Original subtitles

[Music]

in 1902 French filmmakers George Melies

created a visionary film which seemed to

anticipate in many ways the Apollo

missions to the moon of the 1960s

malleus film of course was just a

fantasy and the Apollo missions were

they real or were they just a modern and

more sophisticated version of the same

fantasy the story of the Apollo missions

began in 1961 when President Kennedy

announced before the world that the

United States intended to land a man on

the moon before the end of the decade or

before 1970 this caused quite a stir as

up to that point the United States had

only been able to launch an astronaut

Alan Shepard in a short sub-orbital

flight of only 15 minutes never having

even sent a man in Earth orbit setting

the goal of reaching the moon in less

than nine years

sounded like a far-fetched idea to say

the least but it is at that point

according to the official narrative that

the United States set in motion a

powerful technological machine that

would actually allow them to reach the

goal established by Kennedy a few months

before the end of the decade in July

1969 those who don't believe that we

went to the moon instead maintained that

the United States did launch into this

titanic enterprise but they reached a

point around 1967 in which they realized

they could not overcome all the

obstacles posed by such an ambitious

project and at that point the only

option left was to pretend to go to the

moon as they could not admit to the

entire world that they were unable to

achieve their goal the United States

would have chosen to fake the missions

by using all the simulation systems they

already had in place which allowed them

to replicate an entire lunar mission

from beginning to end

for the people watching at home it would

have made no difference

let's see now more in detail what

happened during the historic decade of

the Luna missions

history books tell us that in the 1960s

the so-called

race to the moon took place it refers to

the competition between the United

States and the Soviet Union about who

could reach the moon first if we take a

closer look at the events however we

will realize that it was actually a

one-sided race without a real opponent

it was only the Americans who truly

tried to the end driven not so much by

the competition with the Soviets but

rather by the monstrous propaganda

machine they themselves had set in

motion at the beginning of the decade

officially the so-called race to the

moon began on April 12 1961 when the

Soviets managed to put into orbit the

first human being Yuri Gagarin it was

then the President Kennedy asked Vice

President Johnson to assess what the

actual possibilities were for the United

States to beat the Russians into space

this is where a very important figure

comes into the picture

NASA Administrator James E Webb Johnson

consulted with Webb and a few days later

returned to Kennedy with an answer among

the contemplated possibilities one was

to send a man to the moon two weeks

later President Kennedy delivered the

following speech in front of Congress

now it is time to take longest rise time

for a great new American Enterprise time

for this nation to take a clearly

leading role in space achievement

I therefore ask the Congress above and

beyond the increases I had earlier

requested for space activities to

provide the funds which are needed to

meet the following national goals first

I believe that this nation should commit

itself to achieving the goal before this

decade is out of landing a man on the

moon and returning him safely to the

earth from that moment on

NASA Administrator James Webb through

all his energies behind the Luna project

from NASA's historical archives we read

Webb who had endorsed the Apollo program

to Kennedy now had his priorities fixed

on the manned lunar landing and he

reorganized the space agency accordingly

an excellent mediator Webb managed to

gather the support from prominent

political figures such as Senator Kara

from Oklahoma from the NASA archives

beerain care told his congressional

colleagues that Webb was enthusiastic

about the program and that if Jim Webb

says we can land a man on the moon and

bring him safely home then it can be

done this endorsement concludes the

document secured considerable political

support for the Luna project behind the

scenes however Kennedy remains skeptical

about such a monumental task on

September 18 1963 Kennedy summoned Webb

at the White House to express his doubts

about the Luna project thanks to a

recently released recording we can

listen to the actual conversation

between the two men

[Music]

[Music]

only two days later in front of the

United Nations Kennedy made one last

attempt to engage the Soviets in going

to the moon together finally in a field

where the United States and the Soviet

Union have a special capacity in the

field of space there is room for new

cooperation for further joint efforts in

the regulation and exploration of space

I included among these possibility a

joint expedition to the moon Chris

Geoff's response was not long in coming

but it was certainly not encouraging one

month later at a meeting with the

Foreign Press the chief of the Kremlin

stated at the present time we do not

plan flights of cosmonauts to the moon I

have read a report that the Americans

wish to land on the moon by 1970

well let's wish them success and we will

see how they fly there and how they will

land there or to be more correct moon

there and most important how they will

get up and come back we do not wish to

compete and sending people to the moon

without thora preparation at that point

Kennedy realized that the die was cast

and that the United States would have to

go it alone

it's cap we have no choice but to follow

it the day after in Dallas John Kennedy

was killed but at that point the Luna

program had been launched and passed

directly into the hands of the new

President Lyndon Johnson

the meantime the Soviets were still

trying to develop a Luna program and was

secretly training their cosmonauts for

it but their program ended abruptly for

a number of different reasons the first

was the unexpected death of Sergey

Korolyov the father of the Russian space

program during routine surgery in

January 1966 karayev died

the one figure with the authority and

vision to galvanize the system behind

the goal of beating the Americans had

gone the man who had launched the first

satellite Sputnik who had put the first

man in orbit Gagarin the man who had

conceived the entire Soviet space

program was gone without leaving a

successor and there was no one capable

of replacing him at that point this led

to a series of internal divisions at the

top of the Russian space agency which

resulted in a streak of dramatic

disasters for heavy rockets of the new

and one kind designed to reach the moon

exploded during testing on the ground it

was the end of the Soviet Luna program

as described by Roald sagdeyev the

former director of the Russian Space

Agency very few people remember that in

parallel this American Apollo program

Soviets attempted to help their own

program but this Soviet program own kind

of counterpart to American Apollo it

failed it failed because of the large

rock rocket Russian counterpart to

saturn v exploded several times even

without getting chance to to take off

the launching site in the meantime the

situation in the united states was

rapidly changing this evening I came

here to speak to you about Vietnam I do

not have to tell you that our people are

profoundly concerned about that struggle

Vietnam War now completely occupied the

minds of the Americans while in Girja

tating and ever-increasing share of the

national budget at the same time the

cost of the Apollo program was spiraling

out of control as this documentary of

the time explains the costs of the Luna

project had soared beyond all

expectations even before a single rocket

had lifted off the ground the state is a

fabrication and testing of Apollo

hardware was such that the program had

reached and passed its peak cause

before a single man the Paulo mission

was launched the program itself began to

go out of business in fall of 1965

General Samuel C Phillips director of

the lunar landing program presented NASA

executives with a report that exposed in

no mild terms the state of confusion and

shortcomings suffered by the Apollo

program in particular Phillips pointed

his finger on the command module and the

second stage of the Saturn rocket which

had been contracted to the aerospace

company North American after four and a

half years and a little more than a year

before first flight wrote Philips there

are still significant technical problems

and unknowns affecting this stage

technical problems with electrical power

capacity service propulsion structural

integrity weight growth etc have yet to

be resolved delayed and compromised

ground and qualification test programs

give us serious concern that fully

qualified flight vehicles will not be

available to support the lunar landing

program there is little confidence

concluded Phillips that North American

will meet its schedule and performance

commitments within the funds available

for this portion of the Apollo program

in this recorded conversation with

President Johnson

NASA Administrator Webb can be heard

complaining about the lack of funds

needed to keep the Apollo program within

schedule well I mean these people have

gotta put men up there and it's awful

it's awfully hard to go to North America

and say we're going to cut you back 130

million under your own estimate of doing

the work and demand even more work 430

million less and you've got to find a

way to do it instead of being resolved

the problems denounced by Philips kept

piling up sending the cost tally into a

seemingly endless spiral a fuel tank

from the command module exploded during

a test the environmental control system

of the command module didn't work and

had to be redesigned from scratch the

second stage of the Saturn rocket had

exploded once in 1965 and then again in

1966 considerably delaying the program

itself

cracks had been found in the structure

of the rocket and in the fuel tanks the

lunar module design was also progressing

among continuous problems and consequent

delays they find hundreds of problems

things that weren't built right weren't

installed right or electrical wires that

are frayed possibly broken and most

alarming of all there are fuel leaks

everywhere in the system this brings us

to 1967 the year of the crisis in

January of that year

Thomas Barrett a North American

inspector in charge of security

verifications presented a 50 page report

revealing that the problems denounced by

Phillips had been anything but resolved

among the most prominent issues bear

enlisted difficulties with people parts

equipment and procedures not to mention

poor safety practices and the accidents

they caused in particular Baron

denounced a lack of coordination between

people in responsible positions a lack

of communication between almost everyone

the fact that people in responsible

positions did not take many of the

problems seriously Baron then added we

should not compromise the safety of the

astronauts just for the benefit of a

schedule as if to confirm barons

premonitions On January 20 the rocket

that was supposed to take the first man

flight into orbit exploded during the

testing phase and then seven days later

tragedy struck during a ground

simulation of Apollo 1 the first second

mission with men on board the three

astronauts virgil grissom ed white and

Roger Chaffee died on the launch pad

burned alive inside the capsule that was

supposed to take them into space three

weeks later just moments before his

death Grissom had complained about the

malfunctioning of the communications

between the capsule and the control

tower

[Applause]

