Cambridge-based psychedelic pop band led by Mick Crossley. They have been … Read Full Bio ↴Cambridge-based psychedelic pop band led by Mick Crossley. They have been active since the 1980's and have released albums on Nick Saloman's (The Bevis Frond) Woronzow label. Their sound is melodic and accessible, but given to eccentricities, weirdness and psychedelic darkness at times. Their material is currently available via Splendid records.

http://splendidrecords.com/default.jsp

Swim Around The Moon
Flyte Reaction Lyrics

We have lyrics for these tracks by Flyte Reaction:

Some Kind Of Love I never knew what I was missing Love with no passion…

The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos

TRACKS

No Related Genres

More Genres

No Artists Found

More Artists Load All

No Albums Found

More Albums Load All

No Tracks Found

01Candy Girl3:47

02Swim Around The Moon4:01

PT4M1S

Flyte Reaction

03Try Me3:46

04Flow3:44

05Water From Your Well5:38

06Let It Go3:31

07Diamond Geezer4:53

08Catching Leaves3:36

09Some Kind Of Love3:05

10Dark Rain Falling14:25

11Toasty3:34

12You Said6:02

13Catching Leaves (Bonus Track)3:59

14Diamond Geezer (Bonus Track)5:06

Genre not found

Artist not found

Album not found

Search results not found

Song not found

Most interesting comments from YouTube:

DB Business

2y↑68

SUBSCRIBE IF YOU LIKED THIS VIDEO

Why Elon Musk Lives in a 50k priced Small House 👉 https://youtu.be/sF3Jz0NJ_s8

Elon Musk Destroys Apple 👉 https://youtu.be/MXIswmG5xyE

Elon Musk - ''Delete your Facebook'' 👉 https://youtu.be/HA7bhpDaQ3Q

Elon Musk vs Jeff Bezos - It's Getting Worse Every Day 👉 https://youtu.be/XFMPXHx-2VQ

Yazzam X

2y↑18

Because there has been no comparable breakthrough in rocket ENGINE technology my friend, instead we're still using the same basic rocket engine designs today that we used back in the 60s.

Think about it, how far would airplanes have developed if the jet engine had never been invented and hence all airplanes still used propellers today?

Now imagine if during the 80s a completely new and revolutionary type of rocket engine was invented that completely replaced the rocket engine tech we see today, making it significantly easier and cheaper to get into space.

If that happened, then wouldn't space travel have evolved for some of the predictions made in 1969 to have come true?

But sadly that hasn't happened, we're stuck with the same basic rocket engine technology and hence progress will continue to be slow, but at least innovation from companies like Space X with reuseable rockets is a step in the right direction :-)

Tommy Roc

2y↑1

The dilemma with stars is their staggering distance & our ability to get there alive.

The dilemma with the nearby moon is electrical charges created in the moon-dust by the sun's constant bombardment of radiation.

EDIT: dangerous electrical charges.

That's why there have been no missions back since I was born. The moon is an electrically-charged ball of rock & dust...that thankfully acts as both a clock, an asteroid/meteor shield & tide control for our oceans.

Very cool by this nerd's standards🤓

Yazzam X

1y↑2

Nope.

The Apollo 11 moonwalk was broadcast live to the world, where being the first NASA made a BACKUP copy of the moonwalk just in case the live TV broadcast didn't work.

If the live broadcast was a failure and so no-one could watch the moonwalk, THEN NASA would have processed their backup copy (i.e. transfer the video to film) and send the film out to TV studios worldwide to broadcast to their audiences.

But the live broadcast was a success, millions of people watched it worldwide and TV studios recorded it themselves, and so NASA's BACKUP copy was redundant and hence was eventually lost.

The only reason we know about NASA's lost backup copy was because a NASA employee heard about it and realized the quality would have been better than the TV studio recordings, and hence they made it public in the hope that someone somewhere who used to work for NASA would know where the backup tapes were.

In other words, all that was lost was a clearer and sharper version of the same footage that we've all seen already for the Apollo 11 moonwalk only.

No pictures were lost, and nothing was lost from Apollo 12 or Apollo 13 (the failed missions) or Apollo 14 or Apollo 15 or Apollo 16 or Apollo 17.

All comments from YouTube:

DB Business

2y↑68

dmed

2y↑2.6K

I was under the impression this video would have Elon Musk speaking, but I've been tricked. Good job.

Nick B

2y↑89

Don’t you fucking hate that

Jesse Akers

2y↑12

The Who.
Meat the new boss,. Same as the old boss.

Jesse Akers

@Italian RetreatI stand corrected.
Thanks.

coherent

2y↑64

Thanks to your efforts of typing this down i am thankful and did stop watching as soon as i saw your comment.
Much appreciated.

140 More Replies...

Tyler Krompier

2y↑894

I really loved the part where Elon Musk talked

ThePROFESS10NAL

2y↑8

He spoke with body language. You must have missed it

SuperTramp

2y↑5

Must have missed that!🤣

Oswarz

2y↑3

That's the neat thing, he doesn't

NikTheFix

1y↑2

He used the Vulcan Mind Meld.

6 More Replies...

Michael Scales

2y↑82

I recall watching the moon landing on BBC TV.The commentators discussed what it would mean for mankind.They all agreed that by the end of the century space travel and trips to the moon would be commonplace. Strangely this is not the case. The Wright Brothers first flew in 1903, within only a few decades aeroplanes were taking passengers from city to city. So why is it,53 years later,no such advancements have been made in space travel so that the predictions made in 1969,are proved correct ?

Yazzam X

2y↑18

Captain Jefferies

2y↑17

It's not strange. We've been to the bottom of the ocean too. We don't go there all the time and we don't have cities down there.

92 More Replies...

EfkaGames&Computers

1y↑4

Always was wondering this: when the Apollo missions left the radio transmitters on the moon that we are using to bounce back the signal from earth to verify the distance to the moon… What is the chance of them getting hit by the space debris or asteroid that sometimes hits the moon?

H. de Jong

1y↑9

The area covered by one of the landings (a few km2) gets hit by an asteroid once every few thousand years. So the chances of one of those devices getting hit any time soon are really low.
By the way, they left laser reflectors, not radio transmitters. Laser reflectors are passive devices.

EfkaGames&Computers

1y↑2

@H. de Jong right, laser reflectors, my bad. Thanks for the update regards probabilities.

IGNACIO SAVI

Ezekiel

you know that we measure the distance with laser without the need of a deflector? the numbers of photons that are send back from the moon surface is nearly the same! to hit a deflector with the size of not even 1 meter you need an extremely powerful laser, but even this Laser will spread very far!

4 More Replies...

T M

2y↑141

Love how the greatest moon shot technology that the planet has ever seen includes tin-foil wrapped structures, similar to a badly constructed parade float.

hueseph

2y↑18

Tin foil is light and is an insulator. You don't want to send up sheet metal if you can use tin foil. That is, you don't want to risk wasting fuel on sending up sheet metal when you can send tin foil. LOGIC. Use it.

COBS: Sharpening Your FPS Skills

2y↑7

There's good reasons it looks like that. Aluminized mylar (It's the stuff that looks like "tin-foil") is just insulation, but exceptionally light and effective insulation. It's used for emergency blankets for a reason. It might by crinkley, noisy stuff to deal with, but it works.

T M

2y↑16

@COBS: Sharpening Your FPS Skills - Would not want to fly in a space craft at 30 times the speed of sound wrapped in 'emergency mylar blankets'.

nunya biznez

2y↑16

@T M And I wouldn't want to ride in a space ship fueled by Tang and that didn't happen either. The Mylar was a non structural component that did it's job as needed. Before you spout off ignorance how about study something about how and why space craft are designed.

Kill Bill

2y↑14

@COBS: Sharpening Your FPS Skills does it work in space though. Apparently space is a giant vacuum which is why they have to wear those suits so their heads don't turn inside out and implode...... And you're telling me that something thinner than tin foil can stand up to that kind of pressure without crumpling into a little ball? You're a fool and you've been fooled

54 More Replies...

MyPhilemon6site

1y↑9

This snow ball has gotten so big it’s going to be hard to melt it quickly with just this documentary … so in my conclusion to this whole argument is that I am fully convinced of the facts that we did land on the moon and it was real and compelling when I watched it for myself 5 days before my 10th birthday in 1969.

