Why the Moon photos could not be fake

[@DaveMcKeegan]

Play Enlisted for free today, and sign up using my link to receive a bonus pack including a premium account, soliders and weapons playen.link/davemckeegan

[@SaneGuyFr]

Im sure a flat earther will appear and the replies will be over 100 comments 🤣

[@grahammcrobert7141]

Hi hope you can help me with something one night it was a clear night and looked up and see what it was three stars just white lights I turned my head for a second and back then there was only two white lights left any idea what it could have been and never seen this after that night

[@greenmii6000]

Thousands of moon photos you've looked at. Did you spot the Dragon.? kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJK5k56fmMt4gbMsi=6b41Mk9568UsWLBC

[@SovTheCherub]

Russian bias 💔

[@billcape9405]

I was going to make the point that atmosphere is a sort of diffuser, but for the sake of discussion... it occurred to me that you could remove the atmosphere in a large vacuum chamber. It would have to be very large for the single light source to be of any real value, but I think it might still be technologically possible to do that here on Earth without that pesky ride to the moon.

[@foshizzlfizzl]

I was born in the Soviet Union. I asked my father once, if he thinks, that the moon landing was fake? The answer he gave me: "If the USA faked the moon landing, Soviet Union would be the first, that would provide evidence and facts for this, because it would be 1000% in it's interests. The SU never did, because it wasn't a fake.. That answer closed this topic for me once and for all.

[@Chris-hx3om]

Similar. My wife is from Russia, and she confirms. If USA faked the landings, the USSR (as it was at the time) would have been screaming it from the rooftops! In fact, Leonid Brezhnev was one of the first to call Nixon and congratulate the USA for the achievement.

[@deanhall6045]

Sadly, the SU didn't find out until around 1971 that they were being duped. So instead of telling the world, China too incidentally, they started blackmailing US for space technology to keep the secret. China is still doing it, but I'm not sure about Russia. Believe what you like, there's the truth provided by whistle-blower over the decades. Just because you didn't see it on TV, please entertain the thought. Add that American AI at the world AI convention 2 weeks ago called the Chinese rover photos of the moon, genuine photos. The same, most advanced AI called your Apollo moon photos absolutely fake. You must realise that things aren't anything like they seem. Some wonder how it was kept secret when so many people were involved? 125,000 people worked on the atomic bomb, but only 8 people actually knew what it was. Things aren't as they seem. Cheers.

[@EkoJr1337]

You should watch India's moon landing

[@foshizzlfizzl]

@@EkoJr1337 when it's time, that they will be able to bring people to to moon I will certainly watch.

[@EkoJr1337]

@@foshizzlfizzl DO IT NOW!!!

[@chassetterfield9559]

So, the upshot is - the easiest way to fake the Moon landing photos is .... to do them on the Moon's surface.

[@mjjoe76]

It’s that old joke about Stanley Kubrick. He was hired to fake the moon landing, but he was such a perfectionist that he insisted on doing the shots on location.

[@dsvilko]

So basically this Mitchell and Webb sketch? kzbin.info/www/bejne/hmewgKGbnaiCi9k

[@Mechmaster0]

Not just easier, but perhaps more importantly, cheaper. Given the state of special effects photography at the time of the moon landings, it would have been cheaper to go to the moon than to fake the images on Earth and no matter how much money you spent on faking it, as this video shows, the results would still be flawed.

[@rebelrouzer5318]

Yeah it would be easier to just go to the moon

[@dredwick]

Yeah, that's what Staley Kubrick did. He actually filmed 2001 A Space Odyssey on the Moon because its must easier to actually land on the Moon than to fake a Moon landing. Brilliant comment buddy.

[@jime6688]

My dad, God rest his soul, worked for NASA unofficially via the Navy and helped relay radio signals from Houston to the Moon. He listened to many of the conversations and just marveled at all of it. He had no patience for deniers and when he got see pictures, it just amazed him so much because he heard the descriptions.

[@deanhall6045]

I have no patience for liars either. He probably didn't but AI says someone did ! Your Apollo photos are fake, time to learn the truth.

[@deanhall6045]

Hahahaha hilarious. He heard the descriptions... like everyone else on Earth, but he didn't see much. Anything.

[@eideticex]

@@deanhall6045 No shit, they kind of had to sneakernet that shit back to Earth before anyone else could see it.

[@ulascancnarl7433]

@@deanhall6045 How was he supposed to see anything? By just taking a cab to the Moon? Or watching the video the astronauts were streaming with their non-existent smart phones at the time using Starlink satellites...that wasn't even a concept at the time? Just because your dim wit cannot comprehend complex stuff that doesn't mean they're fake.

[@tremsls]

Brainwashed just like the rest of nasa believers

[@springbloom5940]

A filmmaker has a KZbin video on how it would've been technologically easier to do it, than to fake it, because of the limitations of imaging technology. One particular issue was that the live transmissions vastly exceeded storage capacity for pre-recorded material. So, they would've had to flawlessly perform and apply all special effects, live for dozens of hours.

[@maxfan1591]

The late S G Collins. Excellent video.

[@dredwick]

lol that whole "it would have been easier to go to the Moon than to fake it" idea is absolute nonsense. They didn't have to do anything LIVE. It could have VERY easily been a video recording that was broadcast. Its not like the signal from the Moon was picked up by TV stations all over the globe.... the signal was sent straight to 3 tracking stations across the globe and then processed with classified Westinghouse technology developed for the DoD (a special low-light imaging tube which was used on jungle surveillance cameras during the Vietnam War) before the signal was sent back up to a communications satellite and down to Houston, after which it was provided to the public for broadcast --- allegedly. The official account lists tons of visual effects that were applied before being broadcast... quit acting like it would have been harder to fake it. It would have been EASIER to fake it because they could have prerecorded everything and then broadcast a video.

[@DragonNexus]

​@maxfan1591 oh dang, didn't realise he'd passed away =(

[@dredwick]

That is totally false. There was not a storage capacity limitation that kept NASA from being able to pre-record everything and then broadcast the recording to the media outlets.

[@springbloom5940]

@@dredwick 🤦🏽‍♀️

[@ToreUltimate]

no insults, no nothing. just an amazing content creator making amazing informational content, in the most respectful way possible.

[@ogcaveman8120]

I wouldn't mind some insults :D

[@StevesDataStore]

If your expounding truth, the lower tones of attacking and insults don't even come into your perview. Only those with no certainly and insecure have to use degrading superlatives.

[@jaymikesmovienites3452]

@@StevesDataStoreor people who set the tone of the conversation by being dishonest and being rude themselves is a solid reason to use insults and cursing

[@jrod4344]

@@ogcaveman8120 OK. You are a... umm hold on, I will think of something. I got it! You are a human. Burn!

[@Tezzzaaa]

Yes it's very refreshing. Dave sets a proper and productive example.

[@clairecelestin8437]

Another fact that has me convinced the images were definitely not taken in a studio... I'm interested in stereoscopic photography. To create a stereoscopic image, it turns out you don't always need to photograph a scene from two separate cameras, just from two separate perspectives. For example, if you drive along on a moon rover and photograph the landscape off to the side, successive images can be used as stereo pairs which you can then view to see the depth of the scene. Sometimes I do this trick with separate frames taken a few moments apart when the camera is moving sideways in a "truck" motion in some TV show or movie. If the shot was made on a sound stage with a painted flat background, it's obvious- you see how far away the background is and the fact that it's flat just as clearly as if you were standing on the sound stage in person. On the other hand, if it's a distant landscape, you can see that as well. The lunar photos are definitely not taken on a sound stage. Pick a suitable stereo pair out of thousands of images, and the landscape goes off into the distance. Those pictures were taken outside. Also, it's worth remembering that if NASA did try to fake the photos, wasn't the point to fool the Russians? But the Russians analyzing these photos aren't laymen- they would include trained geologists. The Lunar landscape has no vegetation, and no wind or water erosion. What it does have are a lot of craters and micrometeorite impacts that we don't get on Earth. Someone on Facebook could mistake the two, but to an expert they look nothing alike. And also... the Russians had telescopes and RADAR, and they watched the capsule go to the moon. They could literally just see whether it went to the moon or not :D

[@SirMildredPierce]

It's funny you would mention that because Apollo 11 actually brought along a special camera for taking stereoscopic images, they only used it to take closeup details of rocks and things like that, but it's pretty cool either way: history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/photos/45.html

[@robin_holden]

I love this. Amongst all the theory, this is such great concrete proof, repeatable by anyone with just a tiny bit of motivation. It's a shame the Flatheads don't have any.

[@pnichols6500]

My BIL is a idiot and doesn't think we went to the moon. I asked him if that's true, then the Russians had to be in on it too, or else they readily would have called it out at the time as they were desperately trying to beat us there. Does he really believe we got the whole science community on earth to go along with a lie? Like I said, he's an idiot.