they were his last words a few seconds

later a blaze engulfed the interior of

the cabin which was pressurized with

pure oxygen the first to fall out the

fire was white

then came the desperate scream from

chapter then nothing else in a few

seconds it was all over the Apollo

program was suspended indefinitely even

before a single capsule had been

launched into space the technical

commission charged with discovering the

cause of the fire was entrusted to

astronaut Frank Borman at the end of the

investigation it was concluded that the

Apollo capsule needed to be redesigned

from top to bottom this added another

year of delay to the already tight

program schedule

at that point many felt that the Apollo

program was over even before it started

that was quite a shock I always had to

pull over to the side of the road catch

my breath because I thought well this is

this is the end of our future the

program started to just churn churn and

churn and churn with the months passing

fast the 1969 deadline was getting

closer and closer in March 1967

NASA Administrator James Webb testified

in front of the House Committee on

science and Astronautics this was a very

different person from the one who had

enthusiastically supported President

Kennedy's project six years before but

my own judgment declared Webb is that if

we get this done by the end of 1969 we

will be very very fortunate the

possibility of doing all the work

necessary is less this year than it was

last and I testified at this table last

year that it was less at that time that

it had been the previous year in other

words according to the director of NASA

himself the closer they were getting to

the end of the decade

the more the dream of reaching the moon

was slipping away and one year after

these statements the same James Webb

suddenly quit NASA the man who had

inspired Kennedy from the beginning

the man who personally rewarded the

astronauts on their return from the

first orbits the man who had done

everything possible to allocate the

funds to go to the moon inexplicably

abandoned the project of his life a step

away from its realization on October 7

1968 less than three months before the

historic Apollo 8 mission around the

moon James Webb retired from NASA and

returned to private life NASA's deputy

director Robert seaman's had also

inexplicably resigned in January of the

same year when the Washington Post asked

him

there must be some reason why you're

leaving right now why not stay until you

get to the moon seaman sternly replied

look I've been down here seven years I

only intended to stay - but it's clear

that his resignation must have had

something to do with a catastrophic

situation in which the Apollo program

found itself at that point possibly even

more surprising was the resignation of

astronaut Walt Ashura

which came only four days after James

Webb's resignation shitta was one of the

legendary mercury seven the original

group of astronauts that had started the

entire space program back in the 50s he

had already flown on both the mercury

project and the Gemini project and given

his long experience he was certainly due

to be sent to the moon with the Apollo

program at some point yet inexplicably

only a few months before the first lunar

missions sheera gave up the possibility

of triumphantly crowning his lifelong

career and chose to retire instead why

these people who had dedicated the best

part of their professional life to the

space program chose to resign just

months before the final achievement is a

question that remains to be answered

in fact after the Apollo 1 fire many at

NASA wondered whether they should just

stop altogether but they realized they

could no longer withdraw from the race

for they were held hostage by the very

challenge they had thrown to the world a

few years before this sentiment was well

summarized by Chris Kraft the former

Houston Space Center director after the

fire I don't think we would have

continued had we not made the commitment

the country made the commitment and they

would have looked like a bunch of gooks

if they hadn't continued on in the eyes

of the world and in their competitive

position with the Cold War it is at this

point according to the alternative

theory that the heads of NASA decided to

stage in a studio what they would have

not been able to achieve in reality the

moon landings of the Apollo missions

after all by that time NASA had

developed all the technology needed to

simulate a complete mission to the moon

and back without ever having to leave

the earth as we will later see all they

would have needed to do was to use the

images produced by the simulators to

pretend that they had really landed on

the moon there was another reason why

the United States could no longer

withdraw from their commitment to go to

the moon

it was the domestic public opinion which

had been galvanized by a decade of

relentless propaganda in which the

conquest of the moon had been sold to

the public like something imminent and

certain these clips from the propaganda

films of the time help us to understand

the spirit of the hero sometime in the

future American astronauts will explore

the moon this is the first of the big

Saturn 5 someday it will carry three men

and equipment to the moon and back in a

few short years this scene of man on the

moon will be a reality this is the

Apollo command module the spacecraft

like this will one day carry astronauts

to the moon and back

this is the lunar module a similar craft

will one day allow two astronauts to sit

gently down on the surface of the Moon

Kennedy Space Center a reality in the

preparation for manned lunar landings

the press had done its part as well more

and more often magazines were publishing

articles showing modern man projected to

the conquest of space adventure books

set in space multiplied making the

public evermore familiar with the idea

of colonizing other planets for a nation

raised in the myth of the Far West the

new space frontier was only the natural

extension for their spirit of conquest

thus interplanetary Rockets new

satellites and spaceships of all kinds

became every day more familiar for the

American public

new guides to space were born everyday

such as those published by Hamlin or by

Doubleday which illustrated the upcoming

Apollo missions in utmost detail there

was even a guide to space for elementary

teachers kids in schools spent their

time building their rockets dreaming of

going to the moon one day Walt Disney

had created an entire section of

Disneyland dedicated to space travel

called Tomorrowland meanwhile Disney

regularly published books and comics in

which his most famous characters went

into space then you had children's

coloring books with daddy taking his

kids to visit the moon you had model

books with cardboard rockets and

astronauts figurines to cut out you had

three-dimensional books describing in

detail every aspect of life in a space

station and at the center of everything

there was always the astronaut the new

mythological figure that had replaced

the old hero of the West in the popular

lore after 10 years of such relentless

propaganda one thing can be affirmed

with certainty had NASA not being

technically

able to send men to the moon or had it

been too risky to do so they would have

had to fake it

they had no alternative at that point

with the entire nation already focused

on the new frontier it would not have

been possible to admit the failure of

the space project without the US

government losing its total credibility

in front of its population

this is in essence the thesis proposed

by Bill casing the man who went down in

history as the father of the so-called

moon hoax theory the reason I believe

that NASA and the government faked the

moon landing was basically it was

technically impossible to do it and they

simply had to come up with some sort of

alternative that they felt the public

would believe chasing was a former

employee at rocket ein

the company that built the engines for

the Rockets used in the Apollo program

only four years after the end of the

Apollo missions in 1976 casing published

a book called we never went to the moon

in which he listed the various reasons

why he believed it was not possible for

man to have gone to the moon casing

maintained that the entire series of the

moon walks had been filled in a secret

NASA facility instead casings book

caused quite a stir and was followed a

few years later by a similar book

written by independent researcher Ralph

Rene his book was called NASA mooned

America in particular Rene claimed that

it would have been impossible for the

astronauts to safely get across the Van

Allen belts

the to radioactive belts located around

the earth that one needs to traverse in

order to reach the moon there is

absolutely no way they went to the moon

with what they had in fact there's no

way they can go today there's no way

they can go tomorrow you don't send man

where you haven't sent the monkey

as time went by the fear is proposed by

casing and Rene began to gain traction

but it was only with the advent of the

Internet that the so-called moon hoax

Theory began to spread at a worldwide

level since the Internet nASA has placed

all the pictures taken by the astronauts

online in high-definition all the films

and TV recordings from the same missions

have also been published through their

official distributor a company called

spacecraft films thanks to all this

material any independent researcher can

now personally examine all the original

footage and pictures from the Luna

missions this has generated a flurry of

highly researched books and

documentaries that seriously questioned

the fact that man has gone to the moon

Hollywood has also played its part in

reinforcing the idea that men never went

to the moon in 1979 only ten years after

the first Luna mission the film

Capricorn One was released officially

the film told the story of a fake

mission to Mars which NASA staged in a

TV studio in order to avoid the real

dangers of a mission in space but

Capricorn one was clearly referring to

the recent Luna missions as in fact the

film's slogan read would you be shocked

to find out that the greatest moment in

our recent history may not have happened

at all the producers didn't mince words

when suggesting that NASA could have

easily fooled the entire world with the

fake Apollo missions believe had they

wanted to that NASA could indeed have

pulled off the greatest hoax of all time

never send anyone to the moon

and we created in the television studio

if they were able to make it look real

with a budget of only four million

dollars suggested the producers the same

could have certainly been done by NASA

which had practically unlimited funds

and resources and Capricorn one is not

the only Hollywood film to have

suggested that the lunar landings were

filmed on earth in the James Bond movie

diamonds are forever Sean Connery

accidentally finds himself running

across a movie set where the lunar

landings are being staged

[Applause]

[Music]

in the animated movie the minions at

least in 2015 the group of characters

also accidentally comes across a movie

set where the Apollo missions are being

filmed and in yet another Hollywood

blockbuster the Coneheads the famous

comedy with dan Aykroyd

the producers openly made fun of the

idea that nano really went to the moon

chicken embryo season Penny's a brown

animal hmm I'm not really hungry

just some Tang tang they drink the

astronauts took to the moon

obviously there are also those who are

absolutely convinced that we went to the

moon and openly defend the official

narrative by NASA these people like to

call themselves debunkers among the best

known and most active we should mention

Phil Plait editor of the website Bad

Astronomy Jim Oberg journalist and

expert in space issues the Italian Paolo

activism editor of a website on the moon

hoax and collaborator of the Apollo

lunar journal NASA's official website on

the Apollo missions as an official NASA

collaborator activism o represents a

particularly authoritative voice in the

field of the lunar debate among the

debunkers we should also mention Jay

Windley editor of the website Clavius

and the world-famous Mythbusters who

have devoted an entire episode from

their show to debunking the so called

moon hoax Theory not only do these

people believe that we went to the moon

but they claim that there is irrefutable

evidence to prove it we shall therefore

begin by analyzing this evidence one

item at a time

the first piece of evidence commonly

cited in favor of the Apollo missions

comes in the form of reasoning if it's

true that NASA faked the moon landings

goes the argument why did the Russians

keep mom instead of exposing the hoax to

the entire world it was a kickback a

test when I saw Asperger there are in

fact different reasons why the Russians

would not have exposed the fake landings

in any case the first one is that given

their position no one in the world would

have believed them just imagine if the

Russians who had just lost the race to

the moon had tried to suggest that NASA

faked the moon landings the Americans

would have really killed them in front

of the entire world calling them sore

losers with more than a half a billion

people having just witnessed the moon

landings on television it would have

been very easy to dismiss any Russian

accusation with a laugh had the claim

come from a neutral nation that maybe it

would have been somewhat believable but

coming from the same people who had just

lost the race to the moon no one would

have taken them seriously there is also

a second very important reason why the

Russians would not have exposed the hoax

in any case with the Apollo missions

still in progress serious talks between

Americans and the Russians about a joint

space program had already been on their

way the times were no longer those of

Kennedy and Khrushchev and the Nixon

administration had made some serious

progress towards a substantial day taunt

with the Soviet empire we have opened a

new relation with the Soviet Union we

must continue to develop and expanded

that new relationship so that the two

strongest nations of the world will live

together in cooperation rather than

confrontation on May 24th 1972 in Moscow

with the Apollo missions still in full

swing Richard Nixon signed a historic

agreement with the Soviets on space

cooperation and less than a year after

the last Apollo mission the same

American astronauts were traveling to

Russia to meet their Soviet colleagues

they took part in joint press

conferences visited their space center

got familiar with their spaceship saw

use and paid homage to the great

of the heroes of the Soviet space

program Sergey Korolyov and Yuri Gagarin

a few months later it was the Soviet

cosmonauts turn to visit the US and get

acquainted with the American Way of life

they visited the Houston Space Center

familiarized with the American spaceship

Apollo and worked together with their

counterparts to perfect the system that

would allow their spaceships to connect

to each other during future joint

missions all of this would culminate

only three years after the last Apollo

mission in the historic encounter

between the American spaceship Apollo

and the Russian spaceship saw use these

are the words by Soviet cosmonaut leigh

enough before departing for the joint

mission with the americans in space

chairman of the state commission the

crew of the spaceship is ready for the

joint flight with american spaceship

apollo we have the great honor of

participating in the first international

flight of manned spaceship this

experiment will yield still broader

possibilities in our space research on

the american side the tone of the

comments was just as appeasing the

mission climax more than three years of

planning and preparation a time during

which differences in language in

technology in political Creed were set

aside in favor of the common goal in

fact the joint mission between the

Russians and the Americans would pave

the way to what is today the

International Space Station a place

where astronauts from the US Russia

Italy Japan and many other countries

work elbow-to-elbow

in the international space program in

conclusion had the Russians exposed the

Luna hoax by the Americans not only

would the entire world have laughed at

them but nothing of what followed in

terms of space cooperation with the

Americans would have ever been possible

faced with a possible Bluff by the

Americans all they would have been left

for the Russians to do wish to bite the

bullet and look at the future with a

smile on their face

[Music]

the second piece of evidence often used

in favor of the moon landings is the

following

with over 400,000 people involved in the

NASA project the argument would have

spilled the beans but it's the very

premise to this argument that is flawed

nowhere does it say that all 400,000

NASA employees had to be informed of the

scam being perpetrated in fact the lunar

landing project had been split among

thousands of different companies that

worked all over the United States

totally independent from one another the

employees from Grumman were building the

lunar module in their factories in Long

Island the technicians from aisle C were

designing the spacesuits in their

laboratories in Delaware the employees

from Boeing were building the lunar

rover in the state of Washington the

people from McDonnell Douglas worked on

the Saturn rocket in their factories in

California the technicians from General

Motors were producing the tanks for the

command module at their home in Indiana

the experts from the link group

developed the flight simulators in their

factories in New York as told in this

documentary from that era there were

about 20,000 different companies working

at the same time on the Apollo project

from all over the United States more

than 90% of the work is conducted by

contractors spread across the nation in

fact some 20,000 prime contractors

subcontractors and suppliers located in

virtually every state are participating

in the manned spaceflight programs thus

the idea that all these people had to be

in on a plan to fake the moon landings

is simply ludicrous when a soccer player

chooses to sell out a game certainly

does not inform the rest of his team of

his intentions the

alone and the first ones to be duped are

in fact his own teammates another

example is the so-called Volkswagen

scandal in 2015 it was revealed that the

German automaker had deceived the entire

world by selling them cars whose engines

exceeded the established emission

regulations but this doesn't mean that

the entire body of 600,000 workers at

Volkswagen had been informed of the scam

being perpetrated all that was needed

was a restricted group of managers and

technicians in the know without everyone

else necessarily being informed of what

was going on also in the case of the

Apollo missions all that was needed was

a small group of NASA's top managers who

decided to fake the moon landings while

everyone else at the agency would have

believed that the missions were real for

the hoax to succeed for example it would

have been sufficient to take control of

the television signal that was received

by the stations on earth officially the

images from the first moon walk were

transmitted directly from the moon and

were broadcasted in real time by the

television stations all over the world

but if the same moonwalk had been

pre-recorded in a studio instead and was

then rebroadcast to the receiving

stations by a satellite or any other

means then the first people to be duped

would have been the very technicians at

NASA who were following the moon

landings from Houston Space Center and

with them the entire world would have

been deceived

there is also according to the debunkers

some physical evidence for the moon

landings which they claim to be

irrefutable one such piece of evidence

is the presence on the moon of the so

called retroreflector this is an object

capable of returning a laser beam to

earth which was allegedly left by the

astronauts on the surface of the moon

according to the Mythbusters this retro

reflector represents irrefutable and

conclusive evidence that man went to the

moon

there's time for just one final test and

not just any old test but the ultimate

proof of man's moon mission what's this

a reflector in fact it's called a

retroreflector made up of many tiny

prisms just like this if there was a

retroreflector on the moon and location

we could detect the reflection and prove

there is man-made equipment on the moon

so what you're saying is that we get a

really big laser and pointed at the

reflector on the moon and if we get a

signal back that means that we were in

fact there precisely in order to prove

their point the Mythbusters conducted an

experiment from the Apache point

observatory in New Mexico this thing

right here is the Apache point

observatory and these guys have the

tools that we need to put the final nail

in the coffin on the moon landing hoax

that's the location where Apollo 15

landed on the moon that is so cool

initiating laser on a retro reflector

from Apollo 15

and there's a spike beginning to stand

out is that it that's the return from

Apollo 15 light returning from the laser

retroreflector at exactly the wavelength

and distance that we were expecting it's

really what's happening in right in

front of us not just thrilling

but conclusive we shine that laser at

the moon on the second test and we got a

clear spike back photons came back to

our receptor now the only way that that

could happen is if there was a piece of

manmade equipment up on the moon to

reflect them back it may seem like

conclusive evidence but it is far from

that it's in fact perfectly possible to

bounce a laser beam off the lunar

surface and detected on earth without

the aid of any particular instrument

this kind of experiment had already been

successfully conducted by the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology in