Motley Mick

1y↑3

And then Santa Clause brought you a new bike that year for Christmas!

s K

40w

Really 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

1 More Replies...

Erik

2y↑239

This man saying: 'It looks so unreal that you must believe it' speaks true words.

Ronald Greene

2y↑22

. . In other words, "The bigger the lie," . . We simply don't want to deal with it. We want the script provided for us . . in the media generations -- at the turn of a switch. No risk and no effort . . and anything else that serves in the same role . .

ronny james

2y↑14

Brain cleansing technique

JDD

2y↑6

Moe Sizzlac They way it was reported? I watched it happen live.

209 More Replies...

The Original John Galt

2y↑509

The cameraman who got to the moon before them did a great job of getting good shots.

Alec G.

2y↑42

It's the beauty of the free press. They have no limits. Even the sky is no limit for them.

Yazzam X

2y↑48

Hence proving you've done no research :-)

The Original John Galt

2y↑16

@Yazzam X You’re cute.

Joseph Nebeker

2y↑61

Concerning the first manned moon landing, the camera that took pictures of the entirety of the moon lander was set up by Armstrong, being one of the first things he did.
The camera that showed Armstrong initially leaving the lander was connected to the lander.
In fact, several cameras were taken to the moon and used by the Apollo 11 crew: two 16mm Maurer motion picture film cameras, a color television camera in the orbiting Columbia, and a black and white TV camera outside of the lunar module to transmit to Earth Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon's surface. A Kodak stereo close-up camera was used to film the lunar soil from only inches away. Three Hasselblad 500EL cameras were carried.

176 More Replies...

Le patenteux - NormandNadon.com

2y↑73

Most of what is told here in the video is true and nicely explained... Except the part about Landing sites visible with home telescope... Yes, you can see the REGION where they landed, but there is no way you can pick-out the details of the man-made material left on the surface! This angular resolution is just too small! Even if your telescope had this kind of resolution, the atmosphere would cancel-it out immediately.
Same goes for the flags... You can pick-up kilometers-wide areas, not centimeters!

DogLookingBackAtYou

2y↑8

And the flag is completely white by now due to solar radiation

Le patenteux - NormandNadon.com

2y↑1

@Wild Boar I have no Idea what you are talking about... can you reference your ideas please

Le patenteux - NormandNadon.com

@Cyber oh god... another one...

39 More Replies...

Waiting4Him111

1y↑37

What they aren't telling you is what they really found on the moon. It was a small alien capsule with a tiny life form inside. They brought it back to earth and named the alien creature, Elon Musk.

rowdy yates

51w

No they named it tony Blair?

KingsColas

50w↑1

That's how Elon knows it really happened. He is the proof haha

Big Cat

50w

@KingsColas Outer Space is fake

j machado

50w↑1

Elon phone home

7 More Replies...

Luis Kevin Castillo

2y↑98

I love the part where Elon gave his opinion smh

MOOV

1y↑1

What color is your Bugatti?

Origin

1y↑3

@MOOV ur weird

ThatKidFromSmartsville

@MOOV sir, I think your lost

Yorto Andes

1y↑1

@MOOV stay off the heroïn ma boy.

Chris Lake

Right,never happened

1 More Replies...

Richard Kirkland

1y↑1

the American flags you showed were not the kind that the astronauts left on the moon, the flagpoles of the lunar flags had a cross beam that kept the flag upright permanently, because the moon doesn't have enough wind to keep it flowing like flags on earth.

D j

2y↑433

Elon should use the battery technology that NASA had in the 60's. They were able to power the heat and air systems of the spacecraft for a round trip to the moon, so just imagine how long it could power his cars...

Andy Reid

2y↑106

The Apollo missions used hydrogen fuel cell,, not batteries, for electrical power. Car manufacturers would like to use hydrogen fuel cell, for electrical power, but they cost a heck of a lot more than lithium ion batteries.

JJ In The Sun

2y↑23

They used car batteries while on the moon to survive. lmao

Saintbow

2y↑34

Looks like you were not paying attention in science and history classes...

Wicked Guppy

2y↑7

@Andy Reid Oxygen not hydrogen. O2 used for breathing and to make power.

Alec G.

2y↑14

@Andy Reid What's so costly about the hydrogen fuel cells? Toyota has developed hydrogen engines. They must cost a small fortune to fill up then.

436 More Replies...

The Rubber Studios

2y↑81

Seems weird that 1960's technology still does more than today's in terms of space exploration. And why have they never gone back?

MisterIse

2y↑2

Lol wrong

H. de Jong

2y↑13

The Moon missions ended because they were expensive. It took 5% of the Federal budget for a decade to get to the Moon. After Apollo, NASA's budget was slashed to 1/5 of what it was. So NASA concentrated on cheaper efforts: a reusable spacecraft (Space Shuttle), and learning how to live in space for longer periods (via the ISS).

TLynn4994

2y↑48

@H. de Jong we just left 83 billion dollars of military equipment in Afghanistan. We just handed over 80+ billion then millions upon millions more over to Ukraine. I don’t think money is the issue.

H. de Jong

2y↑4

@TLynn4994 This year, NASA had to haggle over a few tens of millions for NEO Surveyor- just about the most important mission they have right now. Clearly, money is an issue.

Dean Winchester

2y↑8

We went 6 times, how many times do you think we need to go? Not like we're bringing back resources or anything to make it worth the cost.

94 More Replies...

Design15

2y↑67

Musk has said that there is a good chance we are all living in a computer simulation. So, yes, within that simulation, the Moon landings took place, he thinks.

Jason Lee

2y↑9

Probably been watching too many reruns of Matrix.

MeltingRubberZ28

2y↑2

@Jason Lee while stoned

raff

Nailed it

infinitytoinfinitysquaredbitch

2y↑2

@Jason Lee
Actually, it's accepted as a plausible theory by many physicists.

8 More Replies...

Dicken Sider

34w

I’m no conspiracy theorist, but what technology did NASA develop to get past the radiation belt? A detailed breakdown was provided for pretty much everything else but when explaining how they got past the radiation the video simply stated “NASA developed technology” to get past and that the astronauts suffer minor radiation poisoning. That is a pretty vague answer if you ask me.

Richard Macias

2y↑134

as musk said of his launching of his Tesla into space, "It looks so fake it has to be real". he truly is the ultimate troller

Satori Cinematic Production

2y↑5

I thought that was a nod to the debate on Apollo missions being a hoax.

Nick Dannunzio

2y↑1

Musk said his rocket is not designed to go into space, just to maintain orbit to board the ISS and launch satellites... both within earths atmosphere...

John Jeffery

Yeah elon is a 4d chess player.

John Jeffery

2y↑1

@Nick Dannunzio yeah listen to what he doesnt say...

John Jeffery

2y↑1

Moe Sizzlac ah we got a rocket scientist here huh..?

12 More Replies...

Denver Hardin

38w↑2

He can’t call them out when he’s doing the same thing.

Randy Randerson

2y↑11

The thing to keep an eye on is not going back to the moon but if they go back to the landing site and having the stuff still there. If they don't go back to the original site, to study how it's changed for example, then you've got questions that need answering. That study could answer how things, like a moonbase break down over time from constant radiation bombardment at that level.

David MacPhee

2y↑1

The moon is too big for that search. Water must be found in large amounts and we know its best, at the south pole.

Raptorman0909

2y↑4

That will almost certainly be part of any future lunar exploration -- analyzing the change and damage to the artifacts left behind will be important to understand before we send people to stay. Probably not the first order of business but near the top.

2 More Replies...

Mark Cobb

2y↑214

Facts about the moon surface: Temperatures that range from 140 °C (284 F) down to −171 °C (-275.8 F), an atmospheric pressure of 10−10 Pa (basically no atmosphere), and high levels of ionizing radiation from the Sun and cosmic rays (way more than the Van Allen belts). It has an atmosphere so tenuous as to be nearly vacuum. It's surface is pelted daily by extreme amounts of space debris, with no protection as the Earth's atmosphere provides. Yet, these men traveled at mach 20, in a space craft with walls in some places no thicker than aluminum foil, over a quarter of million miles through space (realize, a BB sized space rock hitting it would have been devastating) and not only land on the moon, but the suits these astronauts wore somehow protected them from the aforementioned extreme conditions. Huh yeah, ok....*smh

Mo inmt

2y↑23

Yes, and their space suits were sown by a couple old ladies who when asked said "they were nothing special. lol

jan klaasen

2y↑9

@Mo inmt They were part of these 400.000. :-)

170 More Replies...

Leroy Hoffman

2y↑24

Apparently, there were three different ships about the trip to the Moon. One that was launched from Earth, another that did the landing, and one that was floating in the sea.

