 years apart match up to confirm the moon landing?
The Last Man On The Moon: amzn.to/2h1b6Xc
Audio Book: amzn.to/2uySy3X
Book: amzn.to/2uV67NB
Forum: www.eevblog.com...
LunarCognita Video: • Video
Inside & Outside footage: • Apollo 17 Lunar Liftof...
Lunar Roving Vehicle Handbook: www.hq.nasa.go...
#Apollo #MoonLanding #Proof

[@535tony]

Gene Cernan visited my High School a year after his Moon mission because he had graduated there. He gave us a speech in the auditorium. I remember his speech ran long and the bell rang to tell us all to go to class. Not one person got up till he was finished with his speech. He was a great Man. Godspeed Gene. No amount of proof will satisfy the Moon landing hoax nuts, but your video should convince normal people. Nice job.

[@wildboar7473]

? Why the need to convince Nuts? Why do Normals need help? Doesnt School & TV suffice? Why can't a great man be a liar? Because he is member of these Greek culture Clubs like Skull and Crescent ? "truth needs no defense" ? Well least REALITY shouldnt need it :)

[@NeilPeelParanormalPeepShow]

Couple of seconds delay from the moon to the Earth you say?

[@paulsansonetti7410]

Hahaha hahaha hahaha kzbin.info/www/bejne/gaHYfKhpe5V1rLssi=mf2OQYQOxIi1ai1C

[@dannystefanovski5513]

This is a kids fairytale storybook Cartoons show.. Obviously they didn't have the technology to insert engine thrusters blowing Massive amounts of dust flying up and everywhere. The clown narrator doesn't obviously know that Buzz Aldrin telling a American late night show host that it was all animation on top of the fact telling a little girl that they never went

[@dannystefanovski5513]

No one has ever left earth and nothing can penetrate the unpenetrable firmament. Please explain how when no one has ever. PROOF OF THE BIBLICAL FIRMAMENT INVISIBLE STAR TREK LIKE SOLID GLASS SHEILD FOUND 7,200 MILES AWAY THAT BLOCKS EARTHS KILLER ELECTRONS. PROOF EARTH IS AN ENCLOSED SYSTEM NOONE HAS EVER BEEN TO OUTER SPACE Invisible shield found thousands of miles above Earth blocks 'killer electrons' A team led by the University of Colorado Boulder has discovered an invisible shield some 7,200 miles above Earth that blocks so-called "killer electrons," which whip around the planet at near-light speed and have been known to threaten astronauts, fry satellites and degrade space systems during intense solar storms. The barrier to the particle motion was discovered in the Van Allen radiation belts, two doughnut-shaped rings above Earth that are filled with high-energy electrons and protons, said Distinguished Professor Daniel Baker, director of CU-Boulder's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP). Held in place by Earth's magnetic field, the Van Allen radiation belts periodically swell and shrink in response to incoming energy disturbances from the sun. As the first significant discovery of the space age, the Van Allen radiation belts were detected in 1958 by Professor James Van Allen and his team at the University of Iowa and were found to be composed of an inner and outer belt extending up to 25,000 miles above Earth's surface. In 2013, Baker -- who received his doctorate under Van Allen -- led a team that used the twin Van Allen Probes launched by NASA in 2012 to discover a third, transient "storage ring" between the inner and outer Van Allen radiation belts that seems to come and go with the intensity of space weather. The latest mystery revolves around an "extremely sharp" boundary at the inner edge of the outer belt at roughly 7,200 miles in altitude that appears to block the ultrafast electrons from breeching the shield and moving deeper towards Earth's atmosphere. "It's almost like theses electrons are running into a glass wall in space," said Baker, the study's lead author. "Somewhat like the shields created by force fields on Star Trek that were used to repel alien weapons, we are seeing an invisible shield blocking these electrons. It's an extremely puzzling phenomenon." A paper on the subject was published in the Nov. 27 issue of Nature. The team originally thought the highly charged electrons, which are looping around Earth at more than 100,000 miles per second, would slowly drift downward into the upper atmosphere and gradually be wiped out by interactions with air molecules. But the impenetrable barrier seen by the twin Van Allen belt spacecraft stops the electrons before they get that far, said Baker. The group looked at a number of scenarios that could create and maintain such a barrier. The team wondered if it might have to do with Earth's magnetic field lines, which trap and control protons and electrons, bouncing them between Earth's poles like beads on a string. The also looked at whether radio signals from human transmitters on Earth could be scattering the charged electrons at the barrier, preventing their downward motion. Neither explanation held scientific water, Baker said. "Nature abhors strong gradients and generally finds ways to smooth them out, so we would expect some of the relativistic electrons to move inward and some outward," said Baker. "It's not obvious how the slow, gradual processes that should be involved in motion of these particles can conspire to create such a sharp, persistent boundary at this location in space." Another scenario is that the giant cloud of cold, electrically charged gas called the plasmasphere, which begins about 600 miles above Earth and stretches thousands of miles into the outer Van Allen belt, is scattering the electrons at the boundary with low frequency, electromagnetic waves that create a plasmapheric "hiss," said Baker. The hiss sounds like white noise when played over a speaker, he said. While Baker said plasmaspheric hiss may play a role in the puzzling space barrier, he believes there is more to the story. "I think the key here is to keep observing the region in exquisite detail, which we can do because of the powerful instruments on the Van Allen probes. If the sun really blasts Earth's magnetosphere with a coronal mass ejection (CME), I suspect it will breach the shield for a period of time," said Baker, also a faculty member in the astrophysical and planetary sciences department. "It's like looking at the phenomenon with new eyes, with a new set of instrumentation, which give us the detail to say, 'Yes, there is this hard, fast boundary,'" said John Foster, associate director of MIT's Haystack Observatory and a study co-author. Story Source: Materials provided by University of Colorado at Boulder. Note: Content may be edited for style and length. Journal Reference: D. N. Baker, A. N. Jaynes, V. C. Hoxie, R. M. Thorne, J. C. Foster, X. Li, J. F. Fennell, J. R. Wygant, S. G. Kanekal, P. J. Erickson, W. Kurth, W. Li, Q. Ma, Q. Schiller, L. Blum, D. M. Malaspina, A. Gerrard, L. J. Lanzerotti. An impenetrable barrier to ultrarelativistic electrons in the Van Allen radiation belts. Nature, 2014; 515 (7528): 531 DOI: 10.1038/nature13956 found that no matter where these electrons are circling ... 6

[@ZlayaCo6aka]

Once it was concluded that the Moon was NOT made of cheese, humans had no interest in returning.

[@1pcfred]

Well, the Moon smells like a cross between gunpowder, and rotten eggs. So kind of like a really strong cheese.

[@Dr_Nuclear-sloth]

Then we found Wisconsin.

[@geoffmower8729]

That's not true Wallis and Gromit went there on a cheese holiday and confirmed that the cheese on the moon is not wensleydale!

[@garethdaviesmovies8904]

Conspiracy theorists don’t actually understand anything and they just like causing controversy

[@Jack_80]

@bRandomFPV by their definition you are a conspiracy theorist. anyone who doesn't blindly believe the official narrative is a conspiracy theorist. the entire reason they invented the term is to prevent people from questioning anything they say. unbelievable how many people are so easily manipulated by 2 little words. most people will never question anything they are told, no matter how much it defies common sense, out of fear of being labeled a conspiracy theorist.

[@marcuserectus2442]

I am a conspiracy analyst. I believe anyone can be fooled by expert deception. As a conspiracy theorist I don't always believe the "Official Government Story"

[@zapster2412111]

@@marcuserectus2442 Truth,Its easyier for someone to believe a lie than believe they have been lied to.

[@zapster2412111]

Well that's a real prejudice ideology you have there about people you don't know.

[@dougiegooner]

@bRandomFPV Bart Sibrels documentary has been absolutely ripped apart by people that have critical thinking skills.... Many times! @GreaterSapien does a big piece on the "Funny thing happened" nonsense on his KZbin channel. It's fantastic... Sibrel should be ashamed of himself.... He's nothing but a GRIFTER!