1962 six years before the Apollo

missions from the December 1966 issue of

National Geographic we can read four

years ago a ruby laser considerably

smaller than those now available shot a

series of pulses at the moon 240,000

miles away the beams were reflected back

to earth with enough strength to be

measured by ultra sensitive electronic

equipment a similar experiment was

replicated by the Soviets one year later

from the New York Times of November 4th

1963 we can read a concentrated beam of

light has been bounced off the moon and

detected on earth by a Soviet

Observatory in Crimea the feat

duplicates an experiment conducted late

last year by engineers of the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology it

was six whole years before the Apollo

missions and it was already possible to

bounce a laser beam off the moon with no

need of a retroreflector furthermore

assuming that such an object is actually

present on the moon this doesn't mean

that it was brought up there by

astronauts a retroreflector

could have been easily placed on the

surface of the moon by an unmanned probe

the Soviets had done exactly the same

thing in the same years when they sent

retroreflectors to the moon

with their unmanned probes Lunokhod 1 at

Lunokhod 2 in no case then can the

retroreflector be considered a valid

proof in favor of the Apollo missions

let alone a definitive one another piece

of evidence for the lunar landings often

mentioned is the moon rocks

although samples of rocky material that

the astronauts allegedly brought back to

earth from the missions to the moon

being composed of different material

than the earth claimed the debunkers

these rocks are the tangible proof that

man went to the moon from the debunking

site Clavius we can read the lunar

surface samples returned by the Apollo

missions are considered by many to be

the most compelling evidence that the

missions were authentic on its own

website NASA writes moon rocks and

common-sense proof Apollo astronauts

really did visit the moon in reality

these alleged moon rocks by themselves

don't prove anything even accepting that

their composition is different from that

of the earth we must remember that many

meteorites originating from the moon

have been retrieved in Antarctica I got

a phone call once a fellow with the

Smithsonian he said Jerry we have now a

meteorite which I just brought back from

Antarctica which is from the moon whole

Assembly of scientists attacked this

object and at the end of a year and a

half the conclusion was it was a moon

rock it was unambiguously a moon rock

and it's certainly a curious coincidence

that Verner von Braun some of his NASA

colleagues visited Antarctica in 1967

exactly one year before the beginning of

the lunar missions as stated by the new

world encyclopedia the expedition was

one of the first to systematically

search the ice surface for meteorites

believed to originate from the moon the

later use as a reference material

nothing forbids that this reference

material could have been later used as

original after the Apollo missions

furthermore it is possible that the

diversity of the lunar rocks was

obtained with some special processing

here on earth as suggested by bill wood

an aerospace engineer and then I think

the vast majority of the hundreds of

pounds of moon rocks that we claim to

have are made here on earth they can be

irradiated or exposed to a vacuum or

modified in certain minor ways so that

they appear slightly different in fact

in 2009 it was discovered that a lunar

rock donated by the American astronauts

to a Dutch Museum was actually a piece

of petrified wood a cheap earthly fake

presented to the world as if it were a

precious lunar rock but even if these

rocks really came from the moon they

could have been retrieved by an unmanned

probe and not necessarily by humans

again the same thing was done by the

Soviets with their unmanned probes Luna

16 20 and 24 thus in no case regardless

of their origin and composition can the

so-called lunar rocks be considered

proof that man went to the moon and one

is left to wander why would NASA feel

the need to state that the lunar rocks

proved that we went to the moon when

they are the first ones to know that

this is definitely not the case

according to the debunkers the landscape

scene in the Apollo pictures in reality

those who support this idea are not

familiar with the great illusory

capacities of cinematography this for

example is a scene from the film

magnificent desolation produced

I max in 2005 as one can see the depth

of the terrain and the background is

quite similar to that of the Apollo

missions and yet this is the actual set

where the scene was filmed only the

terrain and the foreground is real the

rest of the landscape is projected as a

backdrop with the use of special effects

the only difference with the 1960s is

that today the background images are

superimposed to a green-screen with a

digital technique while in the past the

background images were projected onto a

highly reflective screen with a

technique called front projection one of

the first ones to use the front

projection was Stanley Kubrick in the

film 2001 a Space Odyssey this is the

famous opening scene with the monkeys in

the African desert as one can see the

Savannah in the background appears to be

immense and this is the studio where the

scene was shot only the first part of

the set is real the one in the

foreground the rest is a photographic

image which is projected onto this

highly reflective silk screen here is

another example of the use of front

projection from the same Stanley Kubrick

film the terrain in the foreground is

real and we are in the studio while the

image in the background is the result of

a projection onto a highly reflective

screen one way to know whether the front

projection was used is to verify whether

there is a continuous separation line

between foreground and background

crossing the entire image from left to

right this is actually the line

separating the real terrain in the

studio from the projection screen in the

background and curiously enough we

notice that in many of the Apollo

pictures a continuous line crossing the

frame from left to right is present this

line separates the terrain and

foreground from the distant hills in the

background

in fact if we take a closer look at some

360° panoramas from the landing sites we

realize that the continuous line

separating foreground from the

background is uninterrupted for the

entire 360 degrees in whatever direction

you look this means that either the

astronauts have landed on some kind of

truncated code separated for 360 degrees

from the distant Hills or the images

have been shot in the studio and the

continuous line separating the

foreground from the background is just a

separation line between the real set and

the projected image furthermore at the

time of the Apollo missions Hollywood

had already developed a mobile front

projection system which could have also

allowed to film moving scenes with the

distant background projected on a screen

another technique used to obtain similar

results was that of painted backdrops as

in this example from a Hollywood film

from the 50s Nicola panini has worked

extensively in Hollywood as a

cinematographer making films for

Sylvester Stallone Terry Gilliam and

many others we asked him about this

alleged impossibility of creating such

large sets in a studio

laticia most additional accessory be

impossible co students at the generals

rotella

refer to their position any trained

telefono said the naked eye because

truly a set physical methodology to cost

ratio AE AE which is one of the

backdrops

he said that in order me I came that

going with the week early baby each

evening another technique for which

Hollywood is famous is that of

miniaturization apparently huge

situations can be reproduced in a studio

to the smallest detail small-scale

models are also regularly used in

Hollywood with great effectiveness in

fact there are serious suspicions that

the images of the lunar module departing

from the moon were actually filmed in a

studio using small-scale models in

conclusion if we were to believe that

everything we see on a screen is real we

would also have to believe that New York

was submerged by a devastating tsunami

that gigantic gorillas can climb the

Empire State Building and that the

magical kingdom of Oz actually exists

another proof of the moon landings

according to the NASA supporters are the

images of the lunar surface sent to the

earth by unmanned probes in recent years

in 2009 the American probe Lunar

Reconnaissance Orbiter completed a full

mapping of the lunar surface sending

back the images of what purportedly are

the landing sites of the Apollo missions

obviously it's hard to consider these

images as an actual proof of the

landings when NASA itself is suspected

of having falsified the pictures from

six entire missions to the moon back in

the 60s today a kid armed with Photoshop

could produce images similar to these in

no more than half an hour somewhat

different is the case of the Japanese

probe Kaguya in 2008 this probe scanned

the entire lunar surface sending back

altimeter data that allows us to

recreate the exact morphology of the

lunar terrain on a computer

according to the debunkers the fact that

the images generated by Kaguya show a

terrain very similar to the one seen in

the apollo pictures proves that the

lunar missions were real one example

often use

by the debunkers is the one of hadley

real this large canyon carved on the

lunar surface where the allegedly landed

you know in fact there is no mystery

here at all as confirmed by this 1966

documentary NASA had already sent probes

to photograph the lunar landing sites

from up close well before the Apollo

missions had started charting actual

landing sites for the astronauts is the

job of lunar orbiter two of the

850-pound satellites have orbited the

moon photographing and mapping wide

areas sometimes sweeping as low as 25

miles above the surface here are some of

the pictures pictures helping to

determine the height and slope of lunar

mountains and the depth of craters so

accurate had been the photographic

surveys that NASA had been able to build

a gigantic moon globe which replicated

the entire lunar surface and not most

detail all it would have taken at that

point was to film the moving surface of

this globe using for example this

circular rail to give the impression of

really flying around the moon

furthermore for the Hadley rail area in

particular NASA had built a

three-dimensional model reproducing the

Apollo 15 landing site to the smallest

detail this three-dimensional model was

then hung from a ceiling upside down and

was illuminated by special lights that

simulated the sunlight by filming the

model with this special camera which

could get as close as a few inches to

the surface NASA was able to film the

entire lunar landing approach as if it

were the real thing the images were sent

to the monitors in the simulator making

them look like actual images seen from

the window of the lunar module this

documentary from NASA explains how the

lunar landing simulator worked to the

left of the simulator is a

three-dimensional mosaic of the moon's

surface through closed-circuit

television it presents typical lunar

landing displays marked by craters

mounds and boulders the mosaic gives the

astronaut a realistic feel for his final

landing approach lunar module motion is

simulated by moving the map up and down

for vertical motion a camera on a dolly

track provides lateral movement lights

around the camera lens simulate lunar

lighting conditions with these two

simulators a crew can practice the basic

flight elements of the Apollo mission

from launch complex-2 landing on the

moon and return to Earth as one can see

the images produced by the simulator are

so similar to those of the actual

landing that the initial argument by the

debunkers can be reversed

not only was NASA able to replicate the

exact morphology of the landing sites in

the studio but they could have in fact

simulated the entire lunar landing using

the very images from their simulator

without the need of actually going to

the moon

the possibility of verifying the lunar

landing sites from up close presented

itself in 2007 when Google launched the

international competition Lunar XPrize

in this competition Google offers a

prize of 30 million dollars to the first

private organization that would land a

probe on the moon with a robot capable

of covering at least 500 meters while

sending live images back to earth take

video and pictures and send them back to

earth so we can all share what your

spacecraft can see more than 20 teams

from all over the world announced that

they were entering the competition

Google also established an additional

prize of 4 million dollars for any team

who would be able to broadcast live

images from any of the Apollo landing

sites at that point Astrobotic

technologies a company based in

Pittsburgh announced they intended to

visit the most famous landing site of

all the one of Apollo 11

but NASA didn't seem too happy about

this initiative and in 2011 they

officially requested a 2 kilometer

no-fly zone to be established all around

the Apollo landing sites the purpose

said NASA was to preserve the landing

sites from possible contamination NASA

is taking steps now to preserve the

steps they took decades ago on the

surface of the Moon they are protecting

American landing sites on the moon for

historic preservation presumably because

you never know who or what will go back

there and there are a number of missions

vying to go back with unmanned craft

they just wanted to clear the area

off-limits the request from NASA must

have been taken very seriously

since the participants suddenly decided

to forego a four million dollar prize

from this 2012 article titled rocketeers

obey NASA moon rules we can read the

organizers of the 30 million dollar

Google Lunar XPrize say their

contestants will abide by NASA's appeal

to stay away from the Apollo landing

sites

the team's pittsburgh-based Astrobotic

technology had planned to take a close

look at Apollo 11s artifacts and

footprints but President John Thornton

said the venture has shifted its primary

target to the lunar North Pole in

conclusion not only is there no actual

proof that man went to the moon but now

that we had the possibility of at least

checking out the landing sites from up

close nASA has chosen to impose a no-fly

zone all over these areas and all this

just to preserve some footprints that

apparently no one will ever be able to

see anyway let's now examine the most

important evidence against the lunar

landings or the reasons why many people

don't believe that we went to the moon

the first issue and definitely one of

the most important is the problem of

radiation represented by the Van Allen

belts earth is surrounded by two highly

radioactive areas called the Van Allen

belts they were named after their

discoverer astrophysicist James Van

Allen these belts are located between a

minimum of 1,000 miles and a maximum of

25,000 miles from the surface of the

earth up to this day every single

mission with men on board from the

American Gemini to the Russian Soyuz

from the Space Shuttle to the

International Space Station has kept

well below this dangerous area of

radiation rotating in what is called low

Earth orbit the only men in history to

have allegedly ever crossed the Van

Allen belts are the astronauts from the

Apollo missions this crossing however

poses some problems that apparently have

not been resolved to this day let's take

a closer look at the history of the Van

Allen belts

in January 1958 the United States

launched their first satellite Explorer

1

this satellite carried some special

instruments designed by scientist James

Van Allen whose purpose was to measure

radioactivity in space the satellite had

been launched along an eccentric orbit

ranging from a minimum height of 200

miles to a maximum of 1,600 miles thanks

to this eccentricity Van Allen made a

double surprising discovery

not only did radioactivity increase as

we moved away from Earth but beyond a

certain point the Geiger counter

suddenly dropped to zero before resuming

normal operation this is how James Van

Allen describes that experience and I

began to understand that what was going

on here because we had segments of this

orbit when it came down to low altitude

which looked quite normal then we had a

very rapid change very rapid increase in

cutting rate and then it dropped back to

nothing and then a few minutes later it

went it came up from nothing to a very

high rate and then brought back to a

normal value and this pattern was

repetitive it seemed to be a systematic

pattern the reason for the sudden drop

to zero was due to the fact that the

radiation became so intense beyond a

certain altitude that the Geiger counter

simply went off scale and now we'll jump

above 600 miles and we'll see what

happens when we get closer to the source

of radiation oh there goes back down to

zero yeah yes the transition said yes it

went into something was wrong

and then to zero therefore obviously

that encountered intense variation it

was the discovery of the so-called Van

Allen radiation belts to doughnut-shaped

belts located in the magnetosphere which

protect life on our planet by trapping

the most dangerous radiation coming from

outer space in 1959 Van Allen wrote our

planet is ringed by a region to be exact

to regions of high-energy radiation

extending many thousands of miles into

space the discovery is of course

troubling to astronauts somehow the

human body will have to be shielded from

this radiation even on a rapid transit

through the region later on Van Allen

published another article called the

danger zone earth is wrapped in deadly

belts of radiation speaking of the inner

belt Van Allen wrote owing to the great

penetrability of the high-energy protons

there in effective shielding is quite

beyond engineering feasibility in the

near future the article concluded by

saying all man's space flight attempts

must steer clear of these two belts of

radiation until adequate means of

safeguarding the astronauts have been

developed this film from the California

Academy of Sciences also underlines the

need to protect astronauts through the

radiation belts which are openly termed

as deadly the existence of the Earth's

radiation belts presents a very serious

hazard to future space travel what is

the intensity of this radiation what

does it consist of

how much shielding will the first space

travelers need in order to penetrate

these deadly areas of radiation safely

the need to develop new technologies to

protect men from radiation had been

clearly recognized by President Kennedy

himself third medical space research may

lead to new safeguard against hazards

common to many environments pacifically

our astronauts will need fundamentally

new devices protect them from the ill

effects of radiation the Soviets also

feared the effects of radiation in open

space

dear to me please sir well of course we

were worried to go out into the unknown

of space of course we were fearful we

had no idea how human would be affected

by the radiation we suspected that

possibly the radiation could even

penetrate through the craft itself in

fact NASA had taken the problem quite

seriously developing a system to study

human tolerance to the effects of

radiation at Kirtland Air Force Base New

Mexico development of a plastic man with

the same atomic composition as human

tissue enabled scientists to accurately

determine the deaths of radiation

penetration as well as doses without

actual human exposure but then something

curious happened when the time to launch

the first astronauts towards the moon

came the problem of radiation magically

seemed to disappear without developing

any particular method of protection and

without even having sent a monkey

through the radioactive belts in 1968

the Apollo 8 mission was launched

towards the moon it would have been the

first human mission to cross the Van

Allen belts the ship carrying the three

astronauts had only a very thin aluminum

covering a no specific protection

against radiation whatsoever no no the

walls of the craft were made as thin and

light as possible the Apollo capsule

itself was was made unusually thin in

fact they couldn't even initially carry

enough air inside to be the equivalent

to sea-level air pressure they ran at a

reduced pressure in order to be able to

make the walls thinner Frank Borman Jim

Lovell and Bill Anders were the first

three humans to ever venture across the

radiation belts and yet during their

trip to the moon that crossing seemed to

be the least of their worries these are

the three astronauts broadcasting from

somewhere halfway between the earth and

the moon

it seems that the most interesting thing

to talk about is the behavior of the

toothbrush in absence of gravity

[Applause]