DE J

2y↑9

everything was launched from the earth. one two stage craft that was part of what was launched did the landing. one different part of the whole landed back on earth.

Counter Strike

2y↑11

We never went to the moon bro, the reason, will never be able to go their again.

False Prophet

2y↑6

@Counter Strike
Was the soviet union in on it? The voluntraily let the US win the space race, because why, again?

False Prophet

2y↑8

@Counter Strike
Lmao.. China just landed something on Venus a few years ago.. we have people living in orbit on the space station.. the voyager probes have entered interstellar space.. we have rovers and probes all around the solar system..

We could go to the moon at any point if we wanted.. we dont, because we have already studied it..

Why would the Soviet Union let the US lie if they knew, and could prove as easily as you think you can, that we never went to the moon?

42 More Replies...

C. Bodhi

1y↑5

"The bigger and older the trick, the easier it is to pull. He thinks it can’t be that old or big for so many people to have fallen for it."

Dave Bro

2y↑29

400,000 people don't have to keep a secret they all thought it was real, only a handful knew the truth. Most of those people were on a need to know basis

Code Tech

2y↑6

People actually built a real rocket, got divorced because they were working overtime and never home, etc, and you could never convince them, their neighbors, or their families that the rocket never went to the Moon. They are too emotionally attached to the experience.

Lance

True. But THOUSANDS of scientists all around the world would have known if it was impossible.
And there have been thousands of others who came along in the last 50 years. You can't fool them all.
In fact your average Xray technician would probably know if it was possible to survive the radiation.

ToadSauce

1y↑1

I especially like how they faked it six times, and faked not making it once.

Dirk Acula

1y↑1

@ToadSauce Agreed. And not to forget, how they faked Apollo 13 for dramatic purpose [/tinfoil hat]

1 More Replies...

Santa Sa

2y↑1

Very fine video, sums up most important bits of info! Great for linking/sharing. Thanks DBB.

DogsPlayingPoker

2y↑124

So what was the technology that NASA invented to protect the astronauts from the radiation? They didn't mention that.

Robert Chesky

2y↑9

As I remember they got dosed pretty good. They were willing to accept that to go. So would I.

Huh?

2y↑4

I am familiar with a researcher who analyzed the tracks actually bored though the astronauts helmets by cosmic rays during the missions.

ZantiMisfit

2y↑2

Pretty convenient huh!?

nunya biznez

2y↑12

Gold thread woven into the space suits combined with alloy shielding in the space craft. Why did you think the space suits were so expensive?

DogsPlayingPoker

2y↑5

@nunya biznez Thanks for the answer.

131 More Replies...

Peter Sinclair PhD

2y↑10

Australia received the images first and had involvement with telemetry. Goldstone had technical problems. TV transmission was required. Australia had the largest movable Radio Telescope in the World. The first images were picked-up Honey Suckle Creek, one quarter the size of Parkes. Quickly switched to Parkes. Armstrong created a problem going early, as the huge second telescope weighing thousands of tons had to be moved to lowest position towards the horizon during a windstorm. sorry conspiracy folks that is what happened. Australia transmitted to Houston not Hollywood.

Escape Tarkov

2y↑3

George Jones Aluminum and glass block all the alpha and beta radiation (glass is used on long term satts to cover solar panels so that the rads don't fry them while going through the belts for months getting to orbit) A sheet of paper could block alpha radiation. It didn't take crazy exotic materials to do this...

customsongmaker

2y↑2

But the world didn't see the transmission sent from Parkes. People's televisions showed them a signal from a TV camera pointing at a 10-inch television screen on Earth. NASA claims they had a tape with the original signal in much higher quality, but they say they've lost it. Do you believe that?

Bat Man

@customsongmaker It was on a magnetic tape. And as Magnetic tape was very expensive, they felt they had no more need for it and reused the tapes on other missions.

7 More Replies...

bpdubb

2y↑16

It still just amazes me how small we actually are.

A J

35w

Yet you still probably don't believe in a divine supreme being, i.e., a creator and independent being!

2 More Replies...

julie brady

1y↑24

All I can say is it looked fake when I was watching it on TV at the time it was broadcast. At the time at the age of twelve I couldn't believe it

Quincy King

Well CPU's are more complicated than engineering a flying tank. We have silicon stuff and so much things even back then why would it be impossible.

J B

1y↑3

How did they live stream the broadcast from the moon to earth? What device could send that transmission so far? I get bad signal when I’m in a rural area, must less the moon.

Michiman

52w

@J B They didn't broadcast it directly to everyone on earth. They were able to send back 10 fps and like half the quality of a modern television back to earth. But some satellites picked up the signal in a few places around the world. But they didn't stream it from the moon, they broadcasted it from the moon and people on earth worked on the streaming part.

There is a puma in everyone

51w

@J B The transmitters used in space have exponentially greater power than the few milliwatts of a household wi-fi router, using S Band high gain antenna. S-Band is a microwave band that can penetrate radiation and antenna gain refers to the ability of the antenna to focus scattered radio frequency waves into a narrower, useful plane, thereby increasing signal strength. High-gain antennas provide a more precise way of targeting radio signals and are therefore very essential to long-range wireless networks. and directed focused antenna arrays. The Apollo radio transmissions broadcast at 20 watts, to a dish that was 65 feet in diameter which reduced the amount of battery power needed by the lunar module.
They also had line of sight, i.e. there was no obstruction between the Earth and Moon.
A cell phone transmits 300-600 milliwatts to a 2-foot-long antenna and has towers to bounce signals off when there is no line of sight. They also have millions of other users that compete for bandwidth. Thus, depending on how many users there are, and whether there are enough towers to connect the signals, you might not get any service. They are entirely different scenarios.

perry Pointer

2y↑11

Elon is a business man, he is not going to jeopardize his huge NASA contract by stating in an inerview that the technology to land a rocket on the moon didn't exist in 1969. He successfully landed a vertical landing rocket in 2015. The verticle landing rocket technology was just invented around 2010. The Lunar Landing Module (LLM) had a rocket engine. The LLM prototype had a jet engine. You cant train on a jet engine prototype to prepare to land a rocket engine craft. It really doesn"t matter though, because the vertical landing rocket technology didn't exist anyway.

Philip Giacalone

1y↑5

Laser reflectors were left on the moon by Apollo 11. Those are used to measure the exact distance to the moon by astronomers on earth. Also the Apollo 13 vehicle was seen on its way to the by numerous people using telescopes. The oxygen leaking from Apollo 13 created a large cloud around the spacecraft that could be seen from earth with a telescope.

Goofy GrandLouis

51w

The debate is not about Apollo 13, but the initial one. Apollo 11.
A few more years make a ton of difference. Also the fact that Elon Musk is struggling soooo much to reproduce the event.. shows that you need more than a decade to be successful.
Yet Kennedy didn't have that time, he had to beat the USSR to it.

rowdy yates

51w↑3

Numerous people using telescopes-??? Name one ☝️ telescopes don’t see anything that far out!

Deputy Nordburg

47w

Wonder777 Absolutely. Just not very accurately. LMAO

Deputy Nordburg

47w

Wonder777 And you don't think science has made it to the point of damn accurately pointed lasers?

TexMex

46w↑1

@Goofy GrandLouis I've never heard anyone claim Apollo 11 was fake but follow on missions were real. "the debate" is personal for some people, so you can certainly have that opinion. The laser reflectors are interesting but are certainly not going to sway a die hard moon hoax believer. For one thing lasers were bounced off the moon years before the Apollo landing. A reflector is needed for accuracy, not to make it possible. And of soviets placed 2 reflectors of their own, so "manned" missions are not required to place a reflector.

2 More Replies...

Broke Dick Dawg

2y↑119

I remember walking from my school down to the beach to watch the Saturn V launch that sent the Apollo 11 to the Moon. There wasn't a car moving on A1A. I was too young to get the historical impact of the moment, but it always stuck with me. I remember how big that rocket was, how loud, how it lit up the day light sky. It wasn't the first Saturn launch I'd seen, nor the last, but my teacher said this one was special. All the press was there. It was a big story. Too big just to be pulling the wool over my eyes.
People don't seem to realize how many people were there working on this project. And that was just in Florida.