[@alancordwell9759]

I'm so glad you did this Dave, and for me the timing was perfect. I was 11 in 1969 and I remember staying up to way after my bedtime here in the UK to see the tv coverage of the landing on the moon. (So the BBC were complicit presumably? How did that happen???!) I've just been watching a lot of vids here on KZbin about space history and project Apollo and then I stumbled across the 'hoax' thing, and I was amazed; it just made me feel so sad that there are people out there who would deny what is undoubtedly one of the greatest technological achievements of all time. I don't pretend to understand why people become conspiracy theorists, in fact I just don't get it....at all. But somebody needs to wake up and smell the coffee here; a lot of good people spent their careers on getting those spacecraft up there. Let's not disrespect them by saying it didn't happen.

[@sparkplug1018]

The short answer as to why people become conspiracy theorists is it makes them feel special. That they know something we don't, that they're in on the secret. Combine that with their general distrust of governments and authority and there you have it. Personally id have loved to have been there to see it live, but I'm content learning about the science and watching the videos after the fact. Born 16 years to late I suppose.

[@RogerinKC]

Why would the BBC have to be complicit with anything? All they were doing was showing the one television feed all of the other television broadcasters were showing. If someone's going to be dishonest, do you think they're going to call up the BBC or CBS and tell them to go along with the scam? No they're not. It called "Plausible Deniability." What better authority could NASA have than to have all of the major broadcasters unquestioningly going along with their show. Tang was the best thing that came out of the Apollo Program... If you ever critically looked at this program for yourself, you might understand why some people become "conspiracy theorists." Why take anything at face value when you don't have to?" God Save the Queen --- and all that other stuff...

[@RedSkyHorizon]

Alan, they're are not really conspiracy theorists. The people who make those videos don't believe the hoaxes themselves anymore than you do. They have simply hit upon the great money making formula of creating sensationalist topics such as hoaxes and the like so that gullible and ignorant people subscribe to them. KZbin is full of UFO and 911 conspiracy video for the very same reason. $$$

[@heldercapela]

Alan Corwell,.....AS YOU SAY YOU`VE SEEN THE EVENT ON TV....ON TV. you should be surprised by "games that people play for fame and money' and what`s behind the scenes please ,don`t believe what you can`t touch , things on tv are double nonexistent ,even what you see can be a mirage , far away is a place which doesn`t exist for each one of us.

[@AndyGraceMedia]

I can't touch you helder capela, therefore you don't exist. And neither do any of us here in the internet because you can't touch electrons or little beams of light in glass fibres. All these messages you see are implanted here by government agents so you are put off from revealing 'the truth' to the world. Or would you in fact be reading this message right now if that is the case? Surely the government wouldn't allow this message to get through to you? Ah... but you say this message is implanted by government to trick your mind into thinking we wouldn't therefore we would. Or maybe we would because we wouldn't because we would because we wouldn't? Maybe you're right. The other option of course is your mind is inadequate to process the possibility that people are far more intelligent than you and have achieved things which you assume are impossible. Either way that's OK with us as you are irrelevant. Sorry about that. :)

[@harrysvensson2610]

1970 "In the future there will be flying cars n all that!" 2017, we question how many genders there are, we question if the earth is round, we question if we ever went to the moon. We question science. Yes.

[@Turidus]

Um, one of these things is not like the other. Biologist know that gender is a spectrum. It would be questioning science not to talk about gender expressions and different genders in general

[@KuraIthys]

Turidus Indeed. Generally speaking it's not biologists that think gender and sex follow a strict binary. There's way too much evidence of conplexity, ambiguity and variation in nature for that to be a sane conclusion with any real grounding in science.

[@KuraIthys]

Also, as a general point of order, if you think established science should never be questioned, I don't think you really understand science. Questioning, cross-checking and verifying things against reality is the very heart of science. The difference is knowing when there is a good reason to question existing knowledge, and when there isn't. (also you don't just throw things out wholesale for no reason. Einstein proved newtonian mechanics is actually wrong, but it's not so wrong as to just be thrown out. Rather, it is a valid approximation of a more complex situation that is good enough for many situations if they stay within certain limits). Saying an existing theory is flawed or incomplete is one thing, but saying it is ENTIRELY wrong is quite another, and expect to be asked to prove it.

Shut the fuck up you waffling lying ignoramus.

[@Yoji808]

I'm not sure if your comment is in a serious tone.. or exasperated tone.. Sean O'Nibud has obviously taken it as serious. If serious, I think the "we" you use - is a very small number.. and through the power of the internet - where minorities can find like minded people... and find a voice (through youtube vids etc). I am sure many of your numbers don't believe - but just take the position to be contrary and/or as a cry for attention. I presume most are not "Stupid", but are just incredibly misinformed.. there is so much compelling evidence for all these points to support the questions you pose.. and even tests you can do yourself if you don't want to trust anyone else.There is a saying I always think of in such situations "There are none so blind as those that will not see"

[@12voltvids]

I know one of those nut jobs, and even after showing him this video, he said "Dave faked it"

[@Herby-1620]

The moon landing hoaxers probably use "Solar freaking roadways" and "batterizers" to power their tinfoil hats. :-)

[@AttilaTheHun333333]

Herby1620 ...or Trump's solar wall.

[@Cash2112]

Additional proof exists with the laser reflecting mirrors left on the lunar surface by the Apollo missions. McDonald Observatory first received a laser reflection from the Apollo 11 mirrors in August, 1969 and over 200 times a year since.

[@Aydosh1991]

I remember rushing home from school to watch that happen on live TV.

[@TheCunningStunt]

live TV, that was filmed from a film being projected onto a wall at NASA instead of them broadcasting the feed directly? You mean that LIVE TV?

[@BenYork-UBY]

Conspiracy theorists: "NASA is so impossibly good at faking and covering things up, they remembered to have all their moon tracks sync up perfectly in all their footage for 40 years!" Also conspiracy theorists: "NASA Keeps forgetting to turn on stars lmaoaodofsihfsofhsdhfi worst fakers ever!!!!!"

[@taofledermaus]

Idea for a video, "proof the world is a sphere". Many people, for whatever reason, think it is flat.

[@ilikezappa3268]

Um, We don`t need to prove we landed on the moon ,because no one gives moon hoaxers any intellectual respect . They are here to make our food , if they can pass the Burger King intelligence tests .

[@thedevilinthecircuit1414]

They can't make sense because if the cash register is broken at Burger King, they can't make change.

[@joevignolor4u949]

The problem is that hoaxers are successfully convincing other people, especially young people, that the landings were faked. People do believe what they say. As such, the Apollo legacy is becoming eroded. To prevent this from happening hoaxer arguments must be continuously refuted.

[@LordArioh]

You don't have to prove that people went to the moon. The non believers should prove you wrong first.

[@DrRChandra]

I like how Neil deGrasse Tyson put it on a YT vid I saw last week, of him with Joe Rogan, something to the effect of: it'd be easier and less expensive just to go to the Moon than to fake everything. And considering what we spent to get there and back six times, that's saying something.

[@axer3515]

I know for a fact that the moon landing was faked!! Bigfoot told me when I had him over for roast unicorn.

[@sparkplug1018]

Did he remember to bring the damn rainbow dressing this time!?

[@axer3515]

nope, just a bottle of fairy dust and mermaid juice. Rainbow dressing is not as easy to find on Mars as it is on Jupiter.

[@sparkplug1018]

Oh, I didn't realize you were dinning on Mars, the Olympus Mons BBQ shack perhaps? Fairy dust is the preferred seasoning for Unicorn though, I have to say.

[@jimsmindonline]

Gonna enjoy reading the comments on this, expect plenty of flat earthers!

[@sparkplug1018]

So far I haven't been disappointed either.