[@thegrumpyoldmechanic6245]

This is obvious, now that you mention it. 😀

[@jpe115]

what your forgetting is, according to moon landing deniers the Russians were in on it as well!!!!!! pass the tin foil hat?

[@MissionControl-dk]

Spot on. Honestly, 20 years ago, I was a moon landing sceptic due to some videos I incidentally saw on KZbin. It may have lasted some days or weeks until I discovered the counter arguments. That's when I truly learned to scrutinize evidence. In hindsight I was a little baffled that I fell for the conspiracy theory. At least I quickly crawled out of the rabbit hole.

[@Tsudico]

For all the claims of conspiracy minded folk to be skeptical thinkers and "do your own research" it is amazing that people who _actually_ do that and explore conspiracy theories and then research their way out of them are often derided as fakes or planted by "them."

[@tristanridley1601]

I have the MOST respect for someone like you. There are anti-conspiracy people who are just as dogmatic and ignorant as the flat earthers, but by ignoring evidence that challenges the dominant opinion. To have an open enough mind that you bought it for a minute, but then a logical enough mind that you found and understood the counter arguments? That's what we should all strive for.

[@BojanMilic84]

Yeah, I was also into any and every conspiracy until I started to do my own research. And that was the end because all of them fall flat when actual evidence is presented. Hardest part was to admit to myself that I was stupid, but I got over it. Better late than ever, I guess.

[@Tsudico]

@@BojanMilic84 It really helps to know _how to research_ because a lot of the people who are deep into conspiracies claiming to "do your own research" don't realize how bad they themselves are at doing exactly that. They don't know how to vet their sources and rule out "experts" who are anything but.

[@MissionControl-dk]

@@tristanridley1601 true. I'm very much aware of any bias I might have and I'm not afraid to change my mind if proven wrong.

[@lukepepper3949]

Never one moth, midge, fly or even bat in any of the thousands of photographs taken from all the missions. You try putting a single torch on at night and you'll see millions of bugs. Studio set up would have been impossible given the viewing distances and even with the footage showing all the landings/take offs from miles above the moon's surface, you'd need an open surface of hundreds of miles....without even one bug flying into the frame. All on old fashioned film. Any editing would have needed an editing block and razor blade, as we used to do it in recording studios and those cuts would be instantly viewable. Apollo deniers such as Bart Simpson/Sibrel, are attention seekers, same with the flat Earthers.

[@geekehUK]

That's a good point, and hadn't occurred to me before. If they're so convinced that the photos were taken in a studio, then how hard could it possibly be for them to rent a warehouse, knock together a few props, and recreate them? Then we can check for inconsistencies, and they can adjust things and try again. Even with access to modern technology (which I'm sure they'd argue the government had decades early) I doubt it's possible to get more than close.

[@Bnio]

Ahh, but you've got to think like a hoaxer. They would just say that Nasa obviously (and unprovably) has access to super special studios.

[@jootan91]

@@Bnio they always come up with something stupid like that.

[@TheIrvy]

@@jootan91 On one hand, technology can get caught up in classified limbo for decades before it gets released to companies that then sell it to the public. That's not a conspiracy, or a secret, we know this to be true. However, what made cgi what it is today wasn't part of that. Most of the big breakthroughs in cgi didn't even come from movies, they came from adverts. There's a lot more money per second spent on advertising, and what brought cgi to where it is today cost a hell of a lot of money, and was all done in the open. Now, when it comes to tech, I'm perfectly content to imagine that in the race to get to the moon, they could very well have used technology that we the public weren't aware of until decades later. There's no way they were sitting on cgi for that long, that all happened in the public domain.

[@silverknight4886]

@@Bnio: Ah the firefighting exercise. Flerfers constantly moving the goalposts, by denying every proof provided.

[@Yehan-xt7cw]

@@Bnio Nasa does have special studios where they take all the moon photos and videos. And the reason those studios aren't proven is because it's so difficult to get there. Mainly because these studios are 200 000 miles away.

[@AllThingsFilm1]

I can see it already. The panorama you showed had two photos next to each other that didn't match in their exposures. To normal people, we would know this is because the two photos weren't taken with the same exact exposure setting. The conspiracy theorists would wet their beds screaming foul.

[@charlehpock]

Same thought I had - some images are facing the sun directly, and some facing away - different exposure levels = "look at the seams on the photos! CLEARLY FAKE". I do enjoy Dave's videos simply because they are educational. I really don't care about the flerfers anymore, there's no getting through to them, so I'm just watching these for the knowledge and methodical explanations.

[@c.augustin]

Could be due to scanning inconsistencies (more likely than different exposure settings, as these cameras were fully manual). Or the scans were corrected individually (blackpoint and whitepoint), not as a set. I would think to be much more likely than different exposure settings (I think to remember something about not using a light meter but some tables for the correct exposure - since there's no atmosphere, something similar to the "sunny 16 rule" would work perfectly well and would need only the angle of the lighting at certain times to be taken into account, as was done in the early days of photography, and even up the mid 20th century).

[@AllThingsFilm1]

@@c.augustin True. Many factors to consider.

[@SirMildredPierce]

@@charlehpock It actually matches pretty well how the cameras were designed and used. It was set to one single exposure setting, but allowed two different aperture settings (one for shadow, and one for brighter sunlight). It looks like they switched from one aperture setting to the other while they were turning around.

[@freibier]

@@SirMildredPierce Yes, there are even pictures of the film magazines for the cameras which have a sticker with the aperture settings for various angles towards the sun. So I, too, think what happened was that while taking pictures for the 360 view, the aperture setting was changed at a certain point. Here is the magazine: sterileeye.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/apollo11-magazine.jpg?w=584

[@mooneyes2k478]

In connection to this video, Rest in Peace, Rear Admiral Ken Mattingly, intended pilot for Apollo 13, and Command Module Pilot on Apollo 16, who passed away on October 31.

[@DaveMcKeegan]

Having never gotten the measles

[@mooneyes2k478]

@@DaveMcKeegan Indeed that. Then again, it did let him work the simulator.

[@WildlifeWarrior-cr1kk]

​@@DaveMcKeeganyo

[@billtisch3698]

... with the thanks of a grateful nation.

[@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth]

May he RIP. Not many of the 24 left with us now.

[@mercrantos3455]

Imo, the most obvious proof that it was real is the dust being kicked up by the rover wheels. You can tell it's very fine particles, but they don't billow like normal dust, since they're in a vacuum. They move like wet sand, in a parabolic trajectory. They also move slowly due to low gravity. (You couldn't have simply slowed down the footage because everything else in the frame is moving at normal speed.) That's impossible to replicate on Earth.

[@jonasgrahn9255]

Im with you there, I think that is the best proof ever. I have never heard anyone even try to debunk it. But I think most people are unaware of it since it is not often being brought up. Maybe because the more obvious things like shadows, stars etc already proves our greatest accomplishment of humanity.

[@everyonelovesLewi]

How does a rocket motor work in a vacuum? There is nothing to push against

[@MattH-wg7ou]

​@@everyonelovesLewi thats...not how physics works...at all! Lol are you serious?

[@edwin1379]

​@@everyonelovesLewi You don't need air because the exhaust air is pushing the rocket when the exhaust air is pushing out. For example, when you are pushing a wall, you are also actually pushing yourself backwards.

[@everyonelovesLewi]

@edwin1379 Thank you. But have you ever seen a rocket motor produce thrust in a vacuum? I've seen experiments that show it doesn't push anything. It's probably because there is nothing in a vacuum! Just my opinion based on my observations, not what someone is selling me. Like how there is no dust on the lunar lander after landing on a dusty place like the moon. absolutely pristine. I don't think so

[@aerophage]

NASA hired Stanley Kubrik to fake the Moon landings, but he was such a perfectionist that he demanded they film on site.

[@SpeakerBuilder]

That's great!

[@michaelschroeck2254]

As a photographer myself I think a lot of doubters that use the photographic evidence do not understand how cameras and lenses and exposures work. How they come together to try to force a 3d scene into a 2D image. With some lenses, distances flatten that are not apparent in the photo.

[@lazymass]

Yeah, the "there are no stars" bs they insist on is a clear example of how they are absolutely clueless and basically just parrot each other

[@deanhall6045]

AI knows. Wait for it.

[@tubecated_development]

@@deanhall6045 Would you trust AI to determine in a murder trial if you were guilty of ‘faking’ a photograph to give you an alibi?

[@deanhall6045]

@@tubecated_development absolutely since it's never been wrong picking a fake, ever. I missed your comment and just saw it, mate, the manufacturer of those cameras that apparently took those photos have openly said that they could not do what NASA said they did. The radiation on the moon would have killed the film, another claim by the film manufacturer. If you seriously think they even went through the VAB, you are one of the 75% of Americans who still believe it happened who, if told by Niel Armstrong himself that it didn't happen, would refuse to believe him. As AI improves, you will have 2 choices. Admit we were ALL duped for varying amounts of time.... or call billions of dollars (and counting) worth of AI, misinformation. That's a big call and its all yours. There's no winner here mate, they tried it on all of us. Cheers.