7t2z28

2y↑19

Exactly. Thousands of people were involved. Even my dad was involved. He was a truck driver, he moved some of the experimental equipment being developed. In addition, someone put the mirrors on the lunar surface, which have been used to study motion of the moon. The data from those mirrors showed that the moon is still vibrating from a meteor impact hundreds of years ago, witnessed by monks in Europe.

Broke Dick Dawg

2y↑19

@7t2z28 I know, it's easier to deny everything and claim it's all a big conspiracy than it is to conceive of the effort that went into making it all happen. My dad worked on the Atlas missiles and the Redstone before the Gemini. I stuck around until they pulled the plug on the Shuttle. All the work dried up then.

Exosphere

2y↑3

It’s true and there are proofs just that people ignore those things to make them sound right even tho it’s not

Philosophy

2y↑5

I envy you. I wish, I was there!

Broke Dick Dawg

2y↑7

@Philosophy I also watched the Challenger's last launch thru binoculars from my front yard. They weren't always good memories.

63 More Replies...

john poe

2y↑67

Did anyone else notice that the moon dust off the wheels of the moon buggy in almost zero gravity didn't fly like way into the air and just dropped?

Brad Neubauer

2y↑17

There is very little air to "fly" it away, also the gravity is 1/6 of Earth ( no where close to zero gravity ).

Lyze

2y↑10

dust in vacuum would fall at the same speed as a bowling ball. Without air resistance, the dust doesn't hang and spread. If it's thrown straight up, it falls straight down.

hifidavid

2y↑7

That's because there is gravity.

colt seavers

2y↑3

"in almost zero gravity"
Wut????

12 More Replies...

Mike Kennedy

2y↑46

Based on a youtuber who spent quite a bit of time in Russia a really high percentage of Russians believe it was a hoax.

Tony Elsom

2y↑4

@Master Poe And yet absolutely FUCK ALL factual evidence to prove the hoax.

Eugene

2y↑5

How did the astronauts withstand the 260 °F on the lit side of the moon? How did they open the door to egress from the spacecraft, since metal expands? The door expands and the opening shrinks. Once they completed their walk; how did they not contaminate the cabin from lethal moon dust? How did they maintain 14.7 psi in their space suits?

42 More Replies...

Jess Frankel

49w↑1

Thanks for your commentary, Elon. 😉🤣🤣

Great trolling by the channel, but whatever. What gets me is that some people still persist in thinking it was all faked. Capricorn One was a pretty interesting "What if?" on this, but still...SMH...

tim w

2y↑12

It's hard to imagine that curtain rods and foil made it to the moon

John Holsopple

2y↑1

You truly oversimplify things

spaceboy3101

2y↑1

trooth

L.P. Pacelli

1y↑1

Funny

Tommy

1y↑1

I agree brother

Goofy GrandLouis

51w

Yet genius Elon Musk can't do it, with modern tech..

2 More Replies...

Morris Lancaster

He was right, other countries would have called us out because the telemetry would not have been coming from the correct points in space. Also, to fake comms with satellites would be extremely expensive even today and technologically impossible then. I do agree with other commenters that clickbait is a severe problem.

Mark Derksen

2y↑21

Nobody has even claimed to have done it since. With all the increases in technology and other wealthy nations. This topic definitely deserves further study.

David Baillie

2y↑3

I always debate the same thing

In Lee

2y↑3

Further study ?.. I just use my common sense and I conclude it didn't happen.

Mark Derksen

@In Lee Yeah but then you have a bunch of people spewing technical jargon and calling us idiots. It would be nice to have a thorough case against them.

Yevhenii Malin

1y↑1

From what I understand, the price of every trip to the moon was too high. If a taxpayer once asked, well, why are you flying there, what would you say? To get the stones? For what?

Gizziiusa

@Yevhenii Malin for years i've used a philosophical approach. The OP already mentioned 2, tech and $$$ to do it. Lastly is the common human theme to follow in others footsteps when it comes to pioneering. Been done since beginnings of human civilization. From exploring the new world, to climbing Everest. From expeditions within Antarctica, to journing to the depths of the oceans. The first is the most important, and is the trendsetter, the benchmark, but others do indeed follow....EXCEPT the last landing on the moon of over half a century ago.

6 More Replies...

Christopher Patefield

2y↑6

The idea that hundrers of people all took part in a conspiracy and not one person has ever blown the whistle even after all this time is ludicrous.

Lance

3 people can keep a secret if 2 are dead. - Attributed to Benjamin Franklin

Goofy GrandLouis

51w↑1

People are only talking about Apollo 11, I think.
Technology progresses with each decade that passes.
I don't know.. the 1960's seem pretty early for having the capacity to go to the moon (even before the Soviets could..) A bit suspicious but we'll never know..

1 More Replies...

MikeflightFPV

2y↑53

I particularly enjoyed the lift off sequence that left the camera man behind to film the ascent.

Joe Vignolo r4u

2y↑10

No. Wrong. The TV camera that took the video of the lift off was mounted on the lunar rover that was left parked behind the LM. It was remote controlled from earth and it took the video that you particularly enjoyed.

MikeflightFPV

2y↑11

@Joe Vignolo r4u Yea, even by today's standards it would be impossible to remotely track a launch via live feed on the surface of the moon in" real time". There'll always be an unbeatable 4 second delay on any and all radio communication frequencies utilized from earth to the moon.
That would've required someone to achieve a nearly flawless execution of that event remotely on a historical event with a 4 second delay on a 14" black and white fuzzy monitor?
🤣😂 I don't believe that one.

MikeflightFPV

2y↑2

@Jordan Nelson I believe they are NOT above lying. Hell they all lie their asses off. I do know it's unlikely they did considering alot of factors. It was never about exploration of space and all about beating the Soviets. . They never would've left something like that to chance because it was war.. Believe whatever u like.

Joe Vignolo r4u

2y↑10

@MikeflightFPV They worked out the timing delay problem beforehand. They actually tried it on Apollo 15 and 16 with limited results. This allowed them to get the timing exactly right on Apollo 17 and the video most often seen of a lunar liftoff is from Apollo 17. The camera operator panned the camera upward based on audio cues coming down from the spacecraft and not the video. He was listening to the countdown prior to engine ignition so he knew at what point in the countdown he needed to send up the command to make the camera start panning up right at lift off. This compensated for the transmission delays. And it was a color TV picture and not black and white.

60 More Replies...

Rick

49w↑1

The US space agency and the Russian space agency were always very cozy. Also, our astronauts were very spry after their long time in space, The Russian cosmonauts could barely walk during their shorter time in space. I do not know where I stand but... Also, things are covered up for a long time, before they ever come out. The latest Covid fiasco has convinced me to question everything.

Johnny Freedom

2y↑6

I remember is a young kid watching, "One small step for man, one giant step for mankind!" I've never looked at the moon the same ever since!!

ryan maines

2y↑2

I guess you were too preoccupied with amazement to stop and think about how the camera was already set up on the moon to capture those remarkably clear focused images of the 1st steps any human has ever made on the moon lol! Seriously the gullibility of so many people has me in amazement lol!

ryan maines

2y↑3

Also they somehow just misplaced the film reels of all the telemetry data from mankinds single biggest & greatest accomplishment? Oh and even if they still possessed the reels "we don't have the machines anymore to play it back" is NASA's official story we just lost it but it's ok we couldn't play it anyways.

MC

When narratives trump reality itself... Imagine believing we have the utmost technical difficulties today, and that with all of our advancements, but somehow decades ago we successfully sent these men on the moon at the very first attempt. When you dissect the narrative and analyze it closer, that's when it starts falling apart. So again, don't underestimate the power of story telling (narratives), especially when it has been broadcasted to the masses

Eli Wosalie

1y↑1

@MC: Correct, and the only reason NASA went one better was because Russian cosmonaut Yuri A, Gagarin was the first man to orbit the earth in space on April 21, 1961. and the US did not like it, so they had to come up with a plan to beat the Russians at all costs and to win back space supremacy, and the only way to do it, was to land on the moon.