in the Apollo 8 mission report a 250

page document filled with technical

information of all kinds about the

mission just completed the crossing of

the Van Allen belts is not mentioned

once not even in passing it was as if

the problem of radiation with all the

dangers described by Van Alen suddenly

had never existed after Apollo 8 another

eight missions followed the same route

each crossing twice one on the way out

and one on the way back the Van Allen

radiation belts some debunkers

maintained that the problem with the Van

Allen belts was solved by plotting an

exit and reentry course that would avoid

the thickest area of radiation in this

regard the debunking website Clavius

writes the Apollo navigators plotted a

course through the thinnest parts of the

belts each mission flew a slightly

different trajectory but the orbital

inclination of the trans Luna Coast

trajectory was always in the

neighborhood of 30 degrees a spacecraft

following that trajectory would bypass

all but the edges of the Van Allen belts

in his book activist mo also wrote to

get around them or to cross the less

intense zone you just need to follow an

inclined path which was done by all the

Apollo vehicles both on the way out and

on the way back but this statement is

contradicted by NASA itself for example

in regards to the Apollo 14 mission NASA

writes the translunar injection

trajectory laid closer to the plane of

the geomagnetic equator than that of

previous flights and therefore a

spacecraft traveled through the heart of

the trapped radiation belts despite this

nASA has always dismissed the radiation

problem publishing data on the doses

allegedly received by the astronauts

well below the danger levels in this

regard

NASA wrote Apollo astronaut doses were

negligible in terms of any medical or

biological effects that could have

impaired the function of man in the

space environment in fact according to

the debunkers al Luna mission

of a few days like the Apollo missions

entails a total of radiation equivalent

to one x-ray scan or three years of life

on earth problem solved then obviously

Van Alen must have been mistaken when he

said that it would have been necessary

to protect the astronauts through the

radiation belts even on a rapid transit

through the region at this point though

we are left in a conundrum if it's true

that the problem was so brilliantly

solved in the 60s why are the Van Allen

belts being called dangerous again now

that NASA wants to travel to the moon

with the Orion project my name is Kelly

Smith and I work on navigation and

guidance for Orion we are headed 3,600

miles above Earth 15 times higher from

the planet than the International Space

Station as we get further away from

Earth we'll pass through the Van Allen

belts an area of dangerous radiation

radiation like this could harm the

guidance systems onboard computers or

other electronics on Orion naturally we

have to pass through this danger zone

twice once up and once back

but Orion has protection shielding will

be put to the test as the vehicle cuts

through the waves of radiation sensors

aboard will record radiation levels for

scientists to study we must solve these

challenges before we send people through

this region of space what does it mean

we must solve these challenges before we

send people through this region of space

in the 1960s the radiation received by

the astronauts was the equivalent of a

simple x-ray and today we must solve

these challenges before we sent people

through this region of space we are thus

faced with a puzzling situation up until

1968 the Van Allen belts were considered

very dangerous by the scientific

community at large then during the

Apollo missions

they were suddenly no longer dangerous

and could be safely crossed while in

recent times they have gone back to be

considered very dangerous even modern

astronauts curiously admit that we are

currently unable to go beyond the

low-earth orbit and that perhaps one day

we may be able to reach the moon on

other planets plan that nASA has is to

build rocket called SLS which is a heavy

lift rocket it's something that is that

is much bigger than what we have today

and it will be able to launch the Orion

capsule with humans on board as well as

Landers or other components - via two

destinations beyond Earth orbit right

now we only can fly in Earth orbit

that's the farthest that we can go in

this new system that we're building is

going to allow us to go beyond and

hopefully take humans into the solar

system to explore so the moon Mars

asteroids there's a lot of destinations

that we could go to and we're building

these building block components in order

to allow us to do that eventually

and certainly this interview with

astronaut Allen being doesn't help us

clarify the situation as a crew member

of the Apollo 12 mission beam is

theoretically one of the very few human

beings to have ever crossed the Van

Allen belts and yet not only isn't he

sure of having ever reached them but in

fact he doesn't even know where the

belts are located any ill effects from

the Van Allen radiation belts no no I'm

sure we went far enough out to to

encounter the Van Allen radiation belt

maybe we did and listened to beans

replied when he is told that the Van

Allen belts are located between the

earth and the moon the belts are 1,000

miles to 25,000 miles above the earth we

then we went right out through them it's

a curious response indeed after all

activism owe himself wrote in his book

all astronauts are trained in plotting

trajectories rendezvous and orbits by

using a ruler and in orientation by

using the Stars are we truly to believe

that one of the few astronauts who have

across the Van Allen belts doesn't even

know where they are or maybe Alan bean

in a moment of distraction has led an

uncomfortable truth slip out by mistake

I'm not sure we went far enough out to

to encounter the Van Allen radiation

belt question can you explain why NASA

despite everything Van Allen had written

on the dangers of radiation has sent the

first astronauts through the radioactive

belts without any specific protection

and without even sending a monkey first

in order to evaluate the effects of

radiation on a biological organism as

complex as the human being if it were

true

like the debunkers maintained that a

luna mission entails a total of

radiation equivalent to an x-ray

why does NASA describe today the Van

Allen belts as an area of dangerous

radiation if it's true like NASA

maintains that during the trip to the

moon 50 years ago the astronaut doses

were negligible why does NASA state

today in regards to the Van Allen belts

that we must solve these challenges

before we send people through this

region of space how is it possible that

one of the very few astronauts to have

ever crossed the Van Allen belts doesn't

even know where they are and even doubts

having gone far enough out to encounter

the Van Allen belts

let's now discuss the actual lunar

landings we will start by examining the

lunar spaceship or land which has

allegedly brought 12 astronauts to walk

on the surface of the Moon in the course

of six different missions the lamp or

lunar module is the vehicle that was

designed to carry astronauts to the

surface of the Moon but this very land

raises so many questions that many doubt

this vehicle has actually ever reached

the moon they suspect this is only a

mock-up model sitting on a movie set

instead

seen from a distance the LEM appears

like a technological wonder but once we

get up close we realize that it looks

more like a mock-up model somehow put

together with steel tubes and Pappy

Amash a held together with simple scotch

tape one immediately catches the eye is

the large amounts of scotch tape

haphazardly placed here and there as if

it were a last minute job with

temperatures that can reach over 200

degrees in the Sun doesn't seem like a

smart idea do you scotch tape everywhere

the debunkers however claimed that there

is a specific reason for the use of this

explanation doesn't stand to scrutiny as

one could see the lamb is full of metal

rivets everywhere there is therefore no

explanation for the sloppiness in the

construction of the lunar module with

the engines covered with aluminum foil

the external panel is not even lining up

with each other and the scotch tape that

seems added at the last moment just to

keep the gather pieces that would

otherwise fall apart

the lunar module cost over two billion

dollars at the time which is the

equivalent of twenty 1 billion dollars

in 2016 currency are we truly to believe

that NASA has spent all this money to

send a vehicle covered with loose

of cardboard into space the second

problem posed by the lamb is that there

is no crater in the sand caused by the

jet of the engine during the landing

according to the debunkers this crater

should not exist at all because the lamb

uses very little power when it lands

they say and it does so on a rocky

volcanic surface anyway so la Luna

solutions esto de gravity' empezó que

debe ser sostenuto da Amadora you say

Stoke windy La La's Pinta cave-in ask

Erica to Salter animal to modesta Nansha

motivo d produ ron critera altitudinal

super feature wrote Rosa the rocks of

volcanic a common koala de la Luna

but the surface where the lamb

supposedly landed is not rocky at all

like activist emo claims Neil Armstrong

himself refutes the statement when he

describes a fine-grained almost powdery

surface instead a similar comment is

made by Alan Shepard one of the

astronauts from Apollo 14 James Irwin

from Apollo 15 even describes a layer of

soft soil about six inches deep around

the LEM footpads in fact during the

landing approach we can clearly see

large amounts of dust being blown away

by the lens engine but then why is there

no hollow underneath this animation

helps us better understand what should

have happened during the landing on the

moon

just like this leaf blower which blows

away the dust on the surface and reveals

the hard rock underneath we would expect

to see a hollow in the sand under the

LEM revealing the hard terrain under the

surface but the hollow is not there this

animation shows the landing of the

Phoenix probe on Mars which took place

in 2008 as one can see the Phoenix also

uses rockets to land on the surface of

the planet and these are the actual

images sent back to earth by the Phoenix

after it landed as one could see the

sand on the surface has been blown away

by the rockets which are seen above

revealing the hard terrain underneath

why hasn't the same thing happened under

the lunar module question if a simple

leaf blower can remove the dust from the

surface revealing the hard rock

underneath why has the same not happened

under the engine of the lamb and why do

we still see several pebbles sitting

under the engine which weren't even

blown away during the landing of the

lamb given the James Irwin described

about six inches deep of soft material

around the foot pads

why is there no hole in the sand under

his lens engine cone

a problem connected to the missing

crater under the rocket is the total

absence of dust in the landing footpaths

if this is the dust being blown in all

directions during the landing

why is there no trace of the dust in the

footpads whatsoever in this case

activism Oh seems to have a very

particular explanation as well

primo miss Jana remote experimental le

ordinary no apena to kill swollen Davis

paneer in motor inveterate antal

emotional attention and equal prima Luna

okay no she's not the quality spring

animatronic that's under motor heso

spots on over here to top all that I

could say in Turin modern era the pure

crystalline surface on a fully but the

statement by activist emo is

demonstrably false all one has to do is

check the original video from the

landing of Apollo 11 to realize that

Armstrong orders the engine shut off

right after the contact lights have come

on which is before the lamb actually

touches the ground

[Applause]

okay engine stop a PA at a decent also

in the statement released after the

mission

Armstrong confirms that the engine shut

off took place just before the lamb

touched the ground in any case

furthermore the absence of dust in the

footpads can also be noticed in other

missions such as Apollo 12 or Apollo 14

which means the explanation by activist

emo is not valid anyway in any case the

debunkers must make up their mind you

cannot maintain that the jet from the

engine was too weak to create a hollow

in the sand and yet strong enough to

completely blow off the sand from the

footpads during the moon landing one of

the two statements must be false we then

asked the following questions given that

this is the amount of dust thrown around

by the descent engine

why is there no dust whatsoever in the

lens footpads how is it possible that

the jet from the engine is at the same

time strong enough to wipe the footpads

clean but weak enough not to even form a

crater in the sand during the moon

landing

let's now examine one of the most

important problems regarding the lamb

the absence of a visible flame under the

engine during the departure from the

moon the lunar module consisted of two

separate blocks placed one above the

other

peach block was equipped with an

independent engine the first one was

used to land the entire spaceship on the

lunar surface

the second was used for the liftoff of

the upper part of the spaceship the one

carrying the astronauts both engines

used a special kind of fuel called

hypergolic this is a fuel that burns on

simple contact between two chemical

components with no need for an actual

ignition system the debunkers claim that

the reason for the missing flame is due

precisely to the use of hypergolic fuel

on his website bad astronomy debunker

Phil Plait writes there is actually a

simple reason why you cannot see the

flame from the lander when it took off

the fuels they used produced no visible

flame in his book activist mo also

writes the product of combustion from

these fuels is colorless and transparent

this is why there is no flame under the

LEM when it takes off but these

statements are false hypergolic fuels

produce a clearly visible flame both on

earth and in the vacuum of space this is

a test from the engine of the rocket

space X which uses hypergolic fuel as

one can see the flame is clearly visible

during the combustion and this is a test

of the lems ascent engine exactly the

one we are discussing now to keep it

simple it used so-called hypergolic

propellants a rocket fuel and an

oxidizer that explode on contact

the long flame from the hypergolic fuel

is clearly visible under the lems engine

during combustion in the original images

from the Apollo missions however there

is no visible flame this is Apollo 15

lifting off from the moon this is Apollo

16 and this is Apollo 17 in all cases

there is no visible flame under the

engine during liftoff some might think

that hypergolic fuel which is clearly

visible on earth for some reason may

become invisible in the vacuum of space

but it is not so and there are several

examples to prove it this is a Draco

engine which uses hypergolic fuel tested

in a vacuum chamber as one can see the

flame produced by the engine is clearly

visible the Space Shuttle also uses

hypergolic fuel for its orientation

rockets and the emissions from the

rockets are clearly visible during the

maneuvers in the vacuum of space this is

another image from the shuttle

maneuvering in space the jet from the

hypergolic fuel is clearly visible this

is a saw you spaceship filmed as it

approaches the International Space

Station the saw use also uses hypergolic

fuels for its directional rockets and

also in this case the Jets are clearly

visible despite being in the vacuum of

space in fact they are even more visible

because they are pitched against the

blackness of space

all these examples show how hypergolic

fuels are also clearly visible in the

vacuum of space we then ask the

following question given that this is

the lambs ascent engine tested on earth

why is there no visible flame under it

when it takes off from the moon not only

does the lamb engine not release any

flame from the nozzle it also seems to

produce no particular noise this is the

noise produced by the Lambs ascent

engine during a ground test yet during

the ascent from the moon no particular

noise can be heard inside the cabin only

the calm voice of the astronauts with no

engine noise in the background some

debunkers claim that the engine sound

gets dispersed into the vacuum of space

outside the cabin and therefore no

particular noise should be heard from

the inside but the cabin is pressurized

and the engine is located right in the

middle of it between the two astronauts

this NASA technician shows us exactly

where the engine is located inside the

LEM this is the upper docking hatch

through which the astronauts will enter

the LEM from the command and service

module they will step down here on the

ascent engine cover the engine we looked

at before is right on the other side of

this cover and the very website clavius

states that the ascent engine is mounted

inside the spacecraft not attached to

the bottom of it activism Oh also

confirms that the astronauts inside the

LEM are literally sitting on the engine

yes not the American you know sir duty

literalmente sumoto

thus the engine which is in direct

contact with the pressurized environment

of the cabin should definitely be heard

another explanation by the debunkers for

the lack of engine noise is that the

microphones used in aerospace for pilots

and crew are built to operate in

the environment you have to speak very

close to the microphone in order for the

sound to be picked up but there is no

such thing as magic microphones capable

of fully excluding the background noise

if the engine noise can reach the areas

of the astronaut it will necessarily be

picked up by the microphone as well

furthermore during the liftoff of Apollo

15 a curious thing happened moments

after takeoff one of the astronauts

turned on a portable recorder placed

inside the cabin in order to have some

musical background

[Applause]