[@MattMcIrvin]

Often their "anomalies" are things that you'd think you'd understand if you've even *looked* at pictures before, like the apparent sizes of objects in the image. "Why is the Earth so small in this picture if it's bigger in this one supposedly taken from further away? FAKE!" It's not as if there is any such thing as longer and shorter lenses!

[@psibug565]

I’ll just add for anyone that says CGI. The first photo realistic CGI was used in the 1984 movie The ‘Last Starfighter’ and took months on a super computer to be rendered. Now days we’d think the CGI in that movie as being very far from photo realistic as we can see better graphics in the Star Citizen space sim. The first CGI’ed photo ‘Jennifer in Paradise’ was created in 1987. This was well over a decade after the moon landing photos were taken and the moon landing photos were taken using traditional film cameras. Digital cameras capable of the resolution that the Hasselblad cameras using traditional film gave the pictures taken on the moon would not appear until the late 2000’s.

[@rickjustus6416]

I've never heard anyone with any intelligence say CGI. Lol. That's bad

[@Stutzio]

⁠@@rickjustus6416you must be new here

[@MattMcIrvin]

Even "Jennifer in Paradise" was just a scanned conventional photo, used as a test image for the first version of Photoshop. The ability to generate something like that with a photorealistic human in it was a ways off.

[@Dee-nonamnamrson8718]

The moon landings were 100% real, but the government could have had classified technology at the time to accomplish it.

[@scotthewitt258]

And "photo realistic" might be a little "generous" for "The Last Starfighter".....

[@friedmule5403]

You can also just look at the dirt they sometimes get to fly up, it is not possible to get sand to move like that on Earth, you simply need a lower gravity and total vacuum.

[@tubecated_development]

You didn’t hear that Stephen Kubricks took over the Astrodome and sucked all the air out of it? Then slow-mo’d the f outta that f

[@friedmule5403]

@@tubecated_development Shhh!! You are not supposed to say that! :-) It is funny you say that, but even in slow motion and in a vacuum would you not get the same effect.

[@tubecated_development]

@@friedmule5403no one would’ve noticed back then so NASA didn’t worry bCuZ ppl believed anything b4 the internet

[@alantaylor2694]

I've seen (but can can't find) 2 photos. One with an astronaut and a 'modest' sized boulder in the background. There's another one where the astronaut walks towards the 'modest' sized boulder and just shrinks with perspective. What makes these images amazing is because there is no atmosphere on the moon, the 'modest' boulder turned out to be MASSIVE. It did not fade with distance so you really could not tell how big it actually was until the astronaut started walking towards it and he's getting smaller with perspective. The same boulder in the first image looks like it could be 20m away but in the second it looks miles way and hundreds of meters tall. It so cool! No way you could fake that on earth.

[@gchecosse]

It's also the lack of cues, trees etc, that hint at how big things are on earth.

[@TheKyrix82]

This happened during the Cold War. Do you honestly think the Soviets would have allowed us to claim we landed on the moon if we didn't?

[@CashMullen-ng4sr]

Thanks bot.

[@TheKyrix82]

@@CashMullen-ng4sr Aww, poor conspiracy theoriest, every dissenting thought is a bot

[@tucsonbandit]

nobody would have believed them if they said otherwise. Imagine even today if "THE PUTIN!" says something that was in opposition to big tech western dominated thought narratives (and he actually does quite often). Are you or any other soft headed munchkin friends going to believe him? No. You will mutter something about maga, trump, tucker Carlson etc, and then run as fast as you can to get home and Zelle some money to Biden to give to Ukraine. And that is today, when everybody has access to all the information they could want in real time 24/7. Just like how you and your friends don't believe a word The Putin says, nobody back then (and to a much greater degree) would have believed the soviets, especially about that, It would have sounded like propaganda and sour grapes, which is probably why IF the moon landing did not happen (I don't have a strong opinion on it actually), and Russia knew, they might have just decided not to bother saying anything.

[@noahniskala]

@@CashMullen-ng4sr Apparently when someone does not agree with your ideas there a bots? You see how much of a idiot you guys make yourself look?

[@williamstrange6788]

@@CashMullen-ng4sr Ah poor baby do you not have any evidence against the statement and so you think you have to call someone a bot, that is just another troll being embarrased admiting he is wrong.

[@andysmith1996]

13:19 There's also a 360 video pan made by Apollo 17. No camera crew or lights visible.

[@minhduong1484]

The first argument that the photos were too good are usually accompanied with the argument that NASA has "never released" all of the photos. When someone said those to me, I pointed them to the NASA website where it shows all the photos. Some of them were obvious mistakes like photos of nothing. Even when shown that proof the person just doubled down asking why NASA would not show those bad photos. At that point, I realized nothing would satisfy their demands.

[@mistertagnan]

When Dave was talking about this point, I really felt it as an amateur photographer. Whenever I show of my pictures, it’s always the good ones - that’s part of why I take multiple pictures per second, to make sure at least one turns out good. Even then there are still plenty of times that I photograph something that isn’t in frame, or is out of focus. I don’t necessarily upload those anywhere (unlike NASA), but that doesn’t mean that I only take good photos

[@MattMcIrvin]

Often the conspiracists claim that Stanley Kubrick was involved, on the basis of the very well-done Moon scenes in "2001: A Space Odyssey", which date from around the same time as Apollo. But there are a lot of things Kubrick didn't do that appear in the Apollo pictures and films--you don't see kicked-up soil moving in parabolic arcs, for instance. And in long shots from "2001", if you look carefully you can usually tell where the practical set ends and the painted matte or cyclorama takes over.

[@thetombuck]

The funniest thing about this conspiracy is that Kubrick was just a director. He had a huge team responsible for producing special effects. Conspiracy theorists seem to think that he made the entire movie on his own

[@FosterZygote]

There used to be a great pair of KZbin videos by Astrobrandt that ripped the Kubrick (Doug Trumbull, really) claim to shreds, by showing in detail all the ways the 2001 effects shots differed from the real Apollo film and video, and how only the Apollo images had the correct physics on display because, as brilliant as the effects shots were, there were numerous things they just could not duplicate. Sadly, it looks as though Astrobrandt's channel is gone.

[@MattMcIrvin]

@@FosterZygote There are also moments even in that sequence where Kubrick just throws realism completely out the window, for the sake of poetry or symbolism--e.g. the shot looking up past the Moon monolith at the Sun and crescent Earth is just impossible, and he damn well knew it--he was making art, not a documentary. But I suppose that if he *were* part of a conspiracy he wouldn't be doing that so much.

[@DavidRidlen]

@@FosterZygote Astrobrant's channel is still up! His Kubrick critique- kzbin.info/www/bejne/qn_FloGVi8SBhNkfeature=shared

[@ivanpetrov5255]

A VFX crew reviewed the lunar photos a few years back, and they said the same things: - if this is a studio, it must be *massive* - the light source is either really big rig, or really far away - and... I don't remember what the other points of their video were 😅

[@Bnio]

- Therefore this studio would have to be the largest vacuum chamber ever built, by a factor of 100 at least. That would be far greater an engineering feat than building rockets and lunar landers. Oh, and in a secret location nobody knows about.

[@EbonAvatar]

@@Bnio oh and also, none of the thousands of workers involved in building the worlds largest vacuum chamber in the middle of nowhere ever felt guilty about it later and confessed

[@K_End]

@@EbonAvatar "well obviously they are all free masons... "

[@EbonAvatar]

@K_End HA! Yeah them or the Illuminati. Also freemasons who also never had a vengeful ex-spouse who leaked all their work records for revenge, or ever got addicted to drugs and sold their evidence for crack, etc.

[@Yehan-xt7cw]

@@K_End _"free masons"_ ??? They didn't get paid and still kept their mouths shut?!?

[@rickbase833]

What gets me every time is that final lift off from the Moon (Apollo 17) of the lander taking off from the surface while being filmed. The Internet claiming anything from NASA leaving an astronaut behind to pan the camera up.....the tired notion that it was faked....and what not. The camera was remotely operated by NASA on earth and the operator, after calculating the time for the remote signal to reach the moon and the ascending module's lift off speed was able to pan the camera.

[@mistertagnan]

I’m pretty sure they tried to record a similar shot before one Apollo 16 (and I want to say 15 as well), but because of the difficulties you mentioned, the LM left the frame

[@MisterHowzat]

The one thing that makes me laugh derisively is when they say "THE moon landing" was faked indicating one moon landing when there were in fact 6. So, do they mean all six were fake or only the first one? 😂

[@rwkh10]

Thank you for making this video. You can't argue with people that say it was fake. I've always thought how could you keep the biggest secret in the world or moon. Over 200,000 people were involved in the moon landings. How do you think you can keep all those people quiet.