[@johnwriterpoet1783]

Thank you sir for your very fine presentation. I can't believe anyone could think it was a hoax.

[@joyfulnoise349]

Many that claim it as a hoax are Christians… they fully believe a man 2000 years ago walked on water with zero evidence…no photos or video footage… no writings from the man etc… yet have video footage and photos of the lunar landing and say… nope it’s fake news a hoax etc?

[@gazmartinpadiham.lancs.3435]

Tons of animation,loads of edits,how would anyone not believe it.

[@spunkmire2664]

Personally I like to see things with my own eyes, if you know what i mean :D ...... I want to go to the moon.......

[@spunkmire2664]

I always loved watching the series From the Earth to the Moon.

[@spunkmire2664]

the Japaneses moon probe took great footage of all the sites too. It's all public as well

[@thedroplett214]

make sure you survive van allen belts 1st.

[@johnsergei]

I did, Say sadly "then the radiation beyond the VAB got me"

[@heldercapela]

Spunkmire , you`ll go to the moon in your dreams , cux so far no one ever stepped on the moon and never will........what you know about science , it`s only kind of true ,what was physically proven ! computers now are given us some approach and conclusion about space

[@grassroot011]

So how do you explain, honestly that is, how it was that when during the first "trip to the moon," When one of them was pounding a core sample stake into the surface, you could hear the hammer striking the stake? And when one of them tossed a bag onto the LEM it too created a sound as if it was on the earth. They said it could have been that the hammer strike was transmitted up his glove and arm into his mic in the helmet. But that doesn't explain the sound created when the bag was tossed. That was on an different mission I think. But there it is. No atmosphere, no sound to be heard.

[@keithglaysher737]

Good on ya Dave, absolutely sick of that naysayers, I will use your vid to debunk the idiots if that's ok. Cheers mate.

[@mikewalsh1402]

I think hoaxers should build a rocket of their own and go to the Moon and prove we never landed there. 😂

[@LifeOnHoth]

Yeah. they faked the films and photos :P. Nah... I don't get why some make it their religion to deny the moon landing. I just don't get it.

[@pascalxavier3367]

It's not my religion, but there are really too many anomalies, and not only in the footage, but also in the technology.

[@randyt60]

Hi Pascal. The anomalies are only anomalous due to most people's poor understanding of the conditions and the science involved. To those that understand this stuff it is quite straightforward and remarkable. For example, the lack of stars in the photos, the waving flag, the "certain death" of the Van Allen Belts, etc. People claim these things as anomalies whereas they are really just Ignorance rearing its ugly head...

[@asleepinthealley]

I don't get why you're so gullible.

[@joevignolor4u949]

For a lot of hoaxers it is religious. Many are bible literalists who believe in the bible's description in Genesis of an impenetrable "firmament" dome that covers a flat earth. They also believe that the moon is just a "light" being projected on the firmament. With this view of creation they also believe that modern spaceflight isn't possible so the moon landings must have been faked. They also don't believe that the ISS, satellites, the Mars rovers or deep space probes like Voyager are real either.

[@IanScottJohnston]

Isn't there some stories around that Stanley Kubrick filmed the fake moon landings for NASA but that he couldn't get enough realism so filmed on location 😀 anyway, great video Dave, I'll use it when next discussing these matters with my moon landing conspiracy friends!

[@jerrystone9453]

Stanley Kubrick "couldn't get enough realism so filmed on location". Ha! Ha! That's terrific! In the 1960s Stanley Kubrick was living in England, and as he wouldn't fly then if he had sailed to the US to do the filming someone would have spotted him. In fact people did spot him during this time - here in England. In any case, his depiction of the lunar surface in "2001" was inaccurate, so why would NASA hire him if he couldn't show what the Moon really looked like. I actually have fun tellingl people that the Moon landings were filmed in a studio ... on Mars :)

[@1pcfred]

With friends like moon landing conspirators who needs enemas?

[@solanumtinkr8280]

Conspiritard suggestions that Stanley Kubrick supposedly filmed a fake Lunar surface and since he was in England is laughable. There is only one studio I can think of that could have handled a project like that. I'm sure they will happily take people to the cleaners for suggesting they are part of some lunatic global conspiracy and taking backhanders to keep their silence as they are still going strong today. A documentary proving the Lunar landing was a hoax would be big money and they would be holding all of the cards. Governments are not one giant omnipresent hand with a singular intelligence that is a seeing and all powerful that can do anything it wants. But closer to competing factions all pulling levers to try and get it to do what they want it to do instead, so it is more like one big clumsy hand. The idea that it could hide so much without a single whistle blower uncovering such expensive on going nonsense is laughable in an era of austerity and major cutbacks. And the idea that countries that passionately hate each other and were trying to destroy the credibility of each other daily would be cooperating so closely is right up there in the LaLaLand conspiracy junk league right along with Cthulhu hiding out in my garden shed. The fact is as dangerous as is was those lunatics went to the Moon.

[@Flyingdutchy33]

Watch Operation Avalanche. While in and of itself it proves nothing, it shows you how easily they could have faked it without involving ANY scientist from NASA, save for the astronauts... Perhaps thats why Neil Armstrong never said a word about the whole thign when he got back, and was notoriously reclusive. As was Stanley Kubrick.

[@brendadavis140]

It seems to me that it would be awfully expensive to build these rockets, put fully equipped crew on them, and blast off just to really do nothing. What about the hundreds of people at Cape Canaveral that witnessed the launches. And then the splash downs on their return, getting picked up by the Navy, etc. What about the astronauts families who waited all that time for their return. There's way too many people involved in this "hoax" for something not to get leaked by now.

[@benxamin13]

1/6th gravity shouldn't mean 1/6th of rocket thrust needed for take-off? That take-off looks completely bogus to me. (I guess I'm going to get some labelling now).

[@brettcourtenay569]

Good onya Dave! Excellent work! It's a shame that the deniers will continue to deny ANY evidence provided , readily available and however irrefutable t is. Because Deniers don't need proof, fact or truth...because they can easily Deny it...and will continue to do so, because it requires nothing further for them to do ! They have no desire to know or want to know what they already have decided to deny. Nuff said!

[@guyh3403]

I would love to suggest Curious Droid's channel.

[@EEVdiscover]

Yeah, great channel.

[@hakemon]

Careful, those "flat earth"er's are bound to get furious. They don't believe in the landing either.

[@sparkplug1018]

+Derp, careful with questions like that, might make their heads explode from thinking. Wait, that would be a good thing, carry on!

[@Larsverde]

Derp I've read somewhere(sorry don't remember where)that the sky is supposed to be like a monitor or something like that

[@SPDATA1]

Michael MacEachern You are too stupid to see that NASA and Disney/Hollyweird is/are for Entertainment only. 🤗😂

[@sparkplug1018]

+Stue TheClue, Sure if you say so. Your pretty funny though, ever consider doing stand up comedy for a living?

[@raulsalcedo8332]

Paper-thin aluminum-alloy sheets to protect Astronauts from beyond-deadly radiation as they attempt to leave Earth's atmosphere, not even space... Yet, you go to the doctors' for an x-ray and they shield you with a thick lead mat. Problem with most people, who coincidentally would argue that mankind has been to the moon is that they are too hung up on the big picture that the US won the "space race" and overlook all the little weak links that compromise the entire illusion.

[@daffidavit]

The real credit for the video of the ascent stage takeoff goes to a NASA engineer. They used punch cards at the time with language like Fortran IV or better on computers like Xerox Sigma V's and the like. The camera on the Rover was used to pan upward as theApollo 17 assent stage took off from the moon. Due to the 1.3 to 1.5 second time lag for radio waves to travel through Cis-Lunar Space, a computer program had been written to compensate for the lag so that the entire liftoff would be in the frame for as high as the camera could pan up. That was no small feat to accomplish that task. NASA had some very smart people back in the 70's. Today their grandkids are building rockets that takeoff and return to land themselves on a target 3 feet in diameter.