[Applause]

as one can hear music coming from the

recorder is clearly picked up by the

microphone while the noise from the

engine which is pushing at full throttle

at this time cannot be heard at all

question given that as confirmed by the

debunkers the astronauts are literally

sitting on the engine why don't we hear

any sounds from the engine during

liftoff

given that during the Apollo 15 liftoff

we are even able to hear the music from

the tape recorder in the cabin why don't

we hear the sound of the engine as well

the liftoff from the moon is possibly

the most delicate moment of the entire

mission the astronauts must keep their

total concentration and they must be

able to communicate with one another

instantly in case something were to go

wrong why then put their safety at risk

by playing loud music inside the cabin

which could have distracted them from

the operations and could have kept them

from communicating clearly in a moment

of distress

obviously in order to verify whether the

lunar module was actually capable of

landing and taking off from the moon all

one would have to do is to take the

original designs from the LEM and feed

them into a modern simulation computer

with today's computers it would be very

easy to verify all of the lems

functionalities without the need of

actually sending the machine into space

unfortunately though the original

designs from the lunar module are

nowhere to be found

apparently Grumman the construction

company chose to get rid of them because

they took up too much space to justify

this incomprehensible act the debunking

website Clavius Wright's Grumman is an

aerospace engineering firm not a museum

it did not wish to house the hundred

thousand cubic feet or so of design

documentation at its expense but then

why not donate them to a museum the lam

is the only machine that has ever

carried human beings onto another

celestial body its historical value is

unique and there must be dozens of

museums around the world that would have

killed just to be able to display its

construction designs instead we are

asked to believe that all this

documentation has been turned into trash

just because there wasn't enough space

to store it even more disconcerting than

the disappearance of the LEM designs is

the disappearance of the original tapes

that contained the images from the first

moonwalk by Neil Armstrong now nearly 40

years after the first moon landing nASA

has confessed that the original film

depicting Neil Armstrong's giant leap

has been lost

well not lost says NASA just can't be

found we are simply talking about the

single most important document in the

history of mankind the first step of a

human being on another celestial body

which was recorded on magnetic tape by

the receiving stations on earth as such

one would expect these tapes to be kept

under lock in a thermally controlled

environment in a place accessible only

to a restricted number of people instead

NASA candidly tells us that the original

tapes no longer

so shocking was this fact that filmmaker

Aaron ranan wanted to verify it in

person interviewing the form of flight

director of the Apollo 11 mission Gene

Kranz I haven't seen anything that

indicates the kilometer II data is even

in existence and as I said even if we

had it we don't have the machines to

play it back but you're you your own

research has shown the tumor data is

missing that's right

also from NASA's official archives at

Goddard Space Center in Maryland

Aaron ranan received the same

embarrassing answer we've been unable to

track it down I mean we don't know where

this this telemetry data ended up and we

don't know the what what path it may

have taken so unfortunately I'm afraid I

can't really give you much of a clue as

to as to where this data ended up and

whether it still exists or not but

listen to what the explanation by the

debunkers is for this unconceivable fact

procedure aunty util examination at the

BBC forest and register soon attraction

Venus to the telemetry nominal fee only

in the following edition segundo proxy

the Kentucky no no no the Omni is a

physical material omission it's an

accommodation on dr. conserva 13 astra

course so according to activism oh there

is an actual procedure at NASA that

leads to the automatic cancellation of

tapes if people no longer request them

even if those tapes contain simply the

most important documentation in the

history of mankind one thing should be

clear in itself the loss of the original

tapes of the moonwalk would not

represent an irreparable damage there

are copies of the same moonwalk recently

digitalized

which are even better than the lost

original the problem is that besides the

moonwalk those tapes also contains some

important telemetry data ranging from

the astronauts heartbeat to the very

location of the Lamb in

bass at the time this means that if the

lamb had not found itself on the surface

of the Moon at that time or if the

situation on board had been any

different from what we were told the

telemetry data would have clearly

revealed it so if one chooses to he can

believe the story of the tapes that were

raised because they were too expensive

for everyone else

one question becomes unavoidable what

was so important in those tapes that

NASA had to come up with such a

preposterous excuse just to ensure they

would no longer be available to

scientists and researchers from modern

times let's now take a closer look at

the telecommunications between Earth and

the moon there are several elements that

don't add up in this area like for

example the delay in the radio

communications between Houston and the

astronauts the earth and the moon are

about 240,000 miles apart for this

reason a radio signal takes about 1.3

seconds to reach our satellite and

another 1.3 seconds to come back to

earth this means that when Houston asked

a question to the astronauts on the moon

the reply should have taken at least 2.6

seconds to come back to earth 1.3

seconds for the question to reach the

astronaut 1.3 seconds for his answer to

come back there are some cases however

where the answer from the astronaut

comes back much faster here is one

example

and are you progressing towards dune

crater now yes the answer is almost

immediate it takes a little over a

second for it to come back

Roger Jim copy and are you progressing

towards dune crater now this is the

soundtrack from the original audio this

segment contains the question coming

from Houston and this is the answer by

the astronaut the gap between the end of

the question and the answer is only 1.1

seconds

Roger Jim copy and are you progressing

towards doing crater now too short for

this communication to have really come

from the moon to examine the audio

delays we have obviously used the

original unmodified tapes from NASA

distributed around the world by

spacecraft films if there is one thing

everybody agrees on it's that the DVDs

by spacecraft films are the only

originals that can be used as reference

for any kind of research palo activism

all confirms this in one of his

conferences in this conference activism

o also confirms that the original tapes

are unedited and uncut same thing is

confirmed by Clavius one of the most

authoritative debunking websites on the

lunar issue the DVDs by spacecraft films

writes clavius contain the digital

transfers of original apollo film and

video unedited what is interesting is

that if one checks the Apollo journal

website instead where NASA has reloaded

the lunar transmissions broken up in

small clips the audio delay appears to

be inserted correctly this is the audio

track from the same scene downloaded

from the Apollo journal the question

coming from Houston is unchanged while

the answer seems to have been moved up

to some four seconds later Roger Jim

copy and are you progressing towards

dune crater now

yes it's as if someone in reloading the

clip had realized that the answer came

too soon and had inserted a pause to

produce the proper delay but in the

original audio from spacecraft films

this delay he does not exist this

conversation cannot have taken place

between the earth and the moon

here is another example where the

astronauts answer comes too quickly

we're interested in either documented

samples or raike sample there if you

think it looks like a good area for

example 1.6 seconds the reply comes at

least one second too soon for having

originated on the moon there's even one

case from the same mission where the

answer takes less than a second to come

back to base nine tenths of a second to

be exempt it's as if this astronaut were

standing in a room next door rather than

actually being on the moon question

given that we have examined the original

videos from space craft films and that

the debunkers themselves acknowledge

that these videos are unedited and uncut

can you explain why in several instances

the delay between the question and the

answer is far shorter than it should be

if the conversation had truly taken

place between the earth and the moon

another aspect of the telecommunications

that raises serious questions are the

live television broadcasts from the moon

the first three lunar missions Apollo 11

12 and 14 had sent some rather poor TV

pictures back to earth but beginning

with Apollo 15 the technology for the

live broadcasts had definitely improved

not only did the astronauts now have the

Luna Jeep called Rover but they also had

a new color camera that was mounted

right in the front of the rover this

allowed the public to follow the

different operations on the lunar

surface on live television

this camera dubbed Rover TV was remotely

operated

by a specialized technician from Houston

to transmit the images back to earth the

astronauts used a special

umbrella-shaped antenna which was also

mounted on the rover obviously the

astronauts could only broadcast live

images when the vehicle was stopped

between one station and the next because

the umbrella needed to be pointed with

great precision towards the Earth before

any broadcast could begin the earth and

the moon are some 240,000 miles away and

a small error in the angle of sight

would be enough to completely miss the

target from the NASA website we can read

the high-gain antenna produced a beam

tight enough that an adequate TV signal

could be received by 85 meter dishes on

earth this antenna had a nominal gain of

24 decibels in the center which dropped

to 20 point 5 decibels on a 10 degrees

cone in other words by increasing the

transmission angle the signal would

rapidly degrade pointing the antenna

with sufficient accuracy was tricky

rights NASA a preliminary alignment made

by sighting along the transmitter mast

had to be done carefully after that the

astronauts carried out a precision

pointing by using an optical device

mounted directly on the antenna from

NASA's training manual we read bore

sighting the high gain antenna to the

earth requires an optical aid since a

full Earth subtends an angle of less

than 2 degrees when viewed from the

lunar surface this is the aiming reticle

from the optical device each square

represents an angle of 3 degrees the

high gain antenna pointing States NASA

must remain within 2.5 degrees of Earth

this occurs when the Earth's image is

within the bull's eye of the optical

sight the video signal will degrade

extremely rapidly beyond that point due

to the very narrow antenna radiation

pattern in other words even a

misalignment of a couple of degrees in

pointing the antenna would have resulted

in the earth target being missed we must

keep in mind that both the TV camera and

the transmitting antenna

are mounted on the rover which means

that any oscillation of the camera

implies an equal oscillation of the

antenna this is a well known problem for

television crews who broadcast images

via satellite their mobile units are

normally equipped with special pods that

are extended once the transmitting

vehicle is in position in order to avoid

oscillations of any kind and on earth

the margin of error is much larger than

that of a broadcast from the moon since

the distance from the geostationary

satellites on earth is much shorter than

the distance between the earth and the

moon it is therefore evident that in

order to maintain the live connection

with the earth the rover needed to

remain practically still for the entire

duration of the broadcast what we have

instead is a series of situations in

which the astronauts violently shake the

rover and thus also the antenna without

the broadcast ever breaking down this

usually happens when one of the

astronauts touches the rover to drop or

retrieve some tools in order to assess

the actual oscillations one needs to

look at how much the line of the horizon

in the background moves up and down

[Music]

being equipped with very soft

suspensions the rover shakes quite

visibly as soon as anyone touches it yet

as we have said before the television

signal never breaks down

we must remember that each oscillation

of the camera corresponds to an equal

oscillation by the antenna and yet as if

by magic the television signal never

breaks down nor does it degrade at all

[Music]