[@FosterZygote]

Plus the fact that literally millions of engineers and physicists the world over for the last half century have maintained an overwhelming scientific consensus that the Apollo landings were real.

[@montylc2001]

Actually close to a million were involved, if you factor in everybody.

[@znail4675]

Lots of people with telescopes watched it as it happened as well. But then flat Earthers believe in a conspiracy involving billions of people over a couple of thousands years without anyone on the inside defecting.

[@5piral0ut]

99.9% of the people working on it weren’t “in on it”. They really thought they were a small part in something huge… doing their parabolic calculations or stitching the space suit or whatever. They went to their graves believing they helped put man on the moon….

[@5piral0ut]

99.9% of the people working on it weren’t “in on it”. They really thought they were a small part in something real… doing their parabolic calculations or stitching the space suit or whatever. They went to their graves believing they helped put man on the moon….

[@VergilArcanis]

I think the most underrated detail is the dust. The dust on the moon handles differently due to a lack of atmosphere

[@5piral0ut]

It should go MUCH higher in such a low gravity environment.

[@PappaTom-ub3ht]

@@5piral0ut Not if it is very heavy sand as you calimed earlier...

[@trimmoos]

One note on the panorama images taken on the moon… each of those individual photos had an area of image overlap with the next photo taken in the sequence. If you crop the photos only leaving the overlapped areas, they can then be viewed in stereo revealing a 3D landscape.

[@cosmic7797]

what is bro on about

[@lepperkin]

​@@cosmic7797Are you too dumb to understand? You're acting like bro is a bumbling fool when they're discussing a pretty easy to understand subject.

[@sylvo1057]

​​@@cosmic7797he's saying the shots where the astronauts turn around slightly with each picture the images have areas of overlap, and you can put them directly over one another in the areas that overlap to make one of those 3d images you see on google maps, I think

[@mr.shplorb662]

​@@cosmic7797it's like the 3ds display

[@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe]

you still have another 1000 or so things to explain -------- like why ISS astronots are bounding on cables or need 20 cuts to film a 1.5 miute segment on hair washing. Or why they look up above the camera when manipulating objects , or why the space shuttles had jet engines when they landed -----

[@bmdoes_stuff6861]

13:38 fake moon landing bullshittery aside. That panorama is actually pretty cool, really gives you a feel of what’d be like to stand and look around on the moon

[@mooneyes2k478]

The inverse square law is how you can tell it's not in a studio. The even level with literally no variation in lighting can only be done if the light source is very VERY strong and very VERY far away. As in, 8 light-minutes away.

[@chrisantoniou4366]

Theoretically it can be replicated by an even stronger light than the Sun, even further away, or a smaller Sun maybe a few hundred thousand miles away, but obviously none of this is what the Moon landing deniers are claiming, and there is no way a single light source in a studio could possible replicate the lighting in these photos.

[@mooneyes2k478]

@@chrisantoniou4366 A stronger light further away would possibly work. A closer light would lead to light fall-off, and so a difference in light saturation on the ground. But certainly, there's no way to do it in a studio.

[@chrisantoniou4366]

@@mooneyes2k478 Obviously it all depends on what is meant by "close" and "far away" but no way it could be done in a studio.

[@RadicalCaveman]

Another basic problem is that when the moon buggy kicked up dust, it travelled in a perfect parabola. You would NEVER see that on Earth, unless you did it in a vacuum chamber. And it would have to be a very large vacuum chamber.

[@5piral0ut]

Why not? please provide a link to a video that demonstrates why this wouldn’t happen on earth as it appears in the moon videos.

[@maxfan1591]

@@5piral0ut "Why not?" The surface of the Moon is powdery dust. On Earth powdery dust hangs in the air for several minutes, suspended in the air. That doesn't happen with the lunar rover.

[@5piral0ut]

@@maxfan1591 If there’s no wind on earth, or it was filmed in a studio, wouldn’t it just be a case of the dust returning more slowly to the ground due to air resistance… (compared to in a vacuum)? So the dust would still follow a perfect parabola on Earth would it not? So just speed up the playback a bit and you’d get the same as we see the moon videos, no?

[@5piral0ut]

@@maxfan1591 The other weakness in your reply is that you assume they’d use the same really powdery dust when faking it. It was black and white grainy footage… just use some very fine sand, no way that stuff is going to hang in the air…

[@maxfan1591]

@@5piral0ut "If there’s no wind on earth, or it was filmed in a studio, wouldn’t it just be a case of the dust returning more slowly to the ground due to air resistance… (compared to in a vacuum)? So the dust would still follow a perfect parabola on Earth would it not?" I take it you've never driven on a dirt road? Or watched the dust raised by a passing vehicle? The dust doesn't follow a parabolic path; it's so light it's blown around by turbulence in the air. And even on a windless day or indoors in a studio, the vehicle itself is a source of turbulence as it moves through the air. "So just speed up the playback a bit and you’d get the same as we see the moon videos, no?" No. Have someone walk past you and you'll notice the turbulence they cause. Imagine how much more turbulence a car with two people on board would cause.

[@drachenfels6782]

I love watching your videos for two competing reasons: a) conspiration theory debunking b) science of photography I have to admit educational videos on KZbin are my thing, but as time goes by b) feels more important than a). Many, many thanks!

[@DamonCzanik]

My dad was an engineer who worked on Skylab and the Apollo missions. As crazy as it sounds, these people figured it out. It's a slap to the face calling my father's legacy a fake. Not just for my dad but every scientist, engineer, etc. To disregard their achievements is an insult. I have looked at the moon hoax evidence and found it wanting. Some of those people have such resounding closed mindedness and lack critical thinking skills.that it's really quite astonishing. To quote paraphrase Alan Moore, The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is, that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not The Iluminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, Gray Alien Theory, or faked moon landings. The truth is far more frightening - Nobody is in control. The world is rudderless. In such a.frightening rudderless world, we should celebrate humanity's accomplishments.

[@maxfan1591]

Well said.

[@cxx1953]

The moons in the sky, not in space, therefore, they’re faking everything that had to do with “landing on the moon”.

[@chrisvillarreal2752]

The fuck are you going on about… it’s pretty fuckin simple… follow the money.

[@TTFerdinand]

Somehow it's comforting for many people to believe that someone from behind the scenes is calling all the shots, as opposed to no one, even if it's Dr. Evil from an Austin Powers movie.

[@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe]

you still have another 1000 or so things to explain -------- like why ISS astronots are bounding on cables or need 20 cuts to film a 1.5 miute segment on hair washing. Or why they look up above the camera when manipulating objects , or why the space shuttles had jet engines when they landed -----

[@joeldriver-sp2rg]

I still have never heard any sort of a logical answer as to why NASA would have faked 6 manned missions and have one mission fail from any flerftard or moon landing denier. What possible reason would there be to fake the moon landing more than once? I just don't see how anybody ever gets past this point. If you were going to fake it you would obviously only do it one time and that would be it. It would be ridiculously expensive and superfluous to do it 5 more times.

[@chrisantoniou4366]

...or to fake a near disaster and a failed Moon mission...

[@sineout9294]

Or, if it's all faked, why did they stop? Why aren't we "on" Mars already?

[@JesmondBeeBee]

I think the explanation is "shut up that's why." Or possibly "because reasons."

[@osmoregulatoryorgan]

@@sineout9294 oh that's a really good point. stealing this point.

[@nickfrigillana2645]

Also the country of Russia, who was competing with the US to try and land on the moon first and would have had an enormous incentive to claim the NASA landing was faked, never even hinted that they were the least bit suspicious.

[@chasekemp4982]

Being skeptical about everything around you is a good thing. Where the problem lies is when a skeptical person is too lazy to look into something to try and figure it out, or digs their heals in when they find that evidence but refuse to believe.

[@minhduong1484]

The problem with the moon conspiracy is that the skepticism applies only to one side. Any claim that suggests conspiracy is just accepted without examining the claim. For example, a common claim is that since there are no stars in the background means the photos must have been taken in a studio thus they were faked. However anyone with the slightest knowledge in photography would know that stars do not photograph well when there are any other lights present. Since the photos were taken during the Moon daytime, no one should expect to see the stars.

[@scottalanclymer]

@@minhduong1484 My money's on the following theory: Whatever three letter agency that started this "moon landings were fake" idea and "the earth is flat" idea are... one in the same.

[@minhduong1484]

@@scottalanclymer That would rely on the premise that the three letter agency does realize they can be defeated by anyone who has experience in photography, flying, sailing, physics, engineering, military, etc.

[@phil8910]

@@minhduong1484 exactly this. conspiracy thought isn't skepticism, its just denial masquerading as skepticism

[@phyphor]

I really enjoy your style of laying out facts as you understand them. There's no insulting, there's no "play a video, with pauses where you ask questions which don't get answered as if it's a gotcha", there's no "I'm definitely right". It's all "there's the facts as I understand them, but I'm willing to listen to alternatives that can explain the facts as they really are."