[@mikemyers7480]

why didn't we put a phone booth on the moon as well?

[@TechTins_Projects]

Best video I have seen this year. Bloody awesome!

[@MrButtonpresser]

Brilliant work! As a child of the 60s I love this stuff.

[@SatyajitRoy2048]

For the first time I believed the landing on moon to be a truth. Thanks Dave for all the traces that they left behind. Double thumbs up

[@EEVdiscover]

Thanks.

[@Yoji808]

Out of interest - why only now? overwhelming evidence already exists WAY before Dave's Vid.. so why were you doubtful before?

[@EEVdiscover]

Yeah, I'd like to know too. I can recommend the NVIDIA moon landing model video, that's beyond awesome proof.

[@DoRC]

Satyajit Roy then this video was a success! Thanks Dave!!!!

[@brentpedersen9175]

As a for warning, I am sceptical but have not made up my opinion either way. Given the film of the take off is facing the sun lit side of the moon because the moon surface is bright, why is the module completely black. Should the module not be lit up by the sun as well give the sun is at the back of the camera. I am an amateur photographer and am always interested in light and shadows

[@Faithswarrior159]

Thank you for being real man you should breed unlike flat earthers and moon landing hoaxers

[@ghostface9171]

Earth is flat, if you live in the 1st dimension

[@ceantaury1470]

@@ghostface9171yeah and the sun is projector.

[@ghostface9171]

@@ceantaury1470 yeah it is

[@Injudiciously]

I don't care what you think, I know what I saw.. You know it damn well. Tintin got there first.

[@RallyRanchMotorsport]

i usually find the non believers to be people that really struggle to comprehend or even fathom the scale of this kind of science, or most kind of large scale sciences at that. so rather then attempting to fathom they take the easiest path of resistance and that is to conspire.

[@GadgetUK164]

Subbed =D Conspiracy theorists can't argue with that - surely!!!!!!

[@gustavwest4625]

This brings back memories from my childhood, I remember watching all the footage on TV from the Apollo missions. I never could have imagined that all these years later, so many people would believe that the Apollo missions were a hoax. It just goes to show how extraordinary these guys were. They literally achieved the impossible! Impossible even by today's standards as evidenced by the disbelief of so many young people who weren't alive at the time. I take my hat off to you guys, I remember!

[@earlray156]

You would believe anything the government tells you , I know your type! Probably tell people you were in the marines but you were a girl scout then!

[@iToldYou922]

New discoveries show men are actually women with dicks. I love it

[@tomaszkulawinski6388]

Special vid for me as day they came back to earth (19.12.72) is my birthday lol :)

[@jjkosinski]

You're a spring chicken. XD

[@TheCunningStunt]

Holy shit they were up there for almost 3 years? lol

[@randyt60]

+Funky Giblets I think he means Apollo 17, not 11.

[@alpcns]

Absolutely brilliant! Fantastic work. Let's see how the True Believers and nihilists explain this one away. They will probably accuse Dave of faking the entire comparison, "somehow". Unfortunately, I can assure you that there's plenty self-proclaimed "experts" and "engineers" out there that really believe that, for example, the DSKY couldn't work, Rope-core memory didn't exist and couldn't work, RTL logic was unworkable and all kinds of barking mad nonsense more - not to mention their last resort, the Van Allen belts. Thanks for injection some sanity, reason and logic into this insane world, Dave. Much appreciated.

[@EEVdiscover]

Thanks, glad you liked it.

[@SvenSchumacher]

Of course men was on moon... but also it's clear, that the "truthers" will not accept that. No way ;)

[@casio007]

yeah and they didn't come back for 50 years.. I know, money..:D

[@BobSolimeno]

Very cool video Dave. Loved seeing the photo of you and Gene Cernan at the end!

[@Streamtronics]

Of course conspiracy theorists will say the LRO images are fake, too... so of course they match. Well, I've never thought of this and this video made me happy, just great seeing those images line up after so long. Good job, and a great idea for a video! Can't wait for more EEVdiscover!

[@danfuerthgillis4483]

Streamtronics Do us a favour look for NASA's rover footage of the Apollo 16 landing site showing the LEM and Moon buggy left behind since 1972. Are you dumb or brainwashed! The greatest achievement of Mankind was Erased and not 1 single Rover has visited any of the Apollo landing sites . Bigfoot pictures must be real since they were not taken from. 16 miles away lol. They spent all that money to take pictures and did not land a Rover lmfao. I guess it's easier to land a rover on Mars .

[@pascalxavier3367]

We don't only say that the LRO images are fake, we can also prove it.

[@SpreadingtheMuse]

Hoaxaholic "proof" is never anything more than "A dorky hoaxpage told me, and dorky hoaxpages are never wrong!"

[@jasonvoorhees3666]

www.flickr.com/photos/148012942@N02/33076831795/in/dateposted-public/ www.flickr.com/photos/148012942@N02/33077032805/in/dateposted-public/ www.flickr.com/photos/148012942@N02/27948329789/in/dateposted-public/

[@goose300183]

Streamtronics - I think that's the exact problem with flat earthers, moon landing hoax believers etc. It doesn't matter what evidence you show them, they will just declare it a hoax, fake video, hologram put there by NASA, etc. etc. There is no evidence that they will accept. They are truly lost in ignorance.

[@NatureAndTech]

Doesn't prove a thing. Could just as well prove that you can fake two videos to be identical.

[@0x8badf00d]

Shhh, don't let the idiots find out.

[@RayleighCriterion]

Laser ranging, yes that's a good one, perhaps we can do a laser ranging test using the TWO retroreflectors that the SOVIETS left on the moon. Because according to Apollo brainwashed sycophants that is proof the Soviets must have landed men on the moon as well, as clearly no machine could have left them on the surface.

[@mookie2637]

Can I gently refer you to the Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhodod 2 missions. Both were unmanned Soviet landers, and both included laser reflectors. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment. Can I also gently suggest you do just a tiny bit of research before insulting the hard-won achievements of earlier generations.

[@MrMenefrego1]

1. How do you figure that this dispels any conspiracy theories? 2. You act like you had an epiphany lol... Laying Over photos isn't really thinking outside of the box... pretty fundamental thinking.

[@AlejandroIrausquin]

This is one of the neatest things I have seen about matching "vintage" space travel film clips with newer images! I usually do this with 100 years old venezuelan aviation pictures trying to find the location of demolished or dismantled aviation hangars pr airfields by using ggogle maps. Outstanding!

[@nikolazekic4676]

the only thing that landed on the moon was our imaginations

[@veryhighqualityreviews433]

The Moon Landing was faked! the moon never landed anywhere! it's sitting right up there! just look in the sky!

[@parkerproffitt3012]

Now prove the earth is round!

[@AttilaTheHun333333]

7:54 ...you're welcome!

[@ian-c.01]

What makes you think it isn't ?

[@rocketman221projects]

Anybody with a weather balloon and a gopro can do that.

[@aarondecker8530]

Gravity. What do I win?

[@shaun9107]

that was a good one lol

[@elguinolo7358]

Now watch moon hoaxers protesting that 40 years apart, tracks should have faded (you know, the weather etc), and therefore this proves their conspiracy thing. Ahah.

[@Larsverde]

El Guiñolo Or some flat-earth dumbasses come along

[@simongross8324]

actually i could see those conspiretards idiots saying some thing like that (erosion , wind) . ))) LOL

[@sparkplug1018]

Well technically there is "erosion" on the Moon, micrometeorites and such. But no where near enough to erase those tracks anytime soon.

[@simongross8324]

well yes technically ,fare enough thats true, but on a human time scale we will not see anything well at least our generation will not . ))

[@1pcfred]

Well the Moon does get bombarded by the Sun. That causes dust particles to statically charge, and repel. So there kind of is "weather" on the Moon. Just not weather as we're familiar with the word. But the Lunar regolith does go up in a cloud, and rain back down again. That is why you can see "haze" in some pictures from the surface of the Moon. So someday the tracks on the Moon will get erased. But it will take a really long time.