seen through the optical device the

oscillations of the antenna must have

looked something like this

question on earth transmitting vehicles

are normally equipped with stabilizing

pots in order to keep them from shaking

during the broadcast

why didn't NASA think of placing

something similar on the rover since it

was supposed to broadcast from a

distance dozens of times higher than a

simple earth satellite given that

according to nasa's manual the high gain

antenna pointing must remain within 2.5

degrees of Earth and that the video

signal will degrade extremely rapidly

beyond that point how is it possible to

broadcast images with such violent

oscillations without the signal breaking

nor degrading during the live feeds from

the moon let's now examine another

interesting problem the behavior of the

dust on the moon on earth the dust

remains attached to objects thanks to

the humidity of the air on the moon

however there is no atmosphere and

therefore there is no humidity

theoretically lunar dust should not be

able to stick to any particular surface

looking at the images from the Apollo

missions though we have dozens of

situations in which the lunar dust

sticks everywhere that happens mostly on

the astronauts suits with dust sticking

not only to the lower part of their legs

but also to the arms trunk and even the

backpacks often it's the astronauts

themselves who noticed the amount of

dust that sticks to them from Houston

Center someone has noticed the problem

as well just inexplicably sticks to the

surface of the cameras and their lenses

too

the astronauts often complain about this

sometimes the problem is so serious that

they can't even read the settings same

problem for the television cameras used

by the astronauts in this case we notice

several speckles of dust that are stuck

to the camera lens here instead the

entire lens is covered by dust the

lighter spots are the only areas of the

lens not covered by dust sometimes the

astronauts realize this by themselves in

other cases requests to clean the lens

comes directly from the control center

these images shot on earth show dust

particles that stick to the lens because

of humidity why does the same happen on

the lens used by the astronauts given

that there is no humidity on the moon

also the genome on this color chart used

by the astronauts simply refuses to stay

clean it's not just the astronauts suits

and instruments that get covered with

dust for example look at the lunar rover

with the frame and the engine

protections fully covered with dust or

the fenders from the rover with dust

sticking on the inside of the wheels and

on the outside as well

some debunkers have suggested that all

this dust may stick to objects because

of some kind of electrostatic effect but

this explanation is not plausible for at

least two reasons first of all we're

talking about completely different

materials from one another the astronaut

suits the photo cameras the

surface of the lunar rover the lenses

from the TV cameras secondly NASA itself

excludes this possibility when they

explained that an electrostatic effect

can possibly take place in the shadow

areas of the moon but in the areas hit

by sunlight this effect is instantly

dissipated by the solar wind from this

NASA document which studies the

electrostatic charges on the surface of

the Moon we can read in the photo

electron dominated daylight plasma

region the charge dissipates almost

instantly in all cases thus charging on

the lunar day side is not an issue

furthermore in some cases more than dust

we seem to be looking at actual mud look

for example at this wheel from the lunar

rover or this other image from the wheel

of the rover with the rim that seems

completely covered in mud it's as if we

were looking at a muddy wheel from an

all-terrain vehicle down on earth

there's also another even more puzzling

example this is a thermal degradation

experiment conducted during the Apollo

14 mission how could the sand have

compacted itself enough to appear like

mud in a moisture less environment there

is also another detail worth mentioning

these metal plates have a series of

letters and numbers engraved on their

surface subsequently these letters and

numbers have filled up with sand but how

can the send preserve the shape of the

number once dislodged from the original

place where it was formed here for

example we can see the number 5 which

has kept its shape even after being

dislodged from the engraving and here is

the number 3 also keeping its shape

after it was dislodged how can the sand

keep the original shape after having

been dislodged from the engraving if we

are truly in a moist ulis environment

possibly the biggest problem wall is the

one posed by the footprints that the

astronauts allegedly left on the surface

of the Moon wherever they go

the astronauts leave very sharp

footprints on the ground

but how is it possible for lunar dust to

remain so hardly compacted to the point

of maintaining the shape of the boot

being that there is no atmosphere on the

moon and therefore there is no humidity

we know that in order to give sand a

specific shape it is necessary to wet it

first if the sand is dry the sand grains

won't stick to each other and the shape

will not be preserved the debunkers

however maintain that lunar dust which

is called regolith is much sharper than

the sand on earth to this reason they

argue the simple pressure from the boot

is enough to compact it even in total

absence of moisture in order to prove

their theory the Mythbusters have asked

NASA for an exact replica of the moon

boot and for a certain amount of a

special dust prepared by NASA which has

very similar characteristics to lunar

dust so for this test nASA has given us

a lunar regolith simulate it's

manufactured to test equipment that is

going to the moon it's very similar to

lunar dust in the fact that each

particle is very sharp dirt on earth it

has been weather so it's very smooth so

this is as close to lunar dust as we can

get it's one kind of dust that Paulo

atavism Oh is also very familiar with

question Campione a simulant se camera

similar to the regula take a lap all

very de luna synthetic Ocasio super

colloid re ve college boy Tamara Nasser

la Luna the Mythbusters have conducted

their experiment in a vacuum chamber in

the total absence of moisture thus

replicating the same conditions found on

the moon the rig is ready to take its

one-legged step and the vacuum chamber

has been

thank you food stop vacuum here we go in

three two we noticed that the

Mythbusters have even added some counter

weights to their device in order to

simulate the exact weight of the

astronauts foot on the lunar soil look

at that we made a footprint inside of a

vacuum and there was no water vapor

which is what this conspiracy theory is

all about the Mythbusters seem very

eager to celebrate but in reality they

have not succeeded at all in replicating

the original footprints by the

astronauts just look at how solid and

squared the little bars of sand that

have formed under the astronauts boot

are they are almost perfect geometric

solids with sharp edges and well-defined

contours these sand bars are so solid

and compacted that they even retain

their shape after they are broken in

pieces

it's as if we were looking at a clay

model that has later dried up in the Sun

it is clear that we are looking at a

very different result from the one

obtained by the Mythbusters in the

vacuum chamber if we were to break apart

or even just try to move one of these

sand bars they would certainly not

remain compacted nor would they retain

their shape in conclusion the

Mythbusters with their experiment have

proven the exact opposite of what they

intended to prove in absence of humidity

it's absolutely impossible to replicate

the astronauts footprints question given

that there is no moisture on the moon

and that the solar wind dissipates

electrostatic charges almost instantly

can you explain why the lunar dust

sticks to all kinds of materials from

the astronauts suits to the photo

cameras from the rover surfaces to the

TV camera lenses

can you explain how the rover's wheels

can gather so much thick dirt on them as

to look like they're covered in mud can

you explain how the luna dust can stick

together to such an extent even

preserving the shape of the numbers

after they were moved from the

engravings in which they had formed

given that the Mythbusters have

replicated the lunar conditions under

vacuum and with the sand simulant can

you explain why they were enabled to

reproduce the astronauts footprints from

the original photos

[Music]

if it's true like many believe that the

Apollo missions were filmed in a studio

on earth one of the biggest problems

would have been to simulate the lunar

gravity which is about one-sixth of the

gravity on earth the most common

technique to obtain such an effect has

always been the use of steel wires

extremely thin and invisible to the

camera steel wires were already in use

in the early 1960s in movies such as

Mary Poppins and even today they're

regularly used like in the film

magnificent desolation precisely to

replicate the lunar walks of the Apollo

missions connected to a sophisticated

system of pulleys and counterweights

steel wires allow the astronaut to

reduce his weight until a perfect

simulation of the lunar gravity is

achieved another way to obtain a similar

effect is to connect two steel wires to

balloons filled with helium this system

was used for example in the television

series from the earth to the moon

produced by Tom Hanks this also produces

the effect of reducing the astronauts

wait until lunar gravity is simulated

there is a problem however with steel

wires while they are normally invisible

to the camera they may get hit by the

light at a particular angle making them

momentarily visible on the screen and

this is exactly what seems to have

happened in the sequence from Apollo 14

while the astronauts are busy near the

LEM at one point some flashes of light

can be seen above the head of one of

them the initial flash is certainly

caused by the antenna mounted on the

backpack this antenna which is about one

foot long often reflects the light that

hits it but then there is a second flash

right above the first one which cannot

be attributed to the

antenna and looks exactly like one

caused by a steel wire let's watch again

in slow motion this is the contour of

the astronaut with the backpack on his

shoulders this is the antenna causing

the first flash of light and this is the

second flash of light definitely above

the first one which cannot be ascribed

to the antenna there is something else

reflecting the light some three feet

above the astronauts head and this

something cannot be a flare in the lens

from the first flash because the second

flash occurs after the first one and not

simultaneously a similar case occurs

during the Apollo 17 mission here too we

see a double flash of light from the

antenna and then another flesh much

higher right above the astronauts head

in this case this cannot be a flare

inside the lens either because the flash

above occurs after the ones below and

not simultaneously there is something

else reflecting the light a few feet

above the astronauts head in a space

that should be totally void of objects

of any kind the debunkers however

maintained that these are not flashes of

light on steel wires but simple defects

due to the video conversion on his

website activism or rights they are not

wires or cables they are usually

compression artifacts or mistakes

introduced by the video conversion from

one format to the other for example for

the publication on YouTube the original

videos which we should always use as a

reference instead of using copies

converted so many times do not present

these phenomena but activism always

wrong what we have just shown you are

the original non converted videos by

spacecraft films the same originals that

activism oh says should be used for

reference or analysis anybody who owns

the original videos can verify that the

flashes of light we have shown are

already there they are not the effect of

compression or video conversions as

claimed by activist emo furthermore the

flashes of light aren't the only thing

suggesting that steel wires were used in

the scenes from the moon

there are also several instances in

which the astronauts seem to be rising

from the ground with no effort

whatsoever as if some invisible force

were pulling them up let's analyze some

of these situations this astronaut is

leaning on the ground and then he

suddenly gets up with no apparent effort

it's as if a mysterious force were

suddenly pulling him up from the ground

here the astronaut is suddenly pulled

upwards and then remains dangling while

rotating on himself let's watch it again

[Music]

here the astronaut is first pulled up

and then seems to remain floating in

mid-air it looks like a puppet hanging

from some invisible strings here the

Fallen astronaut gets up from the ground

as if a mysterious force were pulling

him up through his backpack let's watch

it again from up close here the

astronaut is working with some tools

when suddenly a mysterious force yanked

him upwards and to his right let's watch

it again

[Music]

there is even a situation where the

astronaut complains that he cannot get

up and he almost seems to wait for

someone or something to pull him up the

astronaut waits until a mysterious force

helps him up in this case the astronaut

falls forward but somehow remains

suspended in midair in fact if we look

more closely we notice that he first

remains floating in mid-air then a

mysterious force pulls him upwards here

we have a case of apparent levitation

the astronaut on the left takes a leap

forward and then remains floating in

mid-air his legs dangling while a

strange force pulls him upwards let's

watch it again in slow motion

[Music]

and finally here's a very curious

situation look at the movement the

astronaut manages to make with both his

legs first forward and then backwards

without leaning onto anything

it's as if his feet were free to slide

first forward and then backwards on the

ground underneath if we straighten the

frame in order to place the astronaut

vertically we will see that he is not

just lifting himself on his toes the

entire lower part of the leg from the

knee down is sliding forwards then

backwards but how is it possible to

slide with both feet at the same time

first forward and then backwards without

an external force pulling you upwards in

the meantime question given that these

are not artifacts from video conversion

nor are they glares inside the lens

can you explain what these flashes of

light sometimes appearing over the head

of the astronauts actually are can you

explain how it is possible to make a

movement such as this one this one or

this one without some kind of external

force pulling you upwards the last set

of evidence includes elements that

suggest the presence of air on the set

of the lunar pictures as we all know

there is no atmosphere on the moon which

means the astronauts should be moving in

a situation of absolute vacuum there are

different elements however suggesting

that we are in the presence of air

instead one such element is the behavior

of the clouds of dust behind the wheels

of the rover if we were in the absence

of air all the sound lifted by the

wheels should follow a perfect parabolic

trajectory from the moment it leaves the

wheel until the moment it falls to the

ground being that there is no air to

slow them down in their path both the

heavier particles of sand and the

lighter ones should follow the same

parabolic trajectory on earth instead

the lighter particles of sand are slowed

down by the impact with the air and

remain suspended for a few seconds in

midair forming the typical clouds of

dust it can be seen behind the car

wheels

this phenomenon can be observed in many

different situations simply kicking up

some sand during a golf game or during a

motocross race but it is a phenomenon

that can also be observed behind the

wheels of the lunar rover where instead

it should not happen for example look at

these clouds of dust that remain

momentarily suspended in midair behind

the rover's wheels as we have said

before without an atmosphere no cloud

should be forming at all all the sand

particles both the heavier and the

lighter ones should follow the same

parabolic arch this is also confirmed by

clavius if an atmosphere is dense enough

writes the website it can hold small

particles suspended against gravity for

a short time

none of that would happen on the moon

because there's nothing to keep the dust

particles suspended and yet small clouds

of dust formed repeatedly behind the

rover's wheels and briefly remain

suspended in midair before falling to

the ground all of this should not happen

if we were actually on the moon where no

atmosphere is present here is another

situation suggesting that we are in the

presence of air the golden material on

the right is a thermal covering mounted

on the front of the rover we often see

this covering float up and down during

the rover's transfers from one station

to the next when the rover is stationary

however this covering should not move

given that there is no air to lift it up

there is a situation however where the

covering seems to be moving by itself

but first we cannot tell whether it was

the astronaut who touched it but then we

see that while the astronaut is brushing

the dust away the thermal cover floats

by itself more than once as if a soft

breeze were lifting it from below

there is also another curious case again

during the Apollo 16 mission when one of

the astronauts closes this flap on the

rover we notice a puff of dust being

blown upwards let's watch it again in

slow motion some may suggest it could

have been a vibration to move the sand

but in reality the entire rover is

covered by sand if there was a vibration

all the sand would move at once here

instead the sand is blown upwards in one

specific spot only and exactly next to

the flap being closed

let's now tackle one of the most debated

and well-known issues in the entire

lunar discussion flags waving in the

vacuum in the videos from the Apollo

missions we can often see the American

flag waving but it's hard to tell

whether it waves because it was moved by

a gust of air or just because the

astronaut is touching the flagpole the

Mythbusters have conducted an experiment

in a vacuum chamber to prove that even

in absence of air the flag can continue

waving for a while after the astronaut

has touched it is flag waving test

and stop so the vacuum the flag move you

know not just a little bit it actually

moved quite a bit so that proves you

don't need wind in order to move the

flag in a vacuum but then it's the

Mythbusters themselves who raise the

antique by throwing this challenge so

unless someone finds a shot of the flag

flapping without an astronaut

manipulating the flagpole it's

mythbusted

unless someone finds a shot of the flag

flapping without an astronaut

manipulating the flagpole they said well

we have found at least three situations

where the flag waves without anyone

touching it the first one is from this

television sequence from Apollo 15 here

one of the two astronauts is standing

next to the flag having his picture

taken by his colleague this is one of

the shots taken and this is the camera

mounted on the rover broadcasting the

images on live television

after a while the astronaut exits frame

to the left a few seconds later one of

the two astronauts walks back in front

of the camera headed to the LEM after he

passes we noticed that the flag is

waving without anyone having touched it

let's watch again

[Music]