[@lemagicbaguette1917]

If I remember correctly, he even tried assuming a variant of flat Earth once as a means of demonstrating falsifiability. Dude’s channel is just scientific method 101.

[@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe]

you still have another 1000 or so things to explain -------- like why ISS astronots are bounding on cables or need 20 cuts to film a 1.5 miute segment on hair washing. Or why they look up above the camera when manipulating objects , or why the space shuttles had jet engines when they landed -----

[@lemagicbaguette1917]

@@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe can you tell me why your little uber secret coverup administration is still around despite their botched coverups?

[@denmark5354]

I believe that Corridor has also stated, that with the technology available at the time of the moonlandings, faking it would have been such a tremendously difficult and costly endeavor, that actually building a rocket and physically going to the moon, would have both been easier, and cheaper. Go figure.

[@LordJaric]

flat earther/moon landing deniers: "do your own research!" does research that proves them wrong "You're a shrill!"

[@therandomguyonyoutube6415]

Completely off topic, but that dog looks so chill and relaxed, and that makes this whole video even better

[@stuartgray5877]

My favorite evidence that the footage was taken on the moon: The parabolic path of the dirt that flies off the wheels of the Lunar Rover. The dirt behaves "almost, but not quite entirely UNLIKE" dirt behaves on the earth in atmosphere.

[@wiredforstereo]

No, it's entirely unlike.

[@stuartgray5877]

@@wiredforstereo Well it does go up then come down again so there is some similarity.

[@Bnio]

I think the better proof is the shimmer that fans out from the moonwalkers' footsteps. That's fine powdery regolith falling in a similar parabolic arc that in an atmosphere would form a dust cloud. Instead, on the moon, it falls at the same rate as larger rocky particles.

[@hobojoe9717]

@@stuartgray5877Except it doesn’t do that in the same way on Earth as it does on the moon. As the person above me pointed out, on Earth it would get suspended in the atmosphere (at least temporarily) in the form of a dust cloud. Gravity existing in both places really isn’t much of a “similarity” at all.

[@Tezzzaaa]

Depends on the 'dirt', damp earth or mud maybe some similarities perhaps but ultra fine super dry dust like the moons? Never.

[@ThunderAlchemist-m7m]

Talking about shadows before showing stadium footage, you've conditioned viewers to pay special attention to those shadows. It's a nice touch. I for one can't stop looking at them now.

[@timbojohnson7213]

Thanks so much for making this kind of content. So many "debunkers" these days seem to just show someones video and say they're wrong making no effort to SHOW how they're wrong. As much as it can be fun to laugh at a really bad idea, I enjoy learning more about the science that the person is missing and you never fail to do that in an entertaining and informative way, please never change

[@fasillimerick7394]

I remember watching film of an astronaut turning slowly to take a 360 degree panorama. I was amused when every time he'd take a picture he'd actually say "click!".

[@DaeXeaD]

Write/Director S. G. Collins debunked the theory that the Moon landings were made in a studio. He looked and discussed the video technology of the late 1960s.

[@maxfan1591]

And an excellent video too. Sadly, he died a few months ago.

[@Jabrwock]

You could cut a whole in a building to limit the atmospheric diffusion by basically cutting out most sunlight that isn’t coming straight from the sun, but then you are limited to a very narrow spotlight that moves constantly as the sun moves across the sky. So the landscape shots wouldn’t work at all. Honestly it’s just cheaper and more practical to shoot on location. :)

[@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe]

you still have another 1000 or so things to explain -------- like why ISS astronots are bounding on cables or need 20 cuts to film a 1.5 miute segment on hair washing. Or why they look up above the camera when manipulating objects , or why the space shuttles had jet engines when they landed -----

[@haka-katyt7439]

​@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe nice copy paste, how long it take for u to type it?

[@robinbennett3531]

@@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe no point explaining haha

[@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe]

@@robinbennett3531 still have not seen a shred of actual evidence --- doesn't matter because you can see way to far and i have seen that with my eyes ...

[@greenflagracing7067]

I was the Key Grip on the Apollo 11 mission and actually the fourth man on the moon, after Neil and Buzz and director Stanley Kubrick. It proved so hard to set up the soundstage on the moon that we eventually abandoned that plan and just used the Hasselblad cameras that the astronauts had attached to their suits.

[@Bnio]

You joke, but famously Pete Conrad and Alan Bean smuggled a self timer on Apollo 12 with the intent of taking a photo of them together, but then relized it was in the bottom of the bag now full of rock samples and they ran out of time/effort to fish it out.

[@jwb932]

@@Bnio They also inadvertently pointed a video camera at the Sun and ruined it. They had a rough time with photography. (Edit: they ruined the camera, not the Sun.)

[@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe]

you still have another 1000 or so things to explain -------- like why ISS astronots are bounding on cables or need 20 cuts to film a 1.5 miute segment on hair washing. Or why they look up above the camera when manipulating objects , or why the space shuttles had jet engines when they landed -----

[@greenflagracing7067]

@@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe You're not that bright, or observant. Those weren't wires, that was thread, and the we had to use Lego figures. As for looking at the camera, that's a standard cinematographer's technique. For example, in the famous Patterson-Gimlin film of Bigfoot, director Sam Peckinpaugh had the actor stop and look at the camera to get that dramatic shot before he sauntered off. Do You Own Research.

[@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe]

@@greenflagracing7067 this is not to convince flat earthers because that is impossible ---- this is to convince people that are lazy to look into it so that the question has been answered so they won't look any further. It's ultimately dishonest if you don't look into everything ---- and keep in mind that even thought there are quite a lot of flat earthers, there are more people that take pride in tryhing to shut them down. I have never heard of and can't immagine any flat earther past a basic level in understading would ever go back and if you ask one close to 100% would say close to 100% not a chance of every going back. If you stumble on one ask him or her. I have talked to a ton of people and I never met a glober that new ANYTHING about flat earth or one willing to entertain it. It's dishonest. Everything aggressive globe defenders accuse flat earthers of is exactly what they are doing. As far as online, it's common knowledge that there are people that apparently make a career out of policing comment sections. There are numerous people on yahoo that will relentlessly attack and keep going for days and be flat out dishonest and just use every tactic and be apparently trained. I hear the same excuses to every argument, like the 'out of focus stars one' . So anyway, I just want to let you know, that if you havn't studied this subject yourself with an open and unbiased mind then you are dishonest. It's a fact that flat earthers, 100% looked into this and decided to change. It's also a fact that there is a lot to lose by 'coming out' but people did and do and get converted every day. Have you converted any back? Trust me, none will ever go back. Another thing is there is a postion in the middle that is safe if you don't have the time or don't care enough, it's called saying "i don't know". Be aware that there is risk here. Even if you don't realize it, if you are wrong then you are still supporting some serious evil, so if you care about that kind of stuff. You have been warned now. You can call it a belief, but i know the earth is flat ----- because there is overwhelming evidence of it. Some half of that evidence is evidence that the earth can't possibly be a sphere all the other things about the universe that we were taught that can't possibly be true ---- and also how all the dots connect. The volume of evidence is astounding. Ultimately all the evidence needs to be looked at as a whole and again in an honest and unbiased way.------ OR just keep believing NASA, because that is all you are doing. It doesn't matter to anyone---- this is between you and your soul/karma. I highly suggest you ignore these shills and take a year to figure it out. The worst thing that could happen is that you will have more data to slam us with and you will restore your integrity with yourself, knowing that you put in the FULL effort to get to the bottom of it. Unlike the people that are preying on you, I'm not making a cent but I can answer questions. If you want to know more I'm happy to ask you questions or point you to where you can make efficient use of your time. I don't have time to get into explanations but i'm willing to talk if you want to answer my questions and keep it respectful. I started in your so I know where you are coming from and I alredy told you there is a zero percent chance that I will ever go back so it is 100% pointless for you to try to convince me of anything. You can try but I'm not going to explain myself and that doesn't make me wrong. I don't have the time or desire to go tit of tat on something that I can direct you where the information is. It's all out there for the most part---- of course there things that nobody knows and that flat earthers differ on. I'll tell you, I have seen some of that absolute dumbest stuff come out of globers. Honestly it's all understandable why globers are ignorant. I stumbled on it having ignored my whole suggestion box being full of it every day for a few months and never clicing becuase I din't think it was serious. After watching the one doc. I stumbled on I was pretty convinced, honestly. It was late at night and I had to wake up a half dozen times to get through and then proptly passed out. The next morning I literally had to ask myself if it was a dream or not. In closing I will say this. None of us wanted or was looking for any of this. Nobody is jumping on a band wagon or needing to be 'special' or 'different'. NONE of that is true------- and NOBODY lays down for it ----- and ALL of us are intelligent and came to our own conclusions by reasoning out the data. I know these things for absolute fact and if you think about it, dumb people don't study, don't care, and can't commit. Some might be wild and free, barefoot and dropouts but they still reasoned it out and committed------ and none are crazy because crazy people are all ego and the hardest people to convince of anything.