[@TheResidentSkeptic]

Of course they match! In 2011 NASA just used the old video to create the new photo in Photoshop! lojk...

[@markuscamenzind5510]

not a disbeliver but what bothers me is the qualaty of the 2000 missions shouldnt thes pictures be in higher resolution my house looks better on google earth and tat shot throu an atmosvere come to think of it if i post a picture of bigfoot or a ufo of this quality you would call me delusional oh and also i am just a mechanic so stop pulling the science card on both sides of the argument as iam sure there is less than 1 percent acutal scientists watching these kind of posts

[@georgiosmarcou4446]

It seems as if the Moon Hoax Conspiracy theorists have disappeared for this video! Couldn't stand the overwhelming evidence I suspect.😂

[@andrewcochlin]

What a load of nonsense. You telling me a simple parabolic dish could receive, process and control a remote DTMF camera and simultaneously transmit live footage to earth 250,000 miles away. How then? You seem to use 2019 terminology in your explanation but forget its early 70s technology in the spot light.

[@maxtorque2277]

When someone says "we never landed on the moon" just immediately punch them as hard as possible square in the face. Once they have regained consciousness, wiped away the bloody and said "what did you do that for" just reply "Do what? Never happened, did it".......

[@cradash]

Oh yes, violence is always the voice of reason

[@pascalxavier3367]

Ok , Mr Max Torque, I say that the moon landings never happened; you hear me: THEY NEVER HAPPENED; now come punch me!

[@jrogertrudel6356]

Is that how low and stupid you can get? We are a free people and we are all entitled to our God given opinions and beliefs. And there is nothing you can do about that.

[@thedevilinthecircuit1414]

Max Torque's real name is Buzz Aldrin? Who knew? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Sibrel Sibrel...his parents must be *so* proud.

[@asleepinthealley]

You're an idiot who's not intelligent enough to work it out yourself, so you have to take the word of those smarter. Come punch me.

[@TonyTN16]

Can someone explain how come the crew on the space shuttle from Nov 1998 experienced shooting stars in their eyes from radiation from the Van Allen Belt and they had to descend? And yet none of the Appolo astronauts had this problem. Are there any photos or film from the Appolo mission that has a panoramic view of the moon. One of the Appolo missions took a golf club and ball. Did anyone this of packing a telescope? One of the earlier comments said, why don't we point telescopes to the moon and what was left behind? Howcome there was sound while hammering something in the ground on one of the missions? Yet on the space station there isn't because space is a vaccume? That's what was said from someone on the space station. What about the shadows that stretch in different directions from one light scource. And lastly, Apollo 11's filming of the earth (the unedited version)? If someone can give us a logical answer we all would be grateful.

[@ThomasKundera]

_"Can someone explain how come the crew on the space shuttle from Nov 1998 experienced shooting stars in their eyes from radiation from the Van Allen Belt"_ More likely from cosmics. _"and they had to descend? "_ That never happened. _"yet none of the Appolo astronauts had this problem"_ Astronauts to the Moon reported LF as being quite common. _" Are there any photos or film from the Appolo mission that has a panoramic view of the moon."_ This has never been intended. But people could build some by carefully selecting lots of picts took by the crews. A beautiful site to see: moonpans.com/vr/ _"One of the Appolo missions took a golf club and ball"_ In fact Alan Shepard smuggled 2 golf balls and some makeshift club. _"Did anyone this of packing a telescope?"_ Taking an optical telescope would have make little sense: it was better to observe star from Earth. They were there to study the Moon, after all. However,n Apollo 16 took a small UV telescope, as UV cant reach ground on Earth they could do pictures that couldnt have been done anywhere else, and saw a few things that could only be confirmed decades latter, with the first space telescopes. _"why don't we point telescopes to the moon and what was left behind?"_ Because it's by far too small. _"Howcome there was sound while hammering something in the ground on one of the missions?"_ Because sound travel in matter. _"What about the shadows that stretch in different directions from one light scource."_ They dont. _" And lastly, Apollo 11's filming of the earth (the unedited version)? "_ You mean that joke from Brad Sibrel? The video of Bart Sibrel is an hoax. In short, this video pretends that the astronauts, stayed in low orbits around the Earth while pretending that they were going to the moon (that's ridiculous, but that's a common assumption of conspis), and trying to make believe in a distant Earth by filming the near Earth through a device (the conspi claim one of the portholes of the module, however there is no round porthole there), and a video of NASA explaining this manipulation has leaked. As usual, we are dealing with a rough manipulation (as conspiracies have no facts, they invent, usually by trafficking NASA public documents), and the deception clearly appears as soon as one take the original unedited document and cross-cut it to make it look like something fishy. You will see more here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iHzOoZmPis2en8k At the 95th second for a side-by-side comparison of the two videos, and the part removed by the "director" (well, the forger) who rigged this video.

[@randyt60]

Hi Tony. Before I read Thomas's excellent reply I was merely going to say: Why are you asking these questions in here? Go to Google and look them up. It's not hard, there's tons of information there that will answer your questions. It's good that you're asking the questions, because that's how we learn things. Just be careful that you don't fall into the trap of believing conspiracy bullshit which relies on unfalsifiable claims and DISinformation.

[@TonyTN16]

Thanks Randal. I'll read more. Regards

[@mikemyers7480]

thank you

[@tristanband4003]

Actually the Apollo astronauts did experience the flashes. A lot. NASA elected not to tell them about it, and just told them not to worry as they went through, exposed to all that radiation.

[@ivandelabanque1806]

After nuking the van Allan belt and realizing it was still impossible for man to go through, they turned to Hollywood, Just imagine a man wearing a space suite for six days without going to the toilet..

[@flattardiaisamentalcondition]

Nobody 'nuked' the Van Allen belts, and the astronauts had waste disposal systems in place.

[@ivandelabanque1806]

@@flattardiaisamentalcondition Before you say stuff, Google first, then dispute the fact..

[@flattardiaisamentalcondition]

@@ivandelabanque1806 I did, and you're wrong.

[@narajuna]

Van Allen's 1959 article in Scientific American. "While he did make many assumptions that were later revised, he was always very clear about saying that it was all based on very preliminary studies and subject to change." - not very for a LOT of Apolloists, many Nutter rave about his Human SAFE benediction. [ Chicago Tribune bannered the headline, “Radiation Belt Dims Hope of Space Travel.” The story continued: “Death, lurking in a belt of unexpectedly heavy radiation about 700 miles above the earth, today dimmed man’s dreamed of conquering outer space.” ] [ The mood on the other side of the planet was somewhat darker. In London, England, 300 British citizens demonstrated outside the United States Embassy, chanting “No More Tests!” and scuffling with police. Canon L. John Collins of St. Paul’s Cathedral called the test “an evil thing,” and said those responsible were “stupid fools.” Izvestia, the Soviet newspaper, carried the headline, “Crime of American Atom-mongers: United States Carries Out Nuclear Explosion in Space.”] “To our great surprise and dismay, it developed that STARFISH added significantly to the electrons in the Van Allen belts,” Atomic Energy Commission Glenn Seaborg wrote in his memoirs. “This result contravened all our predictions.” - Was major concern on permanent damage 🤕 In 1963, it was reported that Starfish Prime had created a belt of MeV electrons. In 1968, it was reported that some Starfish electrons had remained in the atmosphere for 5 years. - Who could hope for better Science? (The Soviets tested their own high-altitude thermonuclear device in October 1962, which further damaged Telstar’s transistors and rendered it useless.) Science historian James Fleming of Colby College : "this is the first occasion I've ever discovered where someone discovered something and immediately decided to blow it up."

[@Gromitdog1]

They couldn't see stars on the moon due to the ceiling of the movie set.

[@bjooo]

Nope. They couldn't see the stars because moon is so bright compare to stars that the human eyes retract in order to not be dazzle. Simple common sense.