some debunkers have suggested that the

astronaut could have touched the flag

with his elbow as he was passing by but

a simple triangulation with the

photographic image shows that this was

not possible in order to fill up the

frame to this point from the top of the

head to the waist the astronaut must

have been somewhere halfway between the

flag and the camera there is too much

distance for him to have touched the

flag with his elbow other debunkers like

activism Oh

accept the fact that the astronaut did

not touch the flag but suggests that the

waving was caused by some kind of

electrostatic discharge as we have seen

earlier

however there cannot be any

electrostatic phenomena on the sunny

side of the Moon because the solar wind

almost instantly dissipates any possible

charge that were to accumulate

furthermore a hypothetical electrostatic

effect could take place at most when the

astronaut is right next to the flag a

few inches away but as we have seen

before the distance between the

astronaut and the flag is quite

substantial in any case if we look more

closely at the astronaut entering frame

we noticed that the flag begins to move

even before the astronaut passes by this

clearly excludes both an electrostatic

discharge and the possibility that the

astronaut could have touched the flag

with his elbow the only plausible

explanation for the waving of the flag

seems to be a displacement of air caused

by the astronaut walking by here's

another case in which the flag waves

without anyone touching it this is the

famous scene from Apollo 16 where the

astronauts photograph each other while

jumping next to the flag initially the

first astronaut proceeds to take a

picture of his colleague and asks him to

jump high in the air

here we go a big one oh there we go

then when they trade places we notice

that the flag waves without anyone

touching it if we speed up the playback

the flags movement becomes even more

evident

a little later when the second astronaut

has also taken the picture they both

walk by the flag making it wave again

without anyone touching it again the

same shot in fast-forward

there is finally a very interesting case

in which the flag waves repeatedly by

itself more than once while the

astronauts are on board of the lunar

module this is the Apollo 14 mission at

the end of the second and last lunar

excursion the two astronauts are getting

ready to re-enter the lam when one of

them accidentally trips into the

television cable causing the camera to

fall to the ground after a few seconds

the same astronaut approaches the camera

and puts it back in position while his

colleague begins climbing the ladder of

the lam

after this the first astronaut heads

back to the LEM from this moment on no

one will touch the camera again the

first astronaut completes some loading

operations by means of a pulley then

climbs the ladder as well as the two

astronauts close up the lamb and prepare

for departure the camera continues to

take in the empty scene fifteen minutes

go by without anything happening at all

but then at some point without anyone

possibly touching it we notice the flag

waving and partially entering frame on

the right side of the picture after 15

seconds the flag moves in the other

direction returning to the original

position after another 20 seconds the

flag enters frame again as if a light

breeze were moving it

the flag remains visible for about half

a minute then disappears again to the

right a couple of minutes later the same

thing happens for the third time the

flag enters frame from the right it

exits then waves back in and eventually

disappears from sight as we have said

before both astronauts are already in

the LEM and there's no one else around

who could have touched the flag

furthermore by using this white object

as a reference we can establish that the

frame does not pan from left to right

but it remains fixed in other words it

is not the camera moving sideways it's

the flag actually waving as it enters

and exits frame by itself some debunkers

have suggested that the waving of the

flag could be caused by emissions of gas

from the lamp

during the depressurization process but

this explanation does not stand up for

at least two reasons first of all any

ejected gas would immediately disperse

its pressure into the vacuum of space

and would not be able to create the

turbulence needed to move the flag

secondly we have seen that the flag

always moves initially from right to

left in other words it always moves

towards the lam before going in the

opposite direction in no case therefore

any hypothetical gases expelled from the

LEM could attract the flag towards the

lamb itself question given that there is

no atmosphere on the moon

can you explain what slows down and

suspends the sand particles in midair

forming small dust clouds before they

fall to the ground

given that the flag begins to move

even before the astronaut reaches it

which excludes both a static discharge

and a physical contact can you suggest

anything different from the displacement

of air to explain the flags movement

given that this flag waves not once but

twice without anyone touching it can you

explain what caused this flags movements

given that the astronauts have been in

the lam for at least 15 minutes and that

there is no one else around who could

have touched the flag can

you suggest anything different from a

displacement of air on the set to

explain the flags repeated movements

let's tackle now one of the most well

known and debated aspects of the entire

lunar discussion the photographs from

the Apollo missions in order to analyze

them in detail we have turned to the

experience of some world famous

photographers who have worked for all

the most important magazines in the

world all these photographers were

already professionally active in the

1970s using the same cameras and the

same kind of film used by NASA for the

Apollo pictures let's briefly introduce

them Tony Torey Mert photo reporter

portrait artist well-known fashion

photographer starting from the 1970s he

has worked for some of the most

prestigious magazines in Italy and

around the world Turin Bird has also

authored several books on photography

and currently runs a photo factory where

he regularly teaches photographic

technique his works have been presented

in several expositions around the world

including the Biennale of venecia and

the tree Analia of milan aldo FAL a

world-renowned fashion photographer with

more than 40 years of international

career under his belt starting from the

1980s he has been the official

photographer for Giorgio Armani with his

sophisticated and elegant style fell eye

has contributed to creating the fashion

image that has defined the Armani

trademark across the globe the lie has

published several photography books and

his pictures have been presented in many

international exhibitions on his name

Oliviero Toscani a fashion photographer

known all around the globe from the

1970s he has literally transformed the

concept of fashion pictures with his non

conformist irreverent style besides

having worked for all the most important

magazines in the world Toscani has

offered some of the most revolutionary

advertising campaigns of their times

such as those of Benetton guru Chi and

Jesus genes Pater Limburg among the top

photographers in the world for 40 years

Lindbergh is credited with launching on

the world stage the so called

supermodels a team of models including

Cindy Crawford

Evangelista Naomi Campbell Tatyana

petits Kate Moss Christy Turlington

which dominated the fashion scene around

the world in the closing decade of the

last century Lindbergh is the only one

among the professionals elite to have

been asked three times to photograph the

prestigious Pirelli calendar in 1996

2002 and in 2017 the favorite personal

photographer by many movie stars from

Charlotte Rampling

to Penelope Cruz from uma Thurman to

Nicole Kidman Lindbergh is considered

today simply one of the best living

photographers in the world also Massimo

mitsuko the author of this film has

worked as a fashion photographer for

over 20 years working for important

magazines in Italy United States Germany

and Australia before we analyzed the

Luna pictures in detail however we

should try to clear the field from some

incorrect arguments that are sometimes

used by those who claim we never went to

the moon

one of the most recurring mistakes is to

state that these pictures are fake

because there are no stars in the sky it

is in fact correct that there are no

visible stars in the sky whether the

pictures were taken on earth or actually

on the moon the land settings and the

exposure times that the astronauts used

were printed directly on the back of the

photo cameras lens aperture between 8

and 11 in full Sun shutter speed 1 250th

of a second anyone who has taken night

pictures with the old film cameras knows

that at 1 250th of a second gets

impossible to catch the light of the

stars in order to see the stars one must

extend the exposure time to at least one

full second if not 2 or 4 seconds Condor

jayvo determine which is only still

industry focused on ROM about to the

photo is still a member of my

professional confronted zona Mista

photographer I moved to Manila moved too

many illuminosa with each other recent

era busy remain to

it is therefore correct that there are

no visible stars in the Apollo pictures

whether these were taken on earth or

actually on the surface of the Moon

another wrong argument often used to

suggest that Luna fakery is that of the

so called fiducials these small

reference crosses that appear on all the

pictures taken on the surface of the

Moon there are cases some claim in which

the cross seems to disappear behind the

objects in the picture and since the

crosses are engraved on a glass located

in front of the film their absence these

people claim is a blatant proof of

manipulation if we take a look at the

High Definition originals however we

will find that the crosses are always

present sometimes their edge is washed

away by the bright objects behind them

but the cross never completely

disappears from the picture in

conclusion neither the absence of stars

nor the apparent disappearance of the

crosses can be used as a proof that the

lunar pictures are fake let's take a

look now at some of the real problems

with the lunar pictures to begin with we

must ask ourselves whether the film

containing the lunar pictures has ever

been on the moon at all for on this film

there is absolutely no trace of what

should have been the damage caused by

the radiation present in outer space

cosmic space outside the Van Allen belts

is filled with radiation of all kinds

you have solar eruptions hurtling

through space alpha particles protons

and electrons at over 1,000 miles per

second and then you have ultraviolet

rays x-rays gamma rays and cosmic rays

which originate directly from the heart

of our galaxy and are the most dangerous

and penetrating of all as explained in

this documentary on cosmic rays the fact

that these particles are practically

unstoppable is due to their extremely

high velocity the key to cosmic rays

transformational energy is speed

so even if it has really tiny masks like

most cosmic rays they've got enormous

velocity so their kinetic energy can be

really really large these charged

particles could hurdle right through a

spaceship and penetrate astronauts like

tiny ballistic missiles

obviously if cosmic rays can penetrate

spaceships they can just as easily

penetrate the body of a photo camera and

it's well-known that all these

radiations are very harmful to

photographic film this is explained by

Douglas Arnold who was assistant

managing director for Kodak at the time

of the Apollo missions you have an

enormous amount of radiation in space

and potentially it affects film of

course and of course as you as you well

know it is kupets Prime effect is on

contrast an extreme example comes from

the pictures of Chernobyl this is igor

kostin the Soviet photographer who shot

some of the most famous images of the

nuclear disaster of 1986 i processed me

pictures notice the negatives were black

the effects of radioactivity are clearly

visible on film the emulsion shows some

very heavy greening and the colors are

visibly altered but even less powerful

radiation can seriously damage

photographic film this Technical

Bulletin published by Kodak shows the

damage that can be caused a photographic

film even by a single pass under an

airport's x-ray scanner on the left and

original shot on the right the same film

after a single pass under the scanner

after five scans the film is completely

ruined and the image is barely visible

this is a well known problem to

professional photographers Dibby Dibby

pasar una película

raghida dinero quarter period boot

available in fact ovando son Dava Farah

via Jesus re-evaluate apart Oh Perez

cannot help you

here's another example with a four

hundred a si film the difference after a

single scan is quite evident contrast

and color saturation disappear and a

general fog seems to be covering the

entire image even with sensitivities

closer to those used in the Apollo

pictures the damage caused by a single

pass under the scanner is evident the

graining is present all across the

picture and it becomes particularly

visible in the darker areas of the image

here is another example at 200 AAS a a

single pass under the scanner has

completely ruined the blackness of the

night sky in the pictures from the

Apollo missions however the skies are

perfectly black the color saturation is

fully preserved and there is no greening

whatsoever in any part of the picture

and we must consider that the pictures

from the Apollo missions have been

exposed to cosmic rays which are much

more powerful and penetrating than

simple x-rays this educational film from

the 1960s describes how cosmic rays

leave a very evident mark on

photographic film well we don't get a

picture in the conventional sense but

the charged particles do leave

identifying tracks behind here's an

exposure which was made on a balloon

flight it shows a primary cosmic ray

particle hitting a nucleus in the film

emulsion also you see a an enlarged

photograph of one of these emulsion

plates we must keep in mind that this

experiment was conducted with a balloon

flight well below the Van Allen belts

were only a small part of the cosmic

rays from outer space manages to

penetrate on the moon however you don't

have the protection from the

magnetosphere and the amount of cosmic

rays that can damage both humans and

film is definitely much higher this is

explained by dr. David groves an expert

in photographic analysis we protected on

earth by a nice thick atmosphere and

that combined with the magnetic field

keep the

ionizing particles away from us unfilmed

in space you not offered that protection

in fact thanks to the probes that have

explored the moon in recent years we are

able to quantify with some accuracy the

fluxes of radioactive particles present

in the cosmos from this document

published by NASA we can read the cosmic

ray flux per square centimeter of lunar

surface per year contains an amount of

particles that translates to 4.5

particles per second per square

centimeter this document published by

the National Council on radiation

protection offers a similar amount for

particles per square centimeter per

second during a minimum of solar

activity this amount can be reduced up

to 4 times during a solar activity peak

thus on the moon we have an average flux

that can range from 1 to 4 radioactive

particles per second per square

centimeter a true downpour of cosmic

rays capable of penetrating any object

they were to find in their path

considering that the photo cameras have

been on the lunar surface for up to

eight consecutive hours with no specific

protection against radiation each roll

of film should have received tens of

thousands of impacts from the cosmic

rays damaging the pictures in a visible

way instead the pictures taken by the

astronauts show no damage whatsoever due

to radiation colors are perfect the

contrast is fully preserved and there is

no visible sign of graining on the

emulsion this apparently inexplicable

fact is remarked both by Douglas Arnold

and David groves

if you look at the results top-quality

duplicates you can see that there's

there appears to be no effect whatsoever

I would expect to see on the

transparencies evidence of small bright

dots where a high velocity nuclear

particle had impinged on that film I

have no evidence whatsoever that this

has occurred but how is this possible

after all it's NASA itself in this

document from the Skylab project who

writes the

radiation environment encountered during

earth orbital missions were studied

extensively the results indicated that

the radiation environment could severely

damage unprotected film the energy level

of the intergalactic cosmic rays

explains the document is so high that no

practical method exists for eliminating

cosmic radiation damage this degrading

factor must be accepted and though

significant it should not be

unacceptable for short-term exposure all

with relatively insensitive film types

we then asked the following questions

given that according to NASA no

practical method exists for eliminating

cosmic radiation damage and that this

degrading factor must be accepted where

is the degradation significant but

acceptable but should appear on the

lunar pictures given that this is the

result of cosmic rays impact on film

within the magnetosphere where radiation

is weaker than an external space can you

explain why on the lunar pictures there

are no visible signs of radiation damage

given that this is the result of a

simple x-ray scan which lasts only a few

seconds can you explain why in the

Apollo pictures which have been exposed

to cosmic radiation for up to eight

consecutive hours there is no visible

greening whatsoever given that the lunar

surface gets hit by an average of one to

four particles per square centimeter per

second and that the cameras have been

out on the surface unprotected for up to

eight consecutive hours can you explain

why on the lunar pictures there are no

signs of degradation due to the

radiation another question to be

answered is how could the cameras have

worked on the moon given the extreme

temperatures especially the cold that

are found on the surface of our

satellite being that there is no

atmosphere to soften the transition

between Sun and shadow on the moon

temperatures can easily go from 200 plus

degrees in the areas hit by the Sun to

temperatures of more than 200 degrees

below

Oh in the shadow in space you're facing

the Sun it's 240 degrees the darkside is

240 degrees below zero the environmental

hazards were really tough like thermal

control I mean it gets you get in the

shadow on the moon and they can drop

hundreds of degrees below zero

but how can a camera keep working in

such extreme conditions given that it's

delicate mechanisms are subject to the

effects of thermal expansion and thermal

contraction let's take for example Neil

Armstrong's descent to the lunar surface

from the moment the hatch is open and

the cabin is depressurized until

Armstrong actually touches the ground

some 30 minutes go by the entire descent

of the astronaut takes place in the

shadow area of the Lamb which means in

an environment at some 200 degrees below

zero once Armstrong touches the ground

his companion lowers the camera for him

through the open porch Armstrong straps

the camera to his chest walks a few

steps back and takes the first set of

pictures always remaining in the shadow

of the lens this is the full sequence of

shots taken by Armstrong without ever

leaving the shadow area of the lunar

module but how can this camera keep

working in an environment at about 200

degrees below zero we know that photo

cameras have a tendency to jam at much

less extreme temperatures due to the

thermal contraction that effects the

film transportation gear wheels

[Music]