I was 15yrs old in 1969, Australian country singer the late Reg Lindsay made a hit with the song Armstrong. There was a lot of doubt around the ridges about the moon landing but NASA’ photos of that era was proof enough to convince the world wide public scrutineers. Before anybody shoots me down I suggest you watch the forgotten movie, a 1977 movie “CAPRICORN ONE”, and draw your own conclusions. I will not tell you what it is about, I do not know if it is still around but it may still be there, maybe on Netflix. This film will blow you all away, it will justify the doubt. Good Luck with your search but it’s out there.

SuperJohn12354

2y↑33

Imagine where we are as a society, where you have to prove the moon landing instead of the other way around

Iiwii

2y↑7

I know. It’s just so sad. People have no common sense anymore. They’ll literally believe anything now, and you can’t talk them out of it with facts. Who needs facts anymore?

Chill The Boss

2y↑2

@Iiwii were you there?

Iiwii

2y↑12

@Chill The Boss If you have to be every place to know it happened, I guess in your world, pretty much nothing happens.

37 More Replies...

Lee Daniels

2y↑77

I think what's really telling is the behavior of the astronauts after they "returned".

WOLF & BEAR

2y↑5

Theres some odd quotes from them. Cant remember exactly...

DavieBhoy

2y↑6

Yea the interview they did for the media after was very suspicious

togowack

2y↑2

@DavieBhoy Aversion therapy.

In Lee

2y↑12

I really like one of the replies: I've seen happier guys at a funeral."

36 More Replies...

RANDOM LAND

2y↑4

Imagine how surreal it must of been?

ChrJahnsen

46w

Great interview with Elon Musk. I really loved it, but I was hoping to hear more of YOUR voice.

Lisa Defries

2y↑11

It was real and probably premature for the participants safety as tech wasnt quite up to snuff……but fortunately some very brave guys took that chance and sat in rockets that could in all likelihood have blown up as they left earth.

majesticmalfeasance

1y↑1

"We have it on film" and "lots of people took part in the project". Besides that, "Nasa said they took care of the radiation problem". Most compelling, "ultimate proof is in the future, when Elon goes and finds stuff ".
I'm convinced.

Michael Brinkerhoff

2y↑13

The only problem I've ever had with the first moon landing were the looks on their faces and general demeaner/ behavior (they looked nervous and maybe just a fair bit scared) not at all what I would expect from people doing something so big and historic. The theory that they had sightings and close encounters while on the moon would explain that just a bit. One thing I dont think can be denied something we dont know about happened up there

fayt13leingod

2y↑4

The obvious reason to be nervous or scared in that situation is the fear of dying. They could never be sure if the equipment would actually work, I honestly don't know anyone that could do something like this that has never been done before and not be at least nervous.

Michael Brinkerhoff

2y↑2

@fayt13leingod yes nervous/fearful, before, during, and after. But upon arrival home and after their quarantine while speaking with the press I would think they would be elated, all be it tired I would expect happiness but their body language I believe says something happened that changed their whole view on live. I think it's important to remember that Armstrong lost a child before the moon landing and there was a survey that said if the people were told of life in space it would cause societal collapse with doubt in religion. If they saw something like that Niel Armstrong could quite possibly react negatively, youk know questiong if he would ever be reunited in heaven with his child. I think our whole history is wrong

Jon Smith

2y↑4

Yes, it can be denied because nobody went there. Nothing happened.

Scott Gray

2y↑5

@Michael Brinkerhoff it's very strange. The hole conference your talking about was like a funeral. Iv watched behavioural and body language experts exam the hole thing and the all say there somthing very strange going on.

10 More Replies...

Bobby Blabby

2y↑8

“The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again." Don Pettit

DE J

and?

DE J

@Rawnac did you have anything but nonsense to say?

WIRWhatIsReality?

51w

It was obviously fake as can be

There is a puma in everyone

51w

@WIRWhatIsReality? Based on what evidence?

8 More Replies...

:Erik: :Boström.

2y↑18

The lander's rocket assisted landing failed to displace any dust, even directly beneath the jet.

Clive Jones

2y↑1

That says it all for me, also the soles of their boot were flat, and their footprints prints show grips?

Max Ammo

2y↑1

Yes CGI wasn't all that good back then was it.

Clive Jones

@Aeromarmot I hope they did land, Y have we not been back?

Clive Jones

@Aeromarmot maybe something scared them when they were there?

Max Ammo

@Aeromarmot
Very good Captain obvious that was the whole point but apparently, never mind move on dude.

2 More Replies...

romzen

35w

I love the part where the camera man took the first shot of the first man stepping foot on the moon. And one may think they we would've seen more landings and more elaborate quality footage in the past 20-30 years than ever before. Not only by the USA also. The moon landing is the biggest joke ever.

MisterIse

34w

Wrong

romzen

34w

@MisterIse ok boomer

Kenny Mars

2y↑113

I'm amazed how they landed those awkward lunar landers without even making a scratch on the deep powder soil. It's almost like they had anti gravity systems. 🤔

Jeff S

2y↑3

Dude, read!

BLACK BALLS

2y↑8

Bro wtf are you talking about 😭

Randy Landry

2y↑16

I lost brain cells reading this..

JJ In The Sun

2y↑15

The only thing that is amazing is people believe that lie.

61 More Replies...

Tommy Roc

2y↑1

Xenta Atnex

2y↑6

Imagine if Lewis and Clark traveled to explore the US western frontier only to return with no documentation or information about how to return there for others to follow.

Entangled Mindcells

2y↑1

you mean like photo's, moon rocks & soil. or all the telemetry data from all the other missions that was NOT lost.

J Shepard

Oh look, another know nothing demonstrating that he knows nothing.

Xenta Atnex

1y↑1

@J Shepard Thanks for introducing yourself, have a nice day!

There is a puma in everyone

51w

@Xenta Atnex NASA did not lose the technology to go to the Moon in the sense that it was forgotten, mislaid or mysteriously disappeared. A lot of the blueprints still exist on file; but the individual knowledge of everyone involved and the “organisational know-how” of how to actually run such a huge, complex project has been lost. And on top of that, much of the equipment is archaic, and many things cannot be bought “off the shelf” but would have to be specially manufactured. Re-designing from scratch is cheaper and better.
There are no 1960’s IBM mainframe computers to navigate the craft from ground radar data. There are no companies that produce the hand-woven flight computers that were inside the lunar module. Grumman, the company that built the lunar module, is long gone, absorbed by a bigger company. North American Aviation, the company that built the command module, no longer exists in any form. TRW, one of the companies that made the rocket engines, went out of business 20 years ago.
No aerospace company builds any equipment for 100% oxygen environments any longer (which is what Apollo used). There are no launchpads capable of launching a Saturn V rocket. All the buildings and tools to construct the equipment are long gone. Nobody in the world uses 1960’s style radar any longer. The communications systems have long since been replaced by more modern systems. Hamilton Standard, who made the PLSS backpacks, went out of business in the 1990’s. It's long been understood by anybody in aerospace engineering that it's far faster, easier, better, and cheaper to simply take the lessons learned by older programmes, and start from scratch, rather than trying to build carbon copies of old equipment. However, it takes years to build up that sort of expertise and NASA is going through the same problems it had in the early to mid-60’s.

Michael Martin

1y↑1

The color film used by the astronauts would not have been able to render the stars in sky, but the black and white photos taken by the astronauts using slow black and white film did show the stars.

Dinosaur 67

2y↑5

I'm sure it is a bit of both. Yes we went to the moon but some photos may have been doctored, touched up and possibly even faked to be able to show higher quality images to the public. This is pretty standard when it comes to marketing things to the general public.

Nick Dannunzio

2y↑2

Because you want to believe it so badly... as you are way too intelligent to be lied to...

Gizziiusa

haha. too funny. Yeah, lets doctor...even fake some of the photos to market the thing better for the public as a whole. surely this would never back fire and cause problems in the credibility of the program as a whole...i mean, its just taxpayers money...no big deal.

you people crack me up.

Goofy GrandLouis

51w

Yes, but which mission ?
I can agree with you about the other Apollo missions.
Apollo 11 however.. something's "off"..

1 More Replies...

Frank Blangeard

50w↑3

The astronauts really did land on the moon. And Santa's reindeer really do know how to fly. Admittedly, I could be wrong about Santa's reindeer.

DemonDrummer1018

50w

You’re correct about the former and that’s all that matters. ❤

DemonDrummer1018

47w

Wonder777 Prove I’m a “chatbot” right after you prove any of the Moon landings were faked. 🤣

Do better, learn.

3 More Replies...

Mike Palmer

2y↑41

I have always been on the fence with this one. Although as much as we realize the government and media lies to us what can we ever really believe.

joejoejoejoejoe joe

2y↑1

1.35 notice how the shadow of the moonlander is only a few feet from the horizon
2.04 notice how the shadow on the earth is underneath and the light coming from above, but the shadows on the moon are on the left, and the light from the right
2.04 notice how the shadow of the moonlander is almost touching the horizon
This doesn't mean that they didn't go to the moon, they could have faked pictures because the real ones weren't good enough.

Bink Willans

2y↑1

The trouble with sitting on a fence, Mikey, is someone comes and shoves you off. Usually on the wrong side.

20 More Replies...

Nyarlathotep Flagg

2y↑2

Fascinating, first video I've seen bring up the obvious point of the missing stars. When we were small, my brother showed me a photo - And although I had no trouble believing we landed on the moon, the moment he showed me that photo I had to question why there were no stars visible. We dug into the info we could find online, to get to the conclusion he gave. It just seemed so dark to us in the pictures, that we never considered it to be photos taken on a sort of "day-cycle", considering the lack of an atmosphere and ozone layer to dull the rays of the sun.

It was a fun little puzzle when I was 10 or 12.

DE J

2y↑1

mmkay.. this.. is nonsense. the ozone layer has basicly nothing to do with this, and neither does the lack of an atmosphere. this is simply how photography works when you take pictures of brightly lit areas.

She Shot JFK

2y↑1

I like how all the "Photos" of the earth from space also have no stars. Is this because of the same made up reason?

Nyarlathotep Flagg

2y↑2

@She Shot JFK Hah xD So you see stars during the day here do you? Is that also made up?

I do so hope you're trolling.

Nyarlathotep Flagg

@DE J ... You do realize that we specifically avoid going out on days when the ozone-layer around our location is thin, because it typically obstructs the sun's rays? Because the radiance has a greater chance of causing heatstrokes and cancer on those days? Do you think that's because of... Nonsense?

The ozone layer and atmosphere reduces the amount of light that reaches us. For the same reason that clouds do. Particles in the air obstructs the light. And without those obstructions, one would assume that light that hits the moon's surface has a good bit more of a kick to it. And so it would be brighter, all the more so when the surface is so bleak - Which is part of why it reflects light at us so well at night.

Now do you understand why I'd have expected more ambient light in those photos? I assume that the camera's were adjusted to account for it. But that wasn't even something I thought of back then.

11 More Replies...

Tony Mak

2y↑4

So this guy begins to list his reasons for believing the moonlandings to be real. Didn't think about it much, until I started to watch you tube some years ago, then it piqued my interest, seeing one of the take offs from the lunar surface, it reminded me of the " thunderbird" puppet series. Here's some of my list :

Radio, a "special band". It must be since it allows perfect reception over 240,000 miles, ah yes they say, but they have a very large dish here on earth that can pick up the signal over that distance, but what about on the moon lander ? A tiny dish by comparison, and quoted 20W power ? Gtfoh, and do you notice the little aeriel dish flopping about on the moon rover ? A dish is supposed to be aligned to a transmitter, oh yes and the minute video cameras fastened to the astronots chest ? Pure joke, all photos framed perfectly, no giant buttons so they can actually operate the shutter, lens opening etc with their air conditioned/ heated gloves. Beyond belief. So how did they film the lunar take off, camera panning upwards as it took off suddenly like it was on a wire ? Ah it was on a remote from Houston, perfect timing then since there's an obvious delay over that distance. Now I'm no genius, but how did they manage to miniaturise those video cameras. To manage that before the CCD was invented(mid 70s I think), all TV was CRT based, in fact, I rented a video camera over the 80/81. Christmas period, and it was a huge thing, looked like something a film crew used, manual focusing, and a thick 5m cable which plugged in to the home video recorder. There's more, but going back to the radio signals, and 240 thousand miles. I've not checked this out, but does this sound right ? Radio waves (electromagnetic), passing through the radiation (total electromagnetic hell) of the VanAllen belts, no crackles, perfect reception, ( even though they have no big receiver dish on the moon) . Bear in mind too, all this is done on the moon, using lead acid batteries, which must have weighed a ton. I'm not sure if anyone has tested the use of radio in a radioactive environment, however apparently during the rescue/cleanup operation at Chernobyl, some RC robots were sent to assist, but wouldn't work for some unspecified reason. Feel free to school me on these points, I've long since passed the point of looking to debunk myself.

RunRing Lee

2y↑2

And I bet Bill Kaysing next book would have been "Elon is a toy rocket enthusiast."

Lord Terra

2y↑6

Remember the lunar lander landed without kicking up any dust from the thrust of it's engine...

ZaphodBeeb1

It's a vacuum ! It wouldn't kick up dust in a cloud like in earth's atmosphere where the dust floats around in air. It would send any dust particles on a low trajectory away from the ship.

Lord Terra

2y↑1

@ZaphodBeeb1
Also no crater from the lander.... All that thrust would have disturbed some of the surface. The moon has about 16.6% that on Earth's surface gravity. When they are running around in the Rover the footage behaves more like slowed down footage from earths gravity, rather than floating up and slowly back down as you would expect with only 16% gravity.

I think we went to the moon, but most of the footage we see was done in a studio. There are many theories as to why that is.

ZaphodBeeb1

@Lord Terra I get your argument. You mentioned that the moon has only about 16.6% of of earth's surface gravity, which is correct. But you also said with all that thrust there was no crater. However, the lightweight lander setting down on the moon with low gravity doesn't need much thrust. That's the reason why there was very little disturbance of the surface. I didn't see anything technically wrong with the footage of the Rover. It did bounce about a bit and looked alarmingly unsteady at times, as one might expect at low gravity. The debate here is "did they go to the moon or didn't they ?" That's what I'm here to discuss. You think they did - you got that right !

Phil Ward

It certainly did check out Apollo 16

Phil Ward

@Lord Terra it blows up all the dust like a leaf blower

3 More Replies...

BRIZOL

1y↑3

Half way through this and I realised he’s doing a Morgan freeman impression 😂

Bill

2y↑71

Yes, folks they could wirelessly Livestream in 1969, also Nixon called the Moon on a landline phone 😂

pete luis

2y↑6

They've had wireless technology for years, look up Nikola Tesla

Bill

2y↑3

@pete luis I know of Tesla well, but when Nixon was talking to Apollo, the media filming the call had hand crank camera's 😂

George Papabeis

2y↑2

The Telstar satellite transmitted the 1st television, phone and radio signals in 1962. They knew how to transmit signals to and from "Outer space".

Chris Hewitt

@Bill Hand crank cameras??? Seriously, what are you talking about?

Bill

2y↑1

@Chris Hewitt Imagine watching the filming, it's easy if you try.

59 More Replies...

MYNAMEISSOLONGBECAUSEILIKELONGNAMESBECAUSETHEIRFUN

2y↑4

I like how quickly he shot the idea down 😅

James Owen

2y↑1

The laser retroreflectors are still in place, so if anybody thinks the landings didn't happen, they can check. I think it should have been mentioned in the video.

MisterIse

2y↑2

There's only a few lasers on the planet that can hit those reflectors and you need to have cordentials to use them.

J Shepard

1y↑2

@MisterIse
What's a cordential? 😂

Majestic Critters

44w

If the smartest people on earth can't come together and go to the moon than we are not that smart...? I think we did.

Mullcrum the Sage

2y↑1

I have researched this subject at great length. Like I tell people..the Apollo 11 craft and crew most certainly went to the moon on July 20th 1969. With that said, it did not unfold like NASA claimed. Some telemetry data, photos, films and video were "faked" or doctored for presentation. There is also a strong chance that the actual landing didn't take place. I'm convinced that the footage was shot on earth in a top secret facility at Norton Airforce base in California and have interviewed a whistleblower that attested to this. He explained it to me like this. He said "Use critical thinking skills here. Think logically. Do you think that Astronauts/humans placed into a dangerous life-threatning situation such as landing on the moon, where one mistake or miscalculation could kill you, had time to drive around the moon, take pictures and place a flag?" It is important to note that he believed that an actual landing and walk did eventually take place. As far as the Russians are concerned, he told me that they attempted to conduct surveillance on the Apollo mission and ended up crashing the Luna 15 spacecraft in the process. The telemetry coming from Apollo 11 was unencrypted and NASA mysteriously lost the original telemetry. It cannot be proven that the Lunar Module even seperated from the Command Module.

MisterIse

What a load of bs

DE J

just to throw in here.. the LM didn't even launch connected to the command module. which just shows how absolutely nothing your knowledge base is.

Mullcrum the Sage

@DE J If you say so.😂

DE J

2y↑1

@Mullcrum the Sage this isn't a matter of "saying so", it's a matter of "that's how it was fucking designed, and this is information readily available if you ever cared to ACTUALLY know".

1 More Replies...

Dan Chanda

1y↑1

Yeah, there's that small matter of the Van Allen radiation belts that NASA admits we don't have the technology to survive. But 50 years ago we sent a tin can through there no problem? Fascinating....

Nathalie B

2y↑53

That's what I've always said as my question was, how come if they were just about to land on the moon for the very first time there was a camera waiting and filming their very first step on the moon. Never made sense to me.

Lowsodium Gamer

2y↑7

The camera opens up from the side of the lander perfectly framing the latter and capturing the first steps I don’t know how you do not know this but look it up

Nathalie B

2y↑3

@Lowsodium Gamer Nope. Camera is away from it.

DE J

2y↑5

@Nathalie B no it is not, you can easily see the angle it's filmed at fitting with it's placement on the lander

Lowsodium Gamer

2y↑2

@Nathalie B LOL how about you go look at a picture

87 More Replies...

Deaf2Silence

2y↑1

What an incredible achievement! Yes, I believe man has been to the moon (Pink Floyd took me there several times). What is equally incredible is the explanation for not returning there: "We lost the technology". What??? We lost the technology? The same technology that allowed us to colect hundreds of stones, minerals, photos and countless hours of footage? it must have been a miracle to even come up with a strategy to get there in first place when one considers the incompetence of all those 400.000 people who could not remember on which shelf they stored the technology. Amazing. Imagine if they meant to create an hoax, they would probably fail and actually accomplish something not meant to be. The first source of doubt around this story is the number of contradictions around it. Incompetence is one of them.

Eugene

2y↑1

NASA can easily prove men have been on the moon by sending an orbiter drone to the moon and photograph/video: footprints, vehicle/car, flags, mirrors/reflectors, family photograph,... they allegedly left behind. But alas, they don't.

1 More Replies...

Jonny Danger

2y↑5

When buzz and Neil were landing, neil stated they almost ran out of gas looking for a place to land. Then they forgot to calculate the weight of the rocks they were bringing back.

Nick Dannunzio

LOL

There is a puma in everyone

51w

The part about the rocks is wrong.

Kamphuis

it's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.

kiezer sosay

2y↑38

Yall need to make a seriously detailed video on the tech they use to get through the van allen radiation belts.

H. de Jong

2y↑12

We didn't need any 'tech'. For radiation, there are 2 important variables:
1. the radiation intensity
2. the amount of time you are exposed to this intensity.
You can multiply these two and get the total radiation dose. Humans die if they receive a dose of about 300 Rad.
In 1958, James van Allen and his team discovered the belts that were later named after him. He also measured the radiation intensity. This is what he found: in the part of the belt where the intensity is highest, it is high enough that if you stay for about a week (inside an Apollo command module), you receive a lethal dose. So for the Apollo missions, the trajectory was designed to minimize the amount of time spent there. When the Apollo astronauts flew through the van Allen belts (which took about 3 hours), they received a dose of radiation of between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, or less than 1% of a lethal dose.
More details in this video from Scott Manley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9YN50xXFJY

Twoflowers

1y↑3

@H. de Jong very interestin yeees very but could you explain the nasa speaker saying we do not have the technology to go back to the moon ? .. so we had it in 58 and we dont now ?and we cant make it ? :D bro .. wake up

H. de Jong

1y↑7

@Twoflowers Don Pettit said that, and he was simultaneously right and wrong. NASA did not lose the technology. Drawings for every part of the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft exist. We have a bunch of versions of the software for the AGC. We have loads of info on every aspect of the design. We know how to get to the moon.
When he gave that interview in 2010, there was no factory cranking out rockets capable of manned moon missions. What we lost was not the technology, but the production line. We stopped spending money, so the production line was closed.
Now that we've decided we want to go back to the moon, we don't want to reuse the Saturn V design 1:1. We want to spend months on the moon, not 3 days. That makes the Saturn V unsuitable. We also don't want to spend a lot of effort rebuilding a 1960s design, so we're designing a new rocket and spacecraft instead.

32 More Replies...

NotLisztening

This is not a controversial question. There are people who have common sense and people who are deluded

Richard-Allen Pratt

2y↑4

The moon was just above and beyond what was expected from a very non famous genius that made it all happen. I liked learning from him in his later years when all had forgotten him!!! Even Bill Gates may have forgotten him but he sat in a lecture raising his hand over and over and re asking the same questions and then writing the names if the student's that could answer the questions down .Then he did a lot of hand shaking as he put his first teem together to build Microsoft because he seen in the lecture what Dr. -- was seeing could happen and ran with it !!!

Eugene

At what speed during re-entry did the parachutes deploy?

Eugene

The genius's name was Mary poppings

Eugene

@togowack let's go Brandon

2 More Replies...

Jacked UP

2y↑2

I wasn't alive to watch it at the time and have looked into it very briefly. I certainly do not claim to be an authority but there does seem to be some peculiarities leaving me frustratingly unable to pick a side with absolute confidence. So, can I ask a question to those who do believe? Regardless of whether we actually landed or not, do you think all of the footage is real, or was any of it faked?

david jones

2y↑1

it is real

Mario G

So you believe it’s plausible that half a million people from multiple competing countries, companies, and institutions could keep a secret this big despite all the benefits they’d reap if they disproved the landings?

Ok

Jacked UP

@Mario G I'm not discussing plausibility, I'm interested to know what the consensus is on the 'believe' side. Was some of the footage fake or absolutely none? I'm just trying to get a clearer picture.

Jacked UP

@david jones OK, so all of it is real. So, this clip... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1cVnC7EtWw Is this someone who has made a video to make it look like the astronaut is on strings and not actually authentic footage of the actual event? As I say, I didn't see it live.

david jones

@Jacked UP a clip on youtube will not disprove the truth

3 More Replies...

baron perez

2y↑4

I’m not saying it’s fake but I have some questions:
How did they broadcast the event on live TV fromThe moon?
We’re they able to land on the moon and then use those rockets again to come
Back to the earth? Didn’t spacex just invent that technology?

Rodemasterw

2y↑2

they crash landed in pods in the ocean when reentering earth like every other mission to space. Spacex made it possible to not crash and actually reuse it

1 More Replies...

tantaluss68

I know the reflective tiles but what happens if you point the same laser at just the surface of the moon how big of a difference is there

H. de Jong

The laser reflectors are built so that all light that enters it is reflected in the same direction, and they're made of mirrors that reflect almost 100% of the incoming light.
The lunar soil reflects only 10% of incoming light, and it scatters the light in all directions.
So the lunar soil gives a much weaker reflection (my estimate: 1/1000 of the laser reflector). When you're using a laser reflector, you already have to count individual photons on the receiving end; relying on general reflection off the soil would require a much stronger light source than the lasers used with the laser reflector.

marek mkm

2y↑3

I always wondered why the vehicle is so small in comparision to the human body. How did they fit it all inside?

John Holsopple

2y↑2

There's a lot more room in it than you think

Martin Saint

1y↑1

It is like Dr. Who's "Tardis": small outside but large room inside. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

There is a puma in everyone

51w

Landing on the Moon is all about weight. Things have to be a light as possible as there is a limit on how much can be carried by the available rocket power.

marek mkm

51w

@There is a puma in everyone i understand that. But in general i thought they would need more space for themselves, for the equipment , some batteries, fuel etc. some temperature protection or regulator.

There is a puma in everyone

51w

@marek mkm Things have to be as light as possible, so many things have to be as small as possible, as a larger capsule for example will weigh more. You have to work backwards. Your lifting rocket can only pull a certain amount of tonnage, a lot of which is the fuel it carries, so therefore your components (command module, lunar module etc) can only weigh a certain amount which makes them small. Comfort doesn't come into in - that's part of being an astronaut, certainly back then.