[@fishntools]

Would love to see you debunk 9/11 NOT being an inside job

[@mikemyers7480]

i was thinking the same thing

[@rtanidean4931]

Michael Mullner That would be an impossibility - because it was all planned & not by those they blamed.

[@ohger1]

Waste of time. Conspiratard's brains don't operate logically.

[@rtanidean4931]

John-Del Huh? Why do you people always go to the “Conspiratorial” thing? Questioning things that Contradict a narrative or a “reasonable perception” are fair game. Do you just regurgitate everything you are told? I’m guessing the answer is no. So why do you have issue with rational minds pointing out obvious “question worthy” statements? For instance, do you find it “ODD” that WTC #7 came down in a manner that was seen as imploding into itself- due to a fire?? Do you find it “ODD” that Structural Engineers has made it quite clear there is NO Way this could have been a result from a fire? I’m “QUESTIONING” the obvious & the Contradictions VS the “Narrative!” Period. Here’s another one: Do you find it “ODD” that George Bush clearly presented his intel on Iraqi WMD as FACT, and then says..... whoops, we were wrong. Sorry about that one. All those lives lost because of an absolutely FALSE narrative? Oh yeah, Bush & that administration also got a “Free Pass” on the FALSE narrative. Costing countless American, Allies & Iraqi lives! Well that’s okay man.... Sadam was kind of a bad guy anyway. Man, get real here.... to scoff at others who question Contradictions in a given narrative is absurd & narrow minded. You illustrate why there IS concern for people who can’t think enough for or of themselves to “Question” things that just don’t add up. “A Sleeping Mind Never Questions!” That’s one of my quotes. 😉. Enjoy your day. Be the light

[@ohger1]

@@rtanidean4931 Tell you what, pick one of those ridiculous arguments and I'll answer it. To go point to point with all that crap would take more time than I'm willing to waste.

[@aboldy]

of cause they match they were both taken of the same group in the TV studio.. 2011 was taken in the same Studio. Come on Dave.. You know its all fake... Bwahahaha...

[@pistonsjem]

Alan Boldock or is it because there's nothing on the moon to disturb the tracks...

[@RogerinKC]

Thank You!

[@tomkfly]

Roger inKC What is that saying “ there are non so blind as those that don’t want to see”. You will never convince the conspirator theory idiots.

[@feshane339]

tomkfly and you cant wake up an indoctrinated buffoon. To much fluoride. You love the free range human slave life to much. You are a zombie and worship satan, and you dont eve know it.

[@carlosgalvez9547]

No amount of evidence will convince the foolish like you, Mash.

[@Landrew0]

Why do you waste so much time and energy refuting ignorance?

[@AlejandroIrausquin]

He didn't! He did this for his own pleasure, and the result is really neat! And it serves as another proof.

[@sonsie101]

Who's ignorant? When science and math argue against moon landings being possible with 1960's tech - and yet you people persist in pushing the narrative without filling in all the holes we poke - just how the hell are we the idiots? I have a masters degree and I am telling you, there are unanswered questions about the Apollo program. NASA avoids answering them. Read before you start assuming we're all crackpots. Ignorance is born of laziness.

[@Landrew0]

Science and math aren't trying to refute the moon landings, it's ignorance of science and math, masquerading as the real thing. No one who is scientifically literate, much less a qualified scientist would give any credence to the pseudo-scientific arguments being put forth as valid arguments that the moon landing was a hoax. More to the original point of my post; Dave is in error by trying to argue this topic past the point of irrelevance. The job is finished once you've shown it to be irrelevant. Anything more is poor debating form.

[@AlejandroIrausquin]

+sonsie101 And your master degree is in what? Which are your questions?

[@markmclean9031]

sonsie101 You have a Masters Degree, so what, I have 2 of them plus a PhD. I happened to be alive when those Moon landings occurred and they were real! The 1960's and 1970's wasn't the Stone Age you know! We DID have the technology and we used it, also in doing so, we created new technology that is still in use today!

[@camtou914]

Oh man grrrreat video. Those images 40 years apart match thanks God. We landed on the moon, I'm a total believer now!

[@michaelhawthorne8696]

Great video work there Dave..... I've never doubted the Moon landings myself, simply because of the reflector that bounces back a laser signal to us left on the Moon. Just got a copy of "The Art of Electronics (3rd)" Awesome... huge book.... Swatting like you will never believe, got to wake my brain up from 30yrs sleep..... going for a second interview with a certain company in the north of the Old Dart (As you say) Tuesday. I mentioned your Blog channel and they said "We recomend all our Technicians watch your Blog" how cool is that?

[@sparkplug1018]

To add a bit of credibility to the LRO images, not only has it imaged our landing sites, but also located that Russian rover with it reflector. Satellite finds all kinds of awesome stuff we've left behind.

[@sammythesnake1986]

I mean it's great and all, but this doesn't prove anything really.

[@AttilaTheHun333333]

Actually it does.

[@sparkplug1018]

Well proves your not smart enough to see the facts and believe it.

[@1pcfred]

Images of tracks left on the Moon by human exploration taken by two different missions matching does not prove anything to you? What would it take, rubbing your face in Moon dust on the surface of the Moon?

[@sammythesnake1986]

You could fake that very easily in this day and age. I only have doubt's because of contradictions in stories and fact's, if something doesn't match up then something is wrong.

[@1pcfred]

+kim Dierichsen what Apollo has and Superman lacks is other evidence to back the event up. Such as radio telemetry that could have only come from the Moon, and physical samples. Plus we've seen physical evidence left on the surface several times since then too.

[@peterloftus6259]

Great Job man! Case closed...

[@CivicTypeRGT]

How did the lunar lander accelerate to 4,000mph to re-dock with the orbiting module? How did they even find it, successfully re-dock manually on the dark side of the moon in pitch black darkness, without GPS, laser guidance, etc. Try to find a scientific explanation for this if you can from NASA. I can't. Why is there no footage of Neil Armstrong climbing out of the capsule in 1969? Why does he just appear on the ladder? How did the rocket engine work in a vacuum? How did they slow down from 30,000mph to land on the moon? Why have NASA admitted they have never been beyond low earth orbit? Why does the Orion program directly contradict the Apollo program? Van Allen radiation belts, anyone? NASA committed to going to the moon and took billions of dollars from the US taxpayer. In the end and to secure ongoing funding, they had to fake it. Now, in 2017, it's pretty fucking obvious.

[@niallkinsella2687]

To continue where Joel left off: Newtons third law of motion. They were travelling at ~5,600mph relative to the moon (Not 30,000mph, the fuck does this number come from?) when Apollo 11 did it's 6 minute main engine retrograde burn to lower the speed to a stable lunar orbit, of 3,600mph. NASA has never said that they haven't been beyond LEO. Orion doesn't contradict Apollo in any way. The VAB. Not nearly as dangerous as tin foil hat wearers would like you to believe. Charged particles damaging modern electronics is a more pressing concern today. JFK committed the US to going to the moon. NASA was just given the job. NASA funding was has been reduced or increased based on the whims of US congress since Day 0. It's 2018 now. Still obvious that NASA sent men to the moon.

[@randyt60]

+Civic TypeRGT. Asking a whole lot of questions does not compromise an argument against the premise. It most certainly does not count as "evidence". It is known as an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE: "I can't understand this, therefore it must be false" There are answers to all of your questions if you simply Google them.

[@CivicTypeRGT]

Simplify it for me, post a link to any NASA article on the web where they provide a scientific (not just a description) of how the moon lander re-docked with the orbiting module, how did the lander accelerate to 4,000mph after taking off from the moon to match the speed of the orbiting module?

[@dillingerdiewithdignaty8287]

The escape module had no flames coming out it's engines, surly the engines worked on the same principle as all rocket engines of that see, can anyone explain this?