[@ihcterra4625]

At the time of the moon landings, the cost to fake it would have been far greater than just going to the moon for real. Considering the fact they had no CGI at the time.

[@LineOfThy]

@@mojojojo1529Again, can you please for gods sake tell us where you got this info from

[@ihcterra4625]

@@mojojojo1529 None of that is true. The original negatives are still available. None of the arguments come even close to being rational.

[@ihcterra4625]

@@mojojojo1529 Well, I did watch it on TV when it was broadcast live. However, there are prints from many of those images that were produced in 1969. It would literally be easier to actually go there than to fake with 1969 technology.

[@The_Gestan]

As an American, i spent half the vid just trying to figure out wtf a "torch" was. lmao

[@SeanCrosser]

Anyone who dismisses those photos as studio set ups have never done any creative photography. Because it's difficult to get some of the effect you want to get, and it takes A LOT of fiddling.

[@boyan3001]

I just wanted to point out that there are some scenes of Moon landscape in 2001: A Space Odyssey, shot before we had good pictures from Moon surface as a reference... and yet Kubrick nailed lighting astonishingly accurate.

[@pablovi77]

@@boyan3001No, he didn’t, it doesn’t look realistic at all.

[@LineOfThy]

@@boyan3001To a film audience who knew nothing about how light works on the moon.

[@michaelciancetta6397]

@@boyan3001 it looks good for the sake of a film? yes.. does it look real and consistent?.. NO

[@Julian-tu6em]

That was one of the best lead ups into an ad read ever,

[@LLJKPoochie]

I tend to skip past ads... but your "...*this* is Enlisted" made me laugh, so I'll watch.

[@riluna3695]

He's one of the best at smooth ad transitions. I've made it a habit to try to predict them, but this one completely caught me. And while I could maybe chalk that up to having never heard of the game Enlisted before, I know full well he got me :P

[@elgeniomaestro]

Perhaps one of the most hilarious conclusions about the Moon landing footage and photos are those from Corridor Crew, the VFX artists react guys, it would be harder to fake it convincingly with the technology available at the time, than actually going to the Moon

[@scottplumer3668]

As a film photographer myself, I'm curious about the film they used. I saw a video where they claimed that the vacuum destroyed the emulsion, but I caught them in a blatant lie and had my comment deleted. They claimed the vacuum caused the film to lose its shininess, but they were showing the emulsion side, which is normally dull. I'd love to see a deep-dive into the film stock they used (specially developed by Kodak, IIRC) and whether or not vacuum affected it.

[@briansomething5987]

Dave already has an excellent analysis of this subject kzbin.info/www/bejne/nn27eaWHZrCYl8U Coming as a surprise to nobody, virtually everything they claimed in that video was a lie. For instance, they showed pictures of badly damaged film and said that the images came from a test NASA did in a vacuum chamber. In reality, the film was being tested for UV exposure, and had been installed on the outside of the ISS for up to four YEARS.

[@shure81]

Shhh you're asking too many questions. Obey the narrative only!

[@terrybertrand7159]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nn27eaWHZrCYl8U 🙂

[@randomgeocacher]

Obviously NASA built a 2000-qubit computer with 69 gigabit QRAM, and then simulated everything using an early prototype of Kerbal Space Program. There no end to the immense computing / faking power NASA had in the 60ies :) great video as always, I wonder how you stay sane. Adam ruins everything had a pretty good episode covering some of these points, if anyone wants it explained by a comedian instead of by a photographer. Also never forget “Fake the fame moon landing on the moon? But what if people find out?” from an amazing Michel / Webb sketch on how complex faking the moon landing would be.

[@Seele2015au]

One of the most vocal early moon-landing denialists was a man who claimed to be an expert in photography, all his points were as if asked by someone who did not understand photography at all. If an expert in photography could not see how the photographs proved that moon-landing was real, those who are not would get sucked in quite easily.

[@chrisantoniou4366]

People who lie about the evidence are also likely to lie about their area of expertise...

[@thearmouredpenguin7148]

You hit the nail on the head with " who claimed to be an expert in photography".

[@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe]

you still have another 1000 or so things to explain -------- like why ISS astronots are bounding on cables or need 20 cuts to film a 1.5 miute segment on hair washing. Or why they look up above the camera when manipulating objects , or why the space shuttles had jet engines when they landed -----

[@chrisantoniou4366]

@@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe There is nothing to "explain"... none of the things you mention are true. Anyone with half a brain can see that the ISS is real and has even been photographed from the ground countless times. The problem is that you only see what you want to see and ignore everything that doesn't agree with that.

[@draco2k729]

I would like to see a flat earth debunker to show the experiment for getting the distance to the moon. The one with the laser, the photon detector and the retroreflectors on the moon. This is in my opinion the best proof, as there is not a single possible explanation how the specific amount of light comes back, other than the mirrors...

[@TheIrvy]

There are no flat earth debunkers, there is no need of them. There are only people who explain scientific matters in a simple way for people who don't understand science. We have known the shape of the planet for thousands of years. A few uneducated idiots refusing to believe anything they're told doesn't change that. And really, sweetie, if it was explained to you, would you understand it any better? Your bottom line is that the Earth must be flat because you can't understand science, and that's just dumb.

[@draco2k729]

​@@TheIrvyuhm... what? Read my text again. I am not a flerf, not in any possible way. These retroreflectors are one of many nails in the coffin for flerfs, as THEY (not me) have no explanation for it. I have seen many many videos of debunkers like Dave (yeah you are right, these are just sane people who explain science), and so far I have not seen someone show this experiment. It just would be nice to see it perfectly explained by Dave, as he is the best debunker of all...

[@TheIrvy]

@@draco2k729 Sorry, I read your post wrong, I thought you were saying it wasn't possible for the light to come back. There's usually a swarm of flerfers come on to these threads, it's like a game of Whack a Mole. I apologise for bopping you incorrectly ;)

[@Tanaquil_de_Lammerfors]

I was a little bit confused, too. The term "flat earth debunker" can be interpreted in two different ways. First, as a flat earther who tries to be a debunker, second as someone who debunks flat earth. Nevertheless, a very good point, draco2k729.

[@D.apollo]

"Four years ago (1962), a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the moon, 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasensitive electronic equipment" The names this Article: The Laser's Bright Magic, from National Geographic. Atention: I am not flat earther.

[@garrytuohy9267]

Loving the work.

[@DaveMcKeegan]

Thanks for the continued support Garry

[@johnks6733]

The light source is easy to fix, make it very bright & put it 8 light minutes away.

[@Leyenda67]

Ah yes, the big ass light bulb Nasa put in the dome

[@jcnot9712]

This reminds me of that episode of Myth Busters where they tried to recreate a moon landing photo to show just how monumental of a task it would be.

[@rayluca123]

Euhm, didn't they just proof that it can be faked on earth?

[@raimondjohansson6552]

Your segues into your sponsor spots are flawless. Perfection.

[@joelclifton6312]

One cool thing in that first photo shown at 2:26 is that there is a clear retroreflection halo around the shadow of Neil's head in Buzz's visor reflection, which is the location of the camera taking the shot, which means the sun is exactly behind that point. The moon's soil is retroreflective due to impacts creating a layer of basically tiny glass beads. You can also see this effect at 3:44.

[@njalsand133]

The whole recording of getting closer to the moon is impossible to fake due to the sheer scale.

[@samevans8214]

I love this content as there is no rage! You are so calm and the flat earthers just can’t be angry at you 😂

[@tommosher8271]

All we do is laugh at this fool

[@dogwalker666]

Oakley can be angry at his own shadow.

[@James_Randis_Spirit]

@@tommosher8271 Who are we? The illiterate gullible people that fell for the most moronic hoax called flat earth - poor you.

[@jooei2810]

@@tommosher8271You sure are interested in toads, lick much?

[@tristanridley1601]

@@tommosher8271 And that's why no one anywhere has any respect for Flat Earthers. Even when someone engages with them on the details, all they respond with is vague insults. If there's anything this video makes obvious, it's that this man knows his specialty, the opposite of a fool.

[@elguinolo7358]

The best way to fake these photos would be to set up the studio on the Moon.

[@philipwright6617]

..or a huge aircraft hangar at Area 51...

[@elguinolo7358]

@@philipwright6617 No, it wouldn't work.

[@PappaTom-ub3ht]

@@philipwright6617 To small

[@facetubetwit1444]

the NASA engineers found so difficult to shoot the moon landing on earth that they decided it would be easier to shoot on location instead.

[@ramseycattn5941]

This one has had a resurgence lately. It's crazy how these ideas persist despite repeated debunking/explanations. People believe what they want to believe, not based on evidence.