1 More Replies...

LazyboyLarry

1y↑2

Some people are just going to hate bc they can't imagine themselves doing it.

DemonDrummer1018

47w

Wonder777 That’s not nearly as bad as your logic for a “Moon landing hoax.” 🤣

Do better, learn.

1 More Replies...

CCEast

2y↑339

If Nasa had the technology to go through the Van Allen Belt, why did they state the direct opposite in NASA's own 50 year anniversary special, where they also stated they also now have the power to get us to the moon. Why was Buzz Aldrin's answer regarding the Van Allen Belt say they got through it because they did not know about it?

Digitalfly

2y↑58

It happens, I got up in the middle of the night and walked through a wall because I didn't know it was there 🤡

Phoenix One

2y↑30

Duh? "We didn't know about the Van Allen's belts" so, that's why it doesn't affect us... I guess what they say it's true... Ignorance is bliss!!

Stubrit

2y↑11

They didn't say that, and it wasn't Buzz Aldrin, which is important when you work out what he was actually being asked about.

Phoenix One

2y↑14

BECAUSE WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW, CAN'T HURT YOU! HA! HA!! HA!!! HA!!!!! (isn't that what people say?) For an Astronaut who claims going to the Moon, that has to be The most stupid response by any person alive...

220 More Replies...

BP Traveler

Didn't mention the five reflectors left at 5 sites that are used to measure the distance for the earth to the moon even today.

CatspitProductions

2y↑1

Wait, what about the mirrors they left on the Moon so they could bounce lasers off them to measure it's distance from Earth? You can still bounce a laser of them today as far as I understand.

Soko Euler

"THEY left" ? How do you know ?

BMT115

I love how the conspiracy theorists never bring that point up. Why would the Soviet Union never make a public accusation about it being fake. Unless everyone worldwide knew it was actually happening. I’m also certain you could land a moonspiracy theorist on the actual moon and they’re still claim it’s all fake.

Patrick

2y↑3

How did the astronauts get off the moon again once they had landed and somehow rendezvous with the main ship for a return trip to Earth? All seems highly improbable to me.

There is a puma in everyone

51w

Celestial mechanics. On ascent the lunar module had only to climb back into lunar orbit and rendezvous and dock with the command module. This orbital velocity was approximately 3,600 mph. It was the job of the engine on the CSM to accelerate them to "escape velocity" and set them on a return trajectory towards Earth. The acceleration of a rocket powered launch vehicle with a constant thrust engine starts off low and then increases as propellant mass is expended. In a vacuum (as here) the acceleration is inversely proportional to the ever diminishing total mass and so builds at a constant rate until the engine shuts down. Therefore, it reaches the orbital velocity of 3,600 mph simply by continuing to burn the engine for as long as is necessary.

1 More Replies...

Richard Ward

47w↑1

There's more complex technology in a modern toaster than there was in the Saturn 5 rocket and pod. Strange how we've never been back since technology has become so sophisticated.

Erac

40w

I guess if they could find someone to pay for it all. Very expensive and huge endeavor. Hopefully Artemis can make it happen.

2 More Replies...

parrisblue

2y↑21

The technology in the 1960s was so good In them days, way better than today

Nick D

2y↑1

And Grammar.

Bob Down

2y↑2

Can you put that in a sentence?

Nick D

2y↑1

Proof? Examples? What software? Do actual research dummy.

walkabout16

The chewing gum had better flavours

Eugene

2y↑2

4 More Replies...

phubbing

2y↑16

we should have a moon depot by now!! 🔥🔥🔥

Lockdown Guitars

2y↑1

In my youth they would cart the TV into class and we'd watch the Moon Missions in awe when they coincided with the school year. After paying attention the last 10 years to all garbage our government does somehow keeping 1000s of people quiet/misled/hypnotized/whatever, I started thinking yeah they could have faked it. But how do you "fake" Apollo 13 challenges and keep everyone quiet? A lot of things still make no sense about the moon missions and difficulty of returning, but I thought this was pretty good defense. I'm back on team "We Went".......barely.

Code Tech

What evidence do we have that Apollo 13 happened as they said? For example, can we examine the equipment and verify that an explosion actually occurred?

spaceboy3101

What do you mean by challenges?

Goofy GrandLouis

51w

The issue is not with Apollo 13, it's with Apollo 11.
Kennedy wanted to beat the Soviets, remember ? To prove that Capitalism > Communism.

Romanperro

1y↑2

So NASA confirmed by 2009 that they lost the original videos/pictures. Understandable, who bothers to give this event a special place in the archive.

Yazzam X

1y↑2

H E

The 1969 technology nasa used in its moon landing mission, is now available for all concerned to find a flaw. If none, then the landing didn’t just happen, rather most likely, was flawless.

Andria's Travels

Npne of the people would want to learn anything, other than whats trending on Tic Tac.

Jaster

I once heard that the moon landing was staged but only because we didn't have the technology to send back video through the Van Allen radiation belt. However, we did land one the moon. That was real but the imagery was not. On other missions to the moon the footage looks completely different because we developed ways to pass video through the radiation belt.

Dan Severns

2y↑201

4:21 Nothing left on the moon by any of the Apollo missions is visible from the most powerful telescope on Earth, let alone an amateur telescope.

Willyam Carkey

2y↑10

See Scott's Manley video about why any of telescopes will never see any smaller objects on the moon.

Willyam Carkey

2y↑6

@Team Vortex No, they dont see atmosphere and rocks, they see just numbers from spectrograph which basicaly shows how much hydrogen, iron, carbon, atc observed object has. And theres no problem to see distant large objects, like galaxy... How can you argue anything and even dont understand how things works?

Team Vortex

2y↑9

@Willyam Carkey if they have the power to see something so far away regardless if it’s big or not. You’d think the same technology would be able to see something much smaller that’s a lot closer.

Willyam Carkey

2y↑19

@Team Vortex Okay, try it your self. Lets shrink sizes, moon is tenis ball. Put it approx 10m away. Pick some camera with the best zoom you can get. Zoom the ball on maximum. Now try to see one bacteria on surface of the ball! This is scale of human made object on the moon. We cant even opticaly see exoplanets, we are predict it by redshift of stars as the are slightly offsetted by exoplanets gravity. And thanks to Newtons laws we can calculate its mass. Then aim the radars to this specific place on the sky and read spectrograph data untill we see results like hydrogen, nitrogen, etc. Then it means ok, there is object that has this mass and its made of these elements. According elements you'll know if it is made by rock, or liquid, or gas. If you see 99% hydrogen, you can say it is star. If it is 90% iron, its planet. But you dont see it. Its imposible to see that far by current technology. We are using math for it.

260 More Replies...

Eric Mount

2y↑22

It’s also been proven how easy it would be to fake and that would be easier than really doing it. God Bless.......

DE J

2y↑6

rather it's been proven how tech of that time just would never be able to fake anything remotely like it.

david jones

where is that proof?

Eric Mount

2y↑1

@DE J May God Bless You And Everyone You Know For Eternity In The Name of Jesus Christ.Amen.......It’s about what comes after.......

21 More Replies...

Reality Wins

2y↑14

There are still mirrors on the moon left there by one of the missions. An observatory in Hawaii has a pair of lasers that uses the mirrors (called retro reflectors sending the beam directly back) to measure the distance between the Earth and moon. No photographs to interpret or complicated confirmation bias to unravel. This single verifiable evidence should be sufficient for anyone.

kevinjacksoniou1

2y↑2

Weren't they shooting lasers off the moon before the first so called moon landing and who was recording the "first" astronaut getting off?

WhiteStrat Man

2y↑3

You know this how? Because you were told?

BrushyMtnGolfer

2y↑6

The mirrors didn’t have to be left by astronauts. A rover could do that

SilentKnight43

Mythbusters had quite a segment on one of their shows talking about the mirrors.

WhiteStrat Man

2y↑2

@SilentKnight43 I wouldn't put much faith in Myth busters.

14 More Replies...

Kathy Jones

47w↑1

It wasn't fake, and if Elon musk wasn't rich,nobody would ask him anything

Matt Yinger

Isn't Elon musk the one that said it was a one in almost infinite chance that we are not living in a simulation?

Load More Comments...

More Comments

just now