[@randyt60]

CivicTypeRGT. I'm not going to do your research for you; you know what you want to find, go find it. I will say though that docking procedures were down to a pretty fine art by the time the Apollo missions were in play. Before Apollo was Gemini: a two-man capsule launched into low Earth orbit with a separately launched "Agena" space docking module. The entire Gemini program was designed with docking and EVA as its main goals. If they couldn't get docking right then there was no point in going ahead with the Apollo missions. I'm not sure what you find incredulous about the Lunar Ascent Module taking off from the Moon and docking with the Command Module. Which bit don't you get, the taking off or the docking? They both seem pretty self-explanatory to me...

[@kbabioch]

A real conspiracy theorist won't accept footage from LRO. An orbiter from NASA after all ...

[@wildboar7473]

Hey hey say that again! 21C imaging of dark spots.... Even Corp Google wanted more but got the axe with a LAW forbiding flyovers or approches.

[@skydriver1990]

Does anyone think Gus Grissom was murdered? His own son thinks that he was. Is his son a conspiracy theorist?

[@stueverson1913]

Sorry Dave , we didnt go to the Moon. ask the Masons ;)

[@stueverson1913]

judging from your voice, theres some doubt deep down inside you that the moon landing was faked. if it were possible to go to the moon, the greedy bankers would be mining it. unfortunately this was one of the greatest deceptions of mankind.:)

[@1pcfred]

We did mine the Moon. Each successful mission brought back about 300 pounds of rocks. Moon samples are some of the most valuable material on Earth today too. But that still did not come close to paying for the Apollo program. So let's just say it is not particularly profitable to mine the Moon, yet.

[@brewsterly2927]

Yes, During the six Apollo landing missions, 2,415 samples weighing 380.96 kilograms (839.87 lb) were collected. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock

[@kearnzey]

13,000 reels of telemetry data missing and we haven’t been back in of 40yrs van Allen belts combustion not possible in a vacuum the list of fails is long. NASA openly admitting they destroyed the technology and it’s a painful process to build it back again. I tell you what’s painful is watching a world full of space cadets

[@randyt60]

+Milt Farrow +Kearnzey "Pettit" I would go back there in heartbeat, but we lost the technology, and it would be too painful to retrieve" Can someone explain this line of Bullshit?..." Sure. This is what happens when intellectually dishonest charlatans make these appalling factually-bereft videos. They pluck statements out of context and insert their own context, changing the meaning of the testimony. I read people saying "oh they LOST the technology" all the time. What, are they trying to say that it got accidently thrown out in the weekly trash? Did the dog eat it? Come on people, use your heads... You don't "lose" technology. It gets superseded or it becomes archaic. Do those that believe that they lost the tech really think that we'd return to the moon using 50 year old technology? Don't you think it is more reasonable to assume that since sending humans beyond Low Earth Orbit has become not so much of a priority, that technology in this area isn't up to speed. I don't know why Don Pettit used the word "painful" but I don't see how the word has any dark implications. And Kearnzey, yes combustion is not possible in a vacuum. Which is why they didn't use combustion engines in their rockets. The propellant used in the Saturn V launcher was Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Hydrogen. The Lunar Module used a different system. Here's some specifics for you: ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090016298.pdf Don't you find it laughable that every Hoaxard assertion always turns out to be utterly wrong...?

[@The.Doctor.Venkman]

So,why has no one gone back, Dave? with all this new technology and advances..... Never another man.....

[@blackhawks81H]

Andy Jary Buy me a working Saturn V and then I'll answer your question.

[@ljdean1956]

Andy Jary: NASA budgets were cut to the point todays NASA budget is the same after factoring inflation, as it was in 1960. You fell like a load of bricks for hoax advocates favorite recent argument and did so without looking into NASA budgets (Wiki or printed Almanacs) which takes all of what...one minute? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

[@The.Doctor.Venkman]

Never were truer words spoken guys and thanks. I guess we never considered why they had their budget cut and I don't believe it's because they never went there. However, the money NASA could have had, to go even further for the benefit of mankind, has been re-directed into blowing the crap out of other countries who don't bend over backwards for petro-dollar hegemony. After all, 9 trillion dollars alone added to the national debt through securing the Persian Gulf over the past decade. Countless more trillions of debt spent on fomenting wars throughout the world and killing millions of innocent men, women and children. Still, my shitty government are no better and in some cases are even worse. I was young enough to watch the moon landing live (in colour!) and, at the time, thought we had a wonderful future to look forward to as a race. Alas, our business is war, not space travel. What a shame.

[@randyt60]

Hi J Dean. Yes, today's NASA budget is ½ of 1% of the National Budget, which it also was in 1960. By 1966 it had risen to 4.41% of the National Budget, over 43 Billion dollars in today's money. By comparison it only gets less than 18 Billion today. Imagine all the cool things they could do if they reinstated a 1960s-style budget to NASA these days...! In the 13 years from 1960 to 1972 they spent the equivalent of over 313 Billion dollars on NASA.

[@ashyclaret]

They can still send a Rover to Mars but not the Moon for some strange reason.

[@axeman2638]

I want to see you take some film and put it through heat, cold, radiation and vacuum and see how it comes out. Film fogs quickly even in 50 degree heat, it's hotter than that on the moon, and a vacuum, film has emulsion on it and it would sublimate in vacuum, yet none of the photos show any signs of damage. Or any stars for that matter. It's ludicrous.

[@Dan-mu5oy]

ALL BOLLOX DO SOME RESEARCH

[@Dan-mu5oy]

ROFL that's for CONSUMER FILM moron, the magazines were loaded with a special-designed film NASA contracted Kodak to develop.

[@axeman2638]

+Dan, no it wasn't it was standard ektachrome. Got any citations for your previously unheard of claim?

[@Dan-mu5oy]

they used special order versions of the Ektachrome films of the time 16mm color reversal SO-368 Ektachrome MS 16mm color reversal SO-368 Ektachrome EF 16mm color reversal SO-168 Ektachrome EF apollo.sese.asu.edu/RESOURCES/apollo_films.txt ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19750013526 Each film magazine would typically yield 160 color and 200 black and white pictures on special film. Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions. On Apollo 8, three magazines were loaded with 70 mm wide, perforated Kodak Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, two with Kodak Ektachrome SO-168, one with Kodak Ektachrome SO-121, and one with super light-sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film. There were 1100 color, black and white, and filtered photographs returned from the Apollo 8 mission. history.nasa.gov/printFriendly/apollo_photo.html

[@axeman2638]

Radiation proof film... lol. 16000 ASA, yeah would have been so stable in a vacuum and under radiation.

[@mgarnett02]

I had the pleasure of meeting Neil Armstrong when he came to Australia about a year before he died. I got to shake his hand and swap small talk, was by far one of the most amazing moments in my life. He was a true inspiration.

[@clarkkent3730]

he was no different than any other human.....you were merely star-struck! (Idolatry)

[@cornpop8712]

What kind of battery power is required to send a signal from the moon back to earth?

[@xXxbastek]

I want to believe, but I can't

[@sparkplug1018]

And whats stopping you?

[@peterloftus6259]

Bartosz Marciniak It is not about belief it's about developing your critical thinking skills. On one hand you have the moon hoaxers that constantly look to criticise the evidence. Each item can be answered. However this ignores the reality that if we did not land on then a whole series of improbable events must have needed to take place. There is not one consistent argument to say what we did do if we did not land on the moon. Using your critical thinking skills and some Bayesian logic, Evaluate each of the conspiracy theory's in turn and each one is found to be a hoax itself or totally lacking in evidence. By eliminating these highly improbable events the truth then surfaces. No 'belief' is required just the application of logic.

[@StephenDevon]

and Peter no doubt using your critical thinking you believe 9/11 happened the official way?

[@SpreadingtheMuse]

I've never seen any 9/11 "conspiracy" evidence that wasn't either scientifically illiterate or completely made up. So yes, the official way is how it happened. We're going to believe "the gov" before we believe fear-mongering mcjobs on a dork message board. I mean geesh, WTF makes you think *you* have any more credibility than the gov does? You're worse than they are

[@ashyclaret]

H SpreadingtheMuse How did the third building fall down on it's own footprint?

[@randall43]

so for that liftoff that he is less than 100 feet away from, you can hear him say " 3, 2, 1 … Ignition" and ( I assume the pilot of the craft) "we are on our way Houston" however, the rocket that lifts him off , which often reaches 130 to 140 decibels, and certainly 120 without breaking a sweat is for some reason absolutely silent over the sound of his voice???? mmmkay, sure thing!

[@sparkplug1018]

I guess a recorded radio transmission isn't the answer right?

[@onetwo3603]

good work... dont get too bent up on conspiracy zombies,, even simpletons feel the need for the safety of their mob,

[@stranger7968]

Are there any reason as to why they stopped lunar missions? Was there no more tests to be done on the lunar surface? Also, why didn't Soviet Union send any space ships to the moon? Did they lose the interest after losing the race "moon race" in 1969? I know they had lunar spacesuits , rocket engines, modules, etc ready or in design process. Would US also lose the interest had the USSR won the race? Questions I must research now.

[@AttilaTheHun333333]

As of my knowledge it was way too expensive for the "scientific return".

[@GamingAmbienceLive]

*LunaCognita made a lot of great videos on Apollo missions, then he disappeared forever*

[@pascalxavier3367]

The video taken from the lunar module and the one taken by the rover's camera are not even compatible; on the video taken from the lunar module, the pitchover happens BEFORE than on the video taken by the rover's camera.

[@rong648]

The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from the Moon's surface using a laser with a millisecond pulse length.

[@stevmts905]

Here's a thought; the astronauts said the lander had to be air conditioned because it was sitting in the sun on the moon's surface and they would bake inside if inside otherwise. Question: Why was apollo 13 so cold?

[@sparkplug1018]

Its designed to passively radiate heat away. On the trip out the CM was on the end away from the sun. It also wasn't that cold in there either.

[@deaniepops]

Ah at last it's all over now. Rip conspiracies

[@stevenwithanS]

Bullshit. Fake photos matching fake photos? Really? You'll have to do better than that.

[@Joshs4stro]

the fact theres a proof video for the fact we landed on the moon is kinda sad

[@AspectOfTheStorm]

Ok, so hear me out. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but when I was a kid my country bumpkin family convinced me it was completely faked. They went as far as saying they saw the reflection of a coke bottle on one of the helmet or something. So naturally, I just grew up thinking it was fake. I was a kid, I didn't care to do research. Over time I never really cared to "seek the truth". I just really didn't care to be honest. I mostly believed we did when I turned 14 or so. But there was always that shred of doubt in my mind but I now feel like I have real closure haha.

[@LisaBowers]

I'm here from the Today I Found Out video. This was fascinating! I've seen the footage of the Apollo 17 liftoff from the moon, but I've never seen the CM footage. And forty years later, the tracks are still the same. Thank you for making this video!

[@stephenowens5375]

Laser ranging does not require a reflector on the moon. First done way before the moon landing by MIT in 1962

[@nils169]

Great video. I still think some clips where taken on earth. But this is really good proof that they been on the moon.

[@truthmatters5536]

I saw the Russian video showing that two Russian were walking on the moon. The video looks very scientific, and I have no reason not to believe it. The video is for 1958, 11 years earlier than Apollo. If the video can make people believe that men went to the moon, it is fair to say "Russian did it 11 years earlier." Don't you believe Russian video?

[@truthmatters5536]

Recently, someone found a bat flying behind the Apollo moon walking video. Interesting.

[@leecwilkin]

those pictures almost look like they were taken at the same time :-)

[@ForViewingOnly]

Very interesting Dave, and thanks for the heads up on the Last Man on the Moon documentary... I didn't know about that one.

[@sasostojanovski8375]

given that the source of the apollo 17 footage is the same as the source of the LRO photos, this is hardly a proof

[@asleepinthealley]

Have you ever seen what a balloon does in a vacuum? What shape do you think the Lunar Lander would have assumed exposed to the infinite vacuum of Space? That light tin foil of the Lunar Lander would have expanded like the Jiffy Pop Popcorn commercial and the Astronauts in their Michelin Man outfits would have exploded just like the Popcorn kernels.

[@RobertRFalk]

Of all the hoax comments, this might just be the dumbest! You _really_ think they didn't consider these things when designing the spacecraft, suits, etc.? Making vessels & suits that function in a vacuum is no problem.

[@asleepinthealley]

Rob Falk, of course they didn't consider these things. They weren't actually trying to go to the Moon, they were only trying to fool a bunch of people into believing they had with the highest technological tools at their disposal. The advancements of knowledge and video tricks available today make it easily discernible what they did and the mistakes they made. One of the problems is that the people making the Lunar Lander didn't understand vacuum and how the pressures were just as great AND GREATER as the pressures we encounter in deep sea exploration, just in the opposite direction. The things we understand today blow holes in the tricks used upon us yesterday.

[@asleepinthealley]

butchtropic, The irony here is the less knowledge people have in this debate the quicker they are to denigrate their opponent's credentials. You have no grasp of vacuum or the forces we are faced with. The pressures of our deepest oceans are minimal when compared to the infinite vacuum of space. Educate yourself and come back, we'll try this again.

[@jasonbanahan4618]

Great stuff as usual Dave. There was some interesting stuff in this I didn't know before.

[@1treehill149]

Great to see that you can have fire in a vacuum

[@jjkosinski]

Im here from EEVlog. Just saw your banned YT video. So im playing all of your videos, likeing then. Playing & clicking on all advertisements. Likeing the adds too just to give you more views. At work, we have less of different computers & different yt accounts. I'm it guy. :)...evil grin

[@TheBigley]

But they forgot to put a rocket engine on the lander.

[@bertoid]

A little further evidence. (I don't know if this is mentioned in all below):- Listening to the "live" replay at appolloinrealtime, you notice that when Houston addresses Apollo, there is a short delay before their response is heard, but when Apollo calls Houston, the response is more immediate. Because the conversation is recorded at this end, the delay for the signal to get to the moon and back should only occur for the first scenario, and not the second - just as observed.

[@dotdissonance]

I'm a bit late but really nicely done. The pic matchup was excellent.

[@ilannknochen]

if it was controlled from the ground you have to consider the seconds of delay between the controller and the camera

[@RobertRFalk]

They did. Look up the departure video for the previous mission (Apollo 16) and you'll see they blew it - but it made good practice for them to get it right on Apollo 17!

[@sc-sp4cm]

if you had learned math in school you could have done this too, but since you didn't... keep flipping those burgers

[@spacevspitch4028]

Gorgeous video man! Of course, you know these hoaxtards won't give up the ghost no matter what! Still, if there's anyone on the fence, you might be able to talk (or show, rather) some sense into them!

[@Dee-nonamnamrson8718]

The problem with the hoaxtards is that they are right to distrust the government, as the government has carried out tons of hoaxes. They're just wrong when it comes to the moon landing.

[@spacevspitch4028]

@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 Hey! Your comment actually located this video for me again after years of occasional searches. I always remembered it but couldn't find it no matter what I put in the search box. So thanks! Added to my favorites so I wouldn't lose it again 😄

[@MrMa1981]

GREATEST ACHIEVMENT EVER

[@BarryObama666]

One thing i find strange anout the LEM is the window design. The LEM.is pressurized and wondows with angles have a tendency to fail under pressure at leasr5on airliners it happened on the De Haviland Comet had square windows to start with. After 3 had crashed they discovered that the corners of the window frame had cracked at the 90 degree point because of the continual change in pressure every time the plane flew. They redesigned the windows to be oval instead. And there's other reasons such as very weak points at the corners. I guess the engineers knew the LEM wpuld only be used once so maybe it wasn't a big deal? It still seems like a risk considering they tried to cover everything.