[@Bnio]

It just never stops. Which I guess is the point. Comment sections such as these are littered with "Where are the stars?" "Who took the video of the liftoff?" and on and on despite all of these being answered again and again. Easily answered with a Google search. Flooding the zone with BS instead of actually doing research.

[@deanhall6045]

The real resurgence is coming when you all find out what AI said about the Apollo moon photos. That's when the resurgence comes, when you tube stop censoring people finding out what was said by American Ai, the most advanced in the universe, at the world AI convention 2 weeks ago. Go watch, don't take my word for it but your arrogance must take a check,you are so, so wrong.

[@5piral0ut]

Oh yes Google, the purveyor of all truth.

[@ramseycattn5941]

If certain people had payed attention in grade school science class, we wouldn’t have to resort to a Google search. But here we are.

[@hopelessnerd6677]

I've heard it said that the best way to have the tallest building in the city is to build it, or tear down any that are taller. The main reason we can't have nice things is because we have to drag all these uneducated lumps around like a ball and chain trying to explain how everything works, every day, all the time. When they found out they could make money on the internet by tearing down other people's accomplishments, it only got worse.

[@paulsimmonds2030]

Flat Earthers often say to me “There are no stars. It must be fake!” I was able to demonstrate, to a flat earth friend, an explanation as to why there are no stars. I took two daytime images using a digital SLR. One image was correctly exposed at f11 (for acceptable front to back focus) at 1/250th of a second and one image at f11 at 30 seconds. The 30 second image was completely white with no detail. We then waited for a clear night to photograph stars. I had to increase the aperture to f1.8 and increase the ISO to 6400 and still needed an exposure of 20 seconds to record stars. It took my friend a while to comprehend that, while the moon photographs showed what looked like, a night sky; it was, in fact daylight and required daytime exposure values. I said “You can’t have it both ways” referring to the totally blown first image and the correctly exposed nighttime image. I could have sworn I heard a thud as a coin hit the floor!

[@DenisLoubet]

It also works with taking a flash photo of a friend against the night sky. Perfectly exposed friend, no stars in the sky.

[@irrelevant_noob]

@@DenisLoubet quite sure mostly everyone has learned by now that if one wants any kind of photo done at night, it either needs the flash or long(er) exposure... So i'd go the other way: ask the photo taker to try to get an image of somebody with stars in the background sky. :-)

[@MasamiPhoenix]

Reminds me of when I was a kid and tried to take a photo of the Lincoln Memorial across the rejecting pool, at night. Its a pretty good shot of the pool and the entrance, but everything beyond that is pitch black. That was my first lesson in exposure. (Also, at no point did I suspect the statue of Lincoln was fake)

[@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe]

you still have another 1000 or so things to explain -------- like why ISS astronots are bounding on cables or need 20 cuts to film a 1.5 miute segment on hair washing. Or why they look up above the camera when manipulating objects , or why the space shuttles had jet engines when they landed -----

[@MasamiPhoenix]

@@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe i know you're just spamming accounts with this copy-pasta, but... 1) the ISS astronauts don't "bound on cables." Every claim has been explained and debunked. 2) its a turorial video. They cut so we don't waste time watching every moment of repetitive actions. There may also have been more than one take. 3) they're probably looking at the video feed so they can make sure they're in frame. I do it all the time on zoom calls. 4) shuttles don't have jet engines while landing. Do a Google image search for "space shuttle landing" and you will see hundreds of unique pictures of shuttles and not a single jet engine.

[@davidb4192]

The photos look "unnatural" simply because there is no atmosphere. We are only used to seeing photos taken where there is an atmosphere. Also, there are no familiar objects like houses, for example, in the distance that would give us a visual cue as to how far away we are looking, so a hill which looks close might actually be miles away.

[@wignewtonmanfredsinginson7641]

NASA asked Stanley Kubrick to film the moon landing. Kubrick said OK, but I wanna do it on location!

[@emeraldspark101]

Adam Ruins Everything touched on this years ago. The only ways these pictures could have been faked, according to them would be if they used thousands of multi-colored lasers, which at the time would have cost more than the country's entire budget, or if they used CGI correction software, which hadn't been invented yet.

[@DemonDrummer]

⁠@@hmlinder Can you give some specific examples? I know they ran an episode covering mistakes they made and correcting them so you’re right in some ways. But does that mean you don’t trust their assertions? Honestly asking.

[@wiredforstereo]

​@@hmlinderYou have to provide evidence. "I don't trust ______ is not an argument."

[@DoctorPhobos]

@@DemonDrummer kzbin.info/aero/PL2iVl_GtqGwcxMcmk1_9FjmbBCHzm6D8e&si=STvaO1LdtTSVrV9i

[@DoctorPhobos]

@@wiredforstereo kzbin.info/aero/PL2iVl_GtqGwcxMcmk1_9FjmbBCHzm6D8e&si=STvaO1LdtTSVrV9i

[@anteshell]

@@hmlinder Hacks research? I don't think "hacking" means what you think it means. For starters, it doesn't mean anything negative.

[@billmcdonald4335]

Another detail that's impossible to replicate on Earth: Moon dust. Watch how it behaves when the astronauts and the Rover kick the stuff up. Dust does not do that on Earth; it hangs in the air for a time before settling. Moon dust just flops back to the surface in a parabolic trajectory - like it would in a vacuum. And it moves slower than we're used to seeing stuff move under 1g. Ol' Stanley was the best, but not even he could defy the physics of fine dust.

[@everyonelovesLewi]

Why them is there none of that dust on the lunar lander?

[@billmcdonald4335]

@@everyonelovesLewi Because the dust was blasted away from the LEM as it landed. No air currents were there to waft it back towards the craft. Basic stuff.

[@vladpadowicz5946]

The footage was played back slower so it gives the illusion of weightlessness. I'm not saying that's what was done, but how it could explain your point about the dust. There's a brief sequence shown in this video of the rover in motion where it seems to be going fast and the dust is definitely falling as it would on earth rather than slowly as you say it should, and of course it should.

[@billmcdonald4335]

@@vladpadowicz5946 Yeah, nah. Looks nothing like slo-mo Earth dust. Also, slo-mo footage doesn't look anything like Lunar footage. [sigh] Lookit: I followed the Apollo programme quite closely _as it happened._ Everyone I knew back then did; we _all_ did. It was on the evening news, in all the magazines and newspapers. Schools cancelled classes and tuned in the TVs. The world over did this back then. Everywhere. Since then, I have read and learned a great deal more about the technical details, and about the people who went, as well as the people who built the hardware. I'm as well-versed in Apollo as any civilian enthusiast can be. I've been a fan since Day One. If there were shenanigans, I would have found out about them long before now. They went; they walked/drove; they returned. Six. Times. U now have eyewitness testimony that's _literally_ of higher quality than Gospel. It. Happened. Happy now?

[@Ness-eq9wy]

Just the dark sky ?? Where are the stars??

[@kirkgoshert7876]

I've been living on the moon for 60 years and I can state unequivocably no human has ever been here.

[@heavyecho1]

Spray and Pray. The curse of the 'professional' photographer, and opposed to a Professional Photographer.

[@Bnio]

My favorite quirk is that Neil Armstrong's photos from the moon all have a noticeable tilt to them. Photography just wasn't the priority for him on that mission. (That being said, he still managed to pop off one of the top-10 photographs of all time.)

[@defaulted9485]

A great historian quote that applies to flat earthers : "Use the inconsistencies in your argument, or it will be used against you." Making flerfs their own worst enemy in these type of debate.

[@Capt.Turner]

I'm glad you covered the shadow issue in detail. There is so much bs going around on that topic alone. Is there any chance to contact you directly ?

[@DaveMcKeegan]

@@Capt.Turnermy email is in the 'about' section on my channel page, that's probably the best way to get in touch

[@Capt.Turner]

@@DaveMcKeegan Thanks Dave. I’ll get back to you.

[@vipero07]

Why do I get the feeling the dog has a better understanding of the Earth's actual shape than any FEs...

[@colty7764]

small details like the fine dust kicked up behind the wheels of the lunar rover rising and falling (and not being suspended in the atmosphere as it would on Earth) shows these were real.

[@awatt]

Speed that footage up and it looks more like it would behave on earth. Why no conspiracy nutter hasn't done this is beyond me.

[@dogwalker666]

​@@awattActually the deniers have tried but then everything else looks completely ludicrous.

[@MeerkatADV]

​@awatt you can and it will make the dust look OK. But it makes everything else look ridiculous.

[@stuartgray5877]

@@MeerkatADV No. the dust STILL behaves as if it is in a vacuum. Dust and dirt on earth never behave like that even if you manipulate the speed. It follows a perfectly parabolic path UNLIKE how dust behaves in atmosphere. In Atmosphere dust curls and spins in air current eddies.

[@MeerkatADV]

@@stuartgray5877 I said it would look OK. I didn't say it would behave correctly. Clearly all of the footage from the moon walks was filmed in both a vacuum and 1/6th gravity. Something that cannot be simulated anywhere else.

[@real_me365]

This video was a shock and awww to me. it should’ve been in a master class! I’m putting this one in my favorites it was an ultimate lesson of lighting!

[@canaldecasta]

My father is filled with resentment towards the world and now he is spewing about how the Earth is flat and The Sun and The Moon are fake. Im so tired.

[@daminam]

Im sorry for you :(

[@johnferry7778]

It’s probably just a phase.

[@robin_holden]

@@johnferry7778 haaaa, nice!

[@SaneGuyFr]

Im sorry for you :(

[@IdioticSandwich]

Sad for you, probably one of the only moments being disowned isn’t too bad

[@jacobstephens4736]

Legend says Hollywood directors thought filming the fake landing on earth was too difficult so they shot it on location.

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

I do love how Dave does these. No names, no insults, no joking at the flerfs' expense. Just clear facts and information. ❤❤

[@richardmetzler7909]

Thanks for spelling out what I've suspected for a while. There is another argument that strongly points to the photos being real: in some photos taken at different points along a rover trip, you can see the mountains in the background line up at slightly different angles. That would be pretty difficult (or at least very tedious) to replicate with artificial backdrops.

[@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe]

you still have another 1000 or so things to explain -------- like why ISS astronots are bounding on cables or need 20 cuts to film a 1.5 miute segment on hair washing. Or why they look up above the camera when manipulating objects , or why the space shuttles had jet engines when they landed -----

[@heygranny]

​@@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe 😂😂😂😂

[@bulwinkle]

i was a teenager at the time the Moon landings were going on. In fact my Dad bought our first colour TV so we could watch the Apollo 11 mission in colour. Imagine our disappointment that the pictures from the Moon were monochrome slow scan images. However a magazine printed a spread of colour photography from the mission and we were amazed at how clear and sharp the photographs were due to the lack of atmospheric distortion, they were stunning. We had never seen the like of them before. The same sharpness is evident in videos from the ISS, but we take it for granted now.

[@michaelkatz7862]

My uncle, who founded Astro Dynamics in Boston, designed and built 3 of the Apollo astronauts back pack components. No need for that cost or research if faked.

[@davidb4192]

Exactly. If it was faked they would have only needed painted cardboard boxes on their backs.

[@emilschw8924]

Not to mention the other artefacts left behind, such as the laser reflector.

[@khandimahn9687]

Imagine if all these space and flat earth conspiracy theorists actually took photography classes.

[@entangledmindcells9359]

I would hate to be in that class.. listening to them argue with the instructor on how things "ACTUALLY" work.

[@richardryley3660]

I just commented in another video that the black sky over the moon makes you think that it's night. But it's day. There is no blue sky because there is no atmosphere, and for that reason, the light is not diffused. There is nowhere on Earth that you could reproduce this sunlight. Probably every picture was taken during the day, because it would have been difficult for the astronauts to light nighttime scenes. The reflected light from Earth could have lit the scene, but if you were on the dark side of the moon it would probably be pitch black at night.

[@briansomething5987]

Every picture was taken during the day, because they were only on the moon during the lunar daytime (in the "morning").

[@tumenibits569]

"Probably every picture was taken during the day" That would be ALL pictures (on the surface) taken in lunar day. All of them. Definitely

[@richardryley3660]

Well, I understand that the moon is tide locked, so it would still be day on the moon even after the Earth rotated from day to night. But I wasn't 100% sure that all Apollo missions were during the moon's day so I left a caveat. As I noted, during the moon's night, it would still be lit by the Earth. If pictures of that have never been taken, I would like to see some during the Artemis flights. But I think that's not going to be a priority until we have the potential of long term missions on the moon. There's also the possibility of pictures from the moon's dark side during it's "night". (Day on the dark side)

[@SpeakerBuilder]

As a fellow photographer, I appreciate the extensive review of the issue of lighting and shadows in the moon photos that has been a primary source for the conspiracy folks. Sadly, they likely don't care about the logic, reason and professional experience that you and I bring to the subject. Their minds have already been locked up, driven by emotion rather than reason.

[@TheVagolfer]

Too many people were involved for everyone to keep their mouth shut. It happened...Get over it.

[@astrorick2910]

One small addition: there are spots in some of the photos where lighting seems to change. That's just due to the point of view of the camera, let me explain: regolith is made of very sharp uneven grains, each of these grains casts a shadow. If you look at the surface from certain directions you will see more of every single shadow casted by every single grain, which, overall, will make certain areas appear darker than others.

[@tOxIc_TrEaSuRe]

you still have another 1000 or so things to explain -------- like why ISS astronots are bounding on cables or need 20 cuts to film a 1.5 miute segment on hair washing. Or why they look up above the camera when manipulating objects , or why the space shuttles had jet engines when they landed -----

[@suelynch]

Adam and Jamie (Mythbusters) replicated the moon photo of Neil Armstrong on the ladder of the lander in their workshop. The actual conspiracy was "the multi-angled shadows depicted in the photo had to have more than a single light source. Jamie and Adam used a scale model of the lander and using a single light source to light the lander and the simulated luna surface which replicated the photo. NOTE the original conspiracy: Just because they replicated the photo, doesn't mean the original photo was FAKE, it just means the conspiracy was created by someone who wasn't too bright. There was also a couple of other conspiracies but I can't remember which episodes they were. All of the conspiracies were busted.

[@D.apollo]

They faked it right in front of their viewers, they weren't even ashamed to do it. First: They used cement to simulate the surface of the Moon. Which is a serious mistake! The albedo of cement is 30%, that of the Moon is between 8% and 12%. Second: When taking the photo, they didn't even bother to wear black gloves/clothes to avoid reflecting so much light. But what an inconvenience on their part. Two Russian filmmakers did the same, but everything was done correctly, and guess what? The photo was very dark.

[@CSXRobert]

The only thing the Mythbuster's "replicated" moon landing photo was for was to prove that the astronaut would be visible in the lander's shadow. There were many things wrong with the photo (the most obvious one to me is the blurry shadow edges instead of the sharp edges produced but the sun in the real photos), so it in no way implies NASA's moon landing photos could have been faked.

[@williamblazkowicz5587]

​@@D.apolloand the soviets willingly took getting shat on the world stage by a "fake" moon landing without saying a bloody thing 🙄

[@FullFrontalNerdity-e3z]

Just as the Earth's environment was completely different when life formed, people can't imagine the completely foreign environment of the moon. It's nearly waterless, has virtually no atmosphere, is covered in fine dust almost like talcum powder, and only has 1/6 the Earth's gravity. Anybody who has never been there will never be able to make sense of the lighting and the strange behavior of objects on the moon. I wish people would just lose the "It just don't look right to me..." argument. Of course it doesn't.

[@joshuasharrock466]

I appreciate everything you do man. A lot in your field preach sometimes or get political.. You're a solid dude with solid content Cheers from Ohio

[@Level_No_Curve]

Hes a lying charlatan. The hell are you smoking

[@throwawayavclubber7269]

@@Level_No_Curve Troll.

[@LeFizolof]

Isn't the earth flat in Ohio?

[@goldenageofdinosaurs7192]

@@LeFizolofJust the land (Take it from me. I grew up in Kansas. I’m an expert in flat..)

[@sourlesscream1272]

@@goldenageofdinosaurs7192 nah, we nothing but hills... i think your thinking of Florida

[@schaddalton]

I also love the idea from these clowns that astronauts -- men who were some of the smartest of their era -- couldn't possibly learn how to operate a camera with some level of competency as part of their training to, you know, go to the goddamned Moon.

[@tubecated_development]

Every accusation is a confession from those chuckle-bunnies.

[@multispeciesangler]

Do you think that Santa Claus possesses the same camera tech? I mean he's real too just like we went to the moon, right? It's not just what a large group of people are telling us, is it? No way, we have direct evidence other than what someone says, right? I mean there are pictures?

[@fasillimerick7394]

Also, I'm not wanting to funnel people to another channel, but a filmmaker I never heard of made a similar video about the motion film taken on the Moon, and that it would have been easier in 1969 to just go there, rather than try to fake it, even with Mr. Kubrick directing.

[@maxfan1591]

Do you mean S G Collins?

[@fasillimerick7394]

@maxfan1591. Yes, that's the guy. Thank you for reminding me.

[@CapitalTeeth]

If anything, people saying the moon landings are fake only underscore exactly how mindblowing of an achievement they were.

[@SteveJohnson-CU-CSM]

You can still see the equipment right there on the moon.

[@RomanCigić]

Basically NASA had a lot of issues trying to make a perfect realistic fake image on the Moon but then a brilliant mind decided to try and do it on the spot and so we actually landed on the Moon☠

[@Tomicrat]

I enjoy how I see this as a lesson on lighting. While also taking out conspiracy theory. You are a great teacher on this stuff. 👍👍👍👍