you didn't imagine if you do that

because in fact a legitimate some

Italian school you know some ways that

touch it - like a so glad issued to the

ready so to go to start to uh yeah

government is the multi Rossini Dawson

on ours a propeller mechanical chemical

D seems more difficult culture but in

this movie they should be revealing are

commonplace

this promotional video by Audi which

plans to send an unmanned Rover to the

moon explains how even ten minutes spent

in the lunar shadow can bring the

vehicles mechanical parts to a complete

blockage due to thermal contraction

another danger to look out for shadows

which could instantly damage the rover

that's because of the moon's extreme

changes in temperatures and lack of

atmosphere the rover is made from

different materials all of which expand

and contract when their temperature

changes if the rover were to drive into

a shadow it could cool down to 50% of

its normal temperature in under 10

minutes this could lead to parts

contracting too fast and ultimately

render the rover immobile because of the

lack of atmosphere the heat dispersion

on the moon takes place by irradiation

and we know that Armstrong's camera has

spent more than half an hour in an

environment at 200 degrees below zero

this radio communication confirms that

35 minutes have gone by from the moment

the cabin was depressurized and the

astronauts survival backpack called PLSS

has been activated

also this table describing the timeline

of the operations on the moon indicates

that some 30 minutes have passed from

the cabins depressurization until the

moment Armstrong gets ahold of the

camera this means that the camera has

had plenty of time to irradiate and

dissipate a good part of the heat it had

accumulated while in the cabin how can

this camera keep working after having

spent more than half an hour

at 200 degrees below zero without

suffering the consequences of thermal

contraction on its mechanical parts

question given that the audi technicians

fear the complete blockage of the

mechanical parts of their Rover after

only 10 minutes spent in the lunar

shadow

how can a camera keep working after

having spent over half an hour in the

same shadow its mechanical parts being

far more precise and delicate than those

of a lunar rover another problem

connected with the cold environment is

that at such low temperatures the

photographic

loses its flexibility becomes rigid and

may easily break during the transport

within the camera even though we are in

the vacuum the film touches the camera

body all along its path since the camera

radiates and progressively loses heat so

does the film inside and we know that

below a certain temperature photographic

film becomes rigid and brittle almost

like glass probably my Killa película

tanta didn't crystal lose you don't the

momentum could carry key is his pet you

know kweilyn Tesla multi probably the

shade you know they start to same

pronoun Degrassi problema till our

eldest Remo friend o EK la película de

vente veto friend or friend amici are a

human record in Russia a manual in t SE

c combat ever gonna suspect hasta la

película jeremy noventa say let's now

examine the problems related to the type

of lighting used for the lunar pictures

there are in fact different elements

suggesting that an artificial source

rather than the Sun was used to

illuminate the set this would obviously

mean that the pictures were taken on

earth and not on the moon the first

elements suggesting the use of

artificial light are the so-called hot

spots

the Sun is a huge extremely powerful

source of light capable of illuminating

entire planets with its rays for this

reason when the sun illuminates a large

flat expanse the light reaches every

visible point with the same intensity

whether we observe an area closer to us

or one in the distance the luminosity of

the ground is practically the same

everywhere this is due to the fact that

the Sun is thousands of times larger

than the earth which means it can easily

illuminate any portion of its surface

with the same intensity if we use an

artificial light source instead like for

example a movie light the area of

illuminated terrain will be much smaller

furthermore at the center of the

illuminated area we will see what is

called a hotspot while as we move away

from the center we will notice a

substantial decrease of luminosity

called fall-off if we now examine some

pictures from the Apollo missions we

will notice the same phenomenon that we

saw in the pictures taken with an

artificial source a noticeable hotspot

in the center of the image and adjust as

noticeable drop of light as we move away

from the center of the illuminated area

[Music]

there is no reason why this area should

appear darker than this one this area

darker than this one of this area darker

than this one as we have seen before

when the Sun illuminates a large expanse

of land its light reaches every visible

point with the same intensity if we use

an artificial light instead the

illuminated area becomes brighter in the

center and ever more dark as we move

towards the edges a blatant case of

hotspot is found in one of the most

famous pictures from NASA this shot of

Buzz Aldrin taken by Neil Armstrong

during the Apollo 11 mission here the

difference on the terrain is already

visible to the naked eye but it becomes

absolutely evident for everybody

after we increase the contrast an

opinion on this picture was asked of Yan

Lundberg the Hasselblad technician

responsible for providing NASA with the

cameras for the Apollo missions when

shown the Aldrin picture Lundberg had to

acknowledge with some embarrassment that

the image seems to have been shot under

a movie light and was unable to provide

a valid explanation for that yes it

seems like he's standing in the

spotlight and I can't explain that that

that escapes me

why so maybe you have to find Armstrong

and asking the professional

photographers were also very surprised

by this noticeable and an explicable

fall-off of light in the distance Lucci

Universal non-central Tobias terminal

operator if at all typical la madrastra

las carreras de la parte schooler de

quoi de la parte nombre quoi superior a

la parte nombre non-durables another

reversal reversal while we teach is

Dominick ozawkie KS Todd fashio the

proper care the OREA who deserve to win

d CR queen application school rock which

a symbol a comic a technology motive or

the Questacon leaders yeah okay so Lee

see what rebus a law school route Oh

Jamal fat okay an identity Fidelio bus

MIP loogie but no question people do

supposin salon deposit or service even

taco Grande fire on West Ishida

but when 200-500 my a Mariners a cube a

koala to validate their soul a queen the

perfect signal decorative images in

studio Malta same so in effect sermon

studio questa logística bellissimo pero

quiero l'amor tisane BRABUS a yet

captain in uniform I meant illuminator

that Sony silica do the classroom of

access

only spotlight

it's fine

and I know this pixel to total totally

Park güell infinite solution coma quick

sorry so this corner your spot quick see

Bravo cereal

ran the serial a cereal for those who

are not professionals is a large and

powerful

movie light and curiously enough a

similar image was obtained in this

documentary on the moon landings by

using just that a large movie light as

one can see the results are very very

similar to those present in the aldryn

picture according to Paulo activism oh

however there is a different explanation

for the fall-off of light in the

distance it would have been the engine

of the Lamb he claims to blow the dust

away during the landing thus revealing

the lighter sand underneath but this

hypothesis by atavism o doesn't hold

water for at least two reasons the first

one is that the hotspot phenomenon takes

place in different missions and in

different situations some of which are

definitely far away from the landing

area of the Lamb it is ludicrous to

think that the lunar module would have

gone around too neatly blow the dust off

all these areas before it landed

secondly NASA itself denies the fact

that the sand under the surface of the

Moon is lighter than the one on the

surface it is in fact the exact opposite

in this report on the severe missions

published in 1969

NASA wrote observations of the

fine-grained parts of the lunar surface

disturbed by the landing and liftoff of

the surveyor six spacecraft have shown

that the lunar material exposed debts no

greater than a few millimeters has a

significantly lower normal luminance

factor than the undisturbed surface in

other words the ground swept by the

lunar modules jet should appear darker

than the rest if anything and certainly

not lighter like activism Oh says

another theory put forth by the

debunkers to explain the inconsistent

illumination of the terrain is the

so-called vignette effect a phenomenon

that sometimes occurs in pictures when

the corners of the frame appear darker

than the rest of the image but

vignetting is a defect that only occurs

in the low-cost lenses and certainly not

in the zeiss lens is used by Hasselblad

which are simply the best in the world

problem at the Vinnitsa - Reza barati

voiceover no see brother minister who

refers katyana no Lava window for

ceramic Anita do Lehrer see furthermore

several pictures show have the

difference between hot spot and fall-off

is present in the center of the picture

as in the case of this image reflected

in the astronauts visor and since

vignetting never takes place in the

center of the image we can state with

certainty that we are facing a real

phenomenon on the ground and not a case

of vignetting astronomy astronomy it's

all very dark West apart a choir a coma

see say a reverse a luminary crystals

own and minister this is supposed to

come from the Sun yes

the Sun is not strong enough right

yeah here's another similar example in

which the illumination problem is quite

obvious if we look at the sides of the

astronaut photographer we notice that on

the left the ground is brightly lit

while on the right there is a dramatic

decrease in luminosity if this scene

were truly illuminated by the Sun this

area of the ground would appear as

brightly lit as this one finally as a

possible explanation a phenomenon called

Heilig ensign has been suggested it

refers to that peculiar halo of light

that sometimes appears around the shadow

of the photographer in some particular

situations but the Huygens shine effect

only occurs when the Sun is located

exactly behind the photographer's head

along with the axis of the lens this is

the reason why the halo effect which is

due to a retroreflection phenomenon on

the ground appears all around its shadow

as we have seen instead many of the hot

spots and the NASA pictures occur when

the light source is placed on the side

of the photographer and not behind his

head question given that the Sun should

eliminate the whole landscape with the

same intensity both close and far away

can you explain the reason for the

noticeable fall-off of light seen in

many of the Apollo pictures in this

particular case the fall-off takes place

in the center of the frame thus

excluding a vignette excluding the

highlig and shine effect can you explain

the reason for the noticeable fall-off

of light that can be seen on the terrain

right behind the astronaut photographer

another problem found in certain Luna

pictures is the direction of the shadows

which should be parallel to each other

had they been generated by the Sun but

inexplicably diverge on the ground

instead because of the enormous distance

separating us from the Sun all the

shadows generated on earth by the solar

rays are parallel to each other we can

see them parallel however converging or

diverging depending on the angle with

which we photograph them if we shoot a

picture with the Sun behind our

shoulders the shadows will seem to

converge as they move away from us if we

take a picture with the Sun in front of

us instead the shadows will seem to

diverge on the ground this is due to the

phenomenon called perspective in reality

the shadows created by the Sun are

always parallel on the ground we may see

them converge or diverge simply because

we are photographing them along the

vertical axis of the image if we instead

take a picture with the Sun at 90

degrees on our side we will see that the

shadows will always appear parallel to

one another

in all cases the same thing happens with

train tracks which seem to converge if

we shoot them along the vertical axis of

the image but will remain perfectly

parallel if we shoot them along the

horizontal axis there are some Apollo

pictures however where the shadows

inexplicably appear to diverge from one

another even though the Sun is on the

side relative to the photographer this

is the most famous example of all

judging from the lems shadow the Sun is

located some 90 degrees to our left

despite this the shadows of the rocks in

the foreground are not at all parallel

to that of the lamp but they clearly

diverge from it instead this is

theoretically impossible as we have seen

before when the Sun is on the side the

shadows must be absolutely parallel to

each other if we use an artificial light

instead of the Sun and we place it much

closer to the objects we are

photographing then the shadows will

diverge from each other even though the

saw

remains on the side this is due to the

fact that the closeness of the source

creates a strong angle with the objects

being photographed if we use the Sun

instead it's practically infinite

distance makes the shadows appear

parallel anyway let's go back now to the

NASA picture while these diverging

shadows cannot be explained with

sunlight they immediately become

justified if we imagine an artificial

source placed near the left side of the

image we're talking about a situation

akin to this one this is the set of the

television series from the earth to the

moon as one can see the large artificial

source imitating the Sun which is placed

on the side produces shadows that are

clearly diverging from each other this

is due to the closeness between the

source and the objects being

photographed in fact in the case of the

NASA picture all we need to do is to

extend the direction of the shadows

backwards and we'll find that the source

is located just outside the left edge of

the frame

this obviously cannot be the Sun it must

be an artificial light the Mythbusters

have conducted an experiment trying to

find an explanation for the diverging

shadows in the NASA picture first they

created some parallel shadows on the

ground then they started to modify the

topography by inserting holes and mounds

until the shadows diverged from each

other but the Mythbusters have made a

huge mistake instead of using the Sun

they themselves used an artificial

source which makes their experiment

absolutely null in the best case

scenario they have proven nothing at all

while in the worst case they have just

confirmed that NASA also used an

artificial source of light like the

Mythbusters did other debunking sites

have tried to offer a similar

explanation by showing that in some

cases the roughness of the terrain can

generate shadows that seem to go in

different directions

but this is not the case with the NASA

picture here the terrain is practically

flat on all the rocks in the Lohr part

including the smaller ones have shadows

clearly pointing in the same

direction the point here is not to find

different pictures taken on earth where

the shadows seem to diverge due to the

terrain the point is to explain why in

the NASA picture all the shadows lead

back to a source that is placed just

outside the left edge of the frame and

that obviously cannot be the Sun we have

shown the same picture to the

photographer's Turin Bert happens to

have a picture in the studio which

clarifies exactly the problem we are

talking about Indian because solid

progressive Sala trