I got to admit, this is pretty compeling.
It doesn't use any cooky evidence, nor controversial specialists, but unedited data and footage provided by NASA itse
lf, as well as the same from all the people actually involved in the landings.
This comment on the video sums my feeling up:
Quote:
I started watching this for amusement, being an ardent believer in the moon landings, and thinking this would be another silly conspiracy theory video. Now though, I am one hell of a shocked individual! The questions regarding the authenticity of the landings are raised in such a sensible and factual way, without beating any conspiracy drum, that even I now question if Americans ever did land on the moon. My whole world just turned upside down, if you'll forgive the pun.
It's a 3h34 chunker, but it really makes me question it all:
I'm sure Massimo collected and sorted through every known hoax/conspiracy theory to find the most compelling ones. He did mess up in a previous venture though:
"Some criticism was directed to Mazzucco after his decision, starting September 2008, to publicize an alternative cancer therapy based on sodium bicarbonate and proposed by Italian ex-doctor Tullio Simoncini. Said therapy is currently unproven, and Simoncini was expelled from the Italian Medical Association after he was tried and found guilty of fraud and manslaughter, since a patient died, allegedly as result of Simoncini's treatment."
Anyway:
Quote:
The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) launched their SELENE Moon orbiter on September 14, 2007 (JST), from Tanegashima Space Center. SELENE orbited the Moon at about 100 km (62 miles) altitude. In May 2008, JAXA reported detecting the "halo" generated by the Apollo 15 Lunar Module engine exhaust from a Terrain Camera image. A three-dimensional reconstructed photo also matched the terrain of an Apollo 15 photo taken from the surface.
I guess the only way to prove it for the nay-sayers is to send them to the moon so they can see for themselves (and by their own presence prove it).
You can make pretty much any conspiracy crap compelling with a good enough presentation.. but I'm not going to watch this man, sorry There are way more irrefutable proofs man landed on the moon (such as the one Frant pointed out) rather than the other way around.
They did land on it, end of the story, regardless of any contingency plans they had for faking it in case shit hit the fan - and such contingency plans have become the main source for most of this scepticism.
R5 5600X - 3070FE - 16GB DDR4 3600 - Asus B550 TUF Gaming Plus - BeQuiet Straight Power 11 750W - Pure Base 500DX
Listening to the right people for too long might even get you to think the world is flat. and regardless if they landed on the moon or not, it has no bearing on our lives xD
They recently even managed to photograph the landing site with good quality, some stuff is still there after all those years.. it was russians or Chinese i believe, so no US-interest.
Those types of videos are made to draw you in, otherwise they serve no commercial purpose. Watch Ancient Aliens too while at it, might be fun, but perhaps don't go on forums saying they're right.
they had more or less unlimited money when trying to reach the moon. It was all about being first. Since then they have had far less money/support. But don't forget that they landed six times, not just the one everyone talks about.
shitloads of new stuff in my pc. Cant keep track of it all.
they landed and they left landers visible from Earth
and they left a mirror that can be hit by a laser that refracts the laser back at the sender to measure the distance
if you get a powerful enough laser you can do it yourself
technology has progressed enough so that other nations can verify if they landed
if they found even one shred of inconsistency - Russia, China, India, Japan would yell to the moon and back that it was fabricated
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
The argument with this video being that they're puppets on strings ? Like, literally ?
Edit: After reading the comments, seems like it. Disregarding that every single upvoted comment can be refuted with very basic science in a couple seconds Everyone's a physicist in the comments, yet I could bet my left ball not a single one of them hold any related diploma.
R5 5600X - 3070FE - 16GB DDR4 3600 - Asus B550 TUF Gaming Plus - BeQuiet Straight Power 11 750W - Pure Base 500DX
Ha Massimo Mazzucco, our local m̶e̶n̶t̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶a̶i̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶m̶a̶n conspiracy theorist who's been feeding groundbreaking revelations to the entire generation of Facebook Boomers for years.
From the absolute classics "vaccines cause autism" and "covid was orchestrated to control mankind and turn us into zombies" to the war against the evil 5G antennas and chemtrails, from HAARP causing earthquakes and tsunamis to the belief that aliens are walking among us à la They Live, from curing cancer with bicarbonate to Al-Qaeda denial (Hollywood clearly fabricated the decapitations), alongside the usual 9/11, JFK and moon landing theories. The whole package
Ha Massimo Mazzucco, our local m̶e̶n̶t̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶i̶m̶p̶a̶i̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶m̶a̶n conspiracy theorist who's been feeding groundbreaking revelations to the entire generation of Facebook Boomers for years.
From the absolute classics "vaccines cause autism" and "covid was orchestrated to control mankind and turn us into zombies" to the war against the evil 5G antennas and chemtrails, from HAARP causing earthquakes and tsunamis to the belief that aliens are walking among us à la They Live, from curing cancer with bicarbonate to Al-Qaeda denial (Hollywood clearly fabricated the decapitations), alongside the usual 9/11, JFK and moon landing theories. The whole package
R5 5600X - 3070FE - 16GB DDR4 3600 - Asus B550 TUF Gaming Plus - BeQuiet Straight Power 11 750W - Pure Base 500DX
I could only make it about an hour in waiting for some compelling evidence and its all dismissive claims that either are simply here is another way it could have been done given as proof they didnt. Like if I said I painted my house with a spray gun and you went "I can do it with a brush easier with even my knowledge of how painting works, therefor this is compelling evidence a spray gun was not used". Yet show no evidence that I did use a paintbrush too, to give the slightest whiff of creditability that that is how I did it.
The other 1/2 is either lack of (or weighted by) lack of instinctual understanding of how things work with no atmosphere and very low gravity.
A lot of "Why doesn't this look right?" Because...we know and expect things to look like what they would do in 1G and 1atmosphere of pressure. Like his explanation on contradictory evidence about lander blowing dust around, and lack of it in places. Like his leaf blower example: It works that way, by forced air pressure and displacement of existing air...which works totally different than on the moon. You cannot use a thing, that would not work on the moon to start with, as a counter example of how it should work on the moon.
Lets say we DIDNT go to the moon, but we agree NASA is smart and detail oriented, and whoever they hired to produce this movie that needs to be believable are competent. Would they spend millions and millions of dollars on this, and miss such glaring 'oppsies' as he presents?
And dont get me started on his wild misinterpretation of the Van Allen radiation belt problem (well I am started, but this is just a fraction of my total counter arguments).
-How NASA 'magically' seemed to forget about it, and how no changes was made to account for it..none was made, because they ALREADY accounted for it..they knew about them way before and considered the danger a marginal and acceptable risk for the time they would spend in the actual high energy ranges they could not avoid.
-So why did NASA say the doses was lower than the belt levels?
Because they aimed the thickest part of the ship, that also was the large water and waste storage towards the belt (Water is a good highly energetic charged particle trap). The video states the levels at raw 'in space' levels and shows the levels NASA reported inside as different, and saying "See they lied!"..no outside and inside would be different.
-ALSO "Are we to believe an astronaut that travel thru them, not know where the belts are?" argument. Sure. They are not the ones designing the flight course, they are the ones following it. And they was not like astronauts today. They was simply top tier fighter pilots trained in space travel to get TO the moon. There was 100's of people involved with different areas of knowledge that was the emergent property of collective knowledge. Not any one person knew all the things required.
Its like asking: "Are we to believe an aircraft pilot that travelled over a zone of possible high magma subcrustal activity, not know where they are?" Yep. They are experts in getting the plane to a place with all the knowledge they need. Someone else is in charge of letting them know all the places where (and not the mechanics of why, or even what sometimes) to avoid that are dangerous.
So far, at least the first 1/3 of it. Is relying on 2 things:
-People that confuse: 'Dont trust the govt', with implied 'dont question the govt'. You should question all govt claims, and educate yourself on knowledge about ones you suspect to see if true. (not simply look into something you dont know, only relying on the fraction you already do know and extrapolate assumptions then claim them as conclusions)
-Based on above, the laymen's lack of knowledge of how it works. Giving misrepresented evidence wrapped around that lack of knowledge to give its own false knowledge to fit into that area that convince you its fake, because you don't know the counter knowledge that would debunk it. Its easy to convince people something is fake, when they do not know what it would take to be real.
Does no one that buys into this find it odd, that literally EVERY other major country has had reason and motivation to prove we didnt go, all with people highly knowledge and educated in specifically space sciences in dedicated departments of such along with nearly a total of a million people that have worked at or for NASA since the 60's. Yet none do after 60 years, and somehow its always a single dude with no training or formal education in any of the areas it involves, that 'proves' we didn't. (he talks about this but it's all speculation with not one piece of evidence, and working backwards from an answer to a question)
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Ok hate to repost again after such a long post...But I was compelled to watch more.
It's full of "We didnt even do basic research and don't know. But you dont either so my ideas sound right" bullshit.
Like his long rant on how the rover could not broadcast to earth as much as it moved, considering the small angle of a few degrees to hit earth. IT DIDNT SEND DIRECTLY TO EARTH WHEN MOVING. And even his 3 degrees claim is off:
Quote:
The Crew Training Manual - Lunar Communications Relay Unit, on page 21, describes the parabolic antenna (known as High Gain Antenna or HGA) by noting that it has a diameter of approximately 92 centimeters (three feet) and a gain (in this context, a indicator of signal strength) equal to 24 dB when centered on Earth, 23.5 dB within 5° and 20.5 dB within 10°. Specifically:
Even a 'first result of google search' explains how it works: The HGA was only used in stationary positions where it could be adjusted. Otherwise it was sent to the Lunar Communications Relay Unit (LCRU) which then relied it to earth.
The image and sound signals were transmitted primarily from a lightweight antenna on the top of the lander. The umbrella-like antenna was lined with 38 miles of fine gold-plated wire, thinner than human hair, to reflect the signal 250,000 miles back to Earth. Did this guy think the only planned way to get signals back on a perilous mission was to rely on one antenna on an optional unit, that they wasnt even sure was going to survive the landing? (The rover)
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
and this is how society declines, some tiktokker watches 5 mins of it and spreads fake news shit, their followers watch one min and their family only read the thumbnail
flat earthers n moonlanding deniers need mental help , for real , or re education to prvent their kids from suffering
Like I said, I wasn't "OMFG HA0X" but rather interested by having some of the questions answered, since, as you said, as a layman, I couldn't expect to figure most of this shit by myself
Just wanted a rebuttal of the rebuttal.
What about the ligthing in the pics, though? And the X/Gamma/Cosmic rays that should fuck up the film beyond recognition?
That claim seems pretty legit.
lol do u really think nasa engineers n scientists didnt know about the rays n fix some lead shielding or fancy solution ... cmon man ...
the lighting was explained in the youtube shared here by these special effects guys explaining what it would have taken to fake it, was just impossible in scale and needed a single lightsource so bright , like the sun
@HubU
No worries, none of that admittedly condescending 'that is so wrong!' was directed at you. It was directed at the film maker. If you are going to make a 3 hour video at least do 1 minute of research (even if on google) on each topic.
And I can agree what you do find doing that NASA could have made up too. But if thats true, he is attacking statements that are no real to start with.
Like his Vann Allen belt one, what he is arguing isnt even what NASA claims. Not saying since wrong attack = NASA right. Saying he is not even debunking the actual claims.
Like if you said someone stole your TV. And I went on to prove it was impossible because it would not fit out your bathroom window because I can think of thats a way to do it, so you must be lying (when you stated they walked out the front door with it but I didnt care to include that part). you COULD be lying where you TV really is, but my proof didn't prove anything other than a way I can think of to steal it wouldn't work.
For the cameras: http://www.ninfinger.org/karld/My%20Space%20Museum/apollocams.htm
They had modified civilian stock cameras. They had to anyway astronauts suit fingers cannot push a shutter button with gloves on, or adjust focus on a normal camera so while beefing up its size to account for 'hippo hands'.
Quote:
Seven months prior to the Apollo 11 mission, a new camera was commissioned by NASA. The camera would be used by the crew to take close-up stereo views of the lunar soil and rocks. The camera had a shutter speed of 1/100th of a second, an aperture of f/22.6, film was held approximately 10 inches from the lunar surface, and lighting was provided by an integral electronic flash.[
The camera was designed for ease of use by the astronaut in his bulky pressure suit. The camera was rested on the soil and the astronaut would simply press down on a trigger on a long handle to expose the frames. Each exposure resulted in two side-by-side photographs of the same area of the surface. The surface photographed measured three inches by three inches. The size of the exposed film was one inch square.
For why the film was for all purposes intact (there is a few tiny dots in some pics of white particle hits here and there on them. whichever was better of the two it took each time stated above)
Quote:
The film from the cameras scheduled for the missions was contained in sealed canisters covered in a silver coating to reflect the sun and prevent overheating.
The film magazines had been pre-loaded by NASA photo-technicians with long rolls of 70mm wide film. The film types used were specially formulated Ektachrome emulsions on a thinner than normal Estar base. By making the film thinner than standard films of the era, they were able to use longer rolls of film. To save weight and space, the astronauts who actually landed on the moon only brought back film magazines containing exposed film. The camera bodies and attached lenses remain on the Moon. Because the film was never outside of the magazines, the magazines as well as the spacecraft protected the film.
For the light, not sure which part you are talking about I couldnt make it all the way to the end. I might have seen, and glazed over it grumbling about the thing he claimed before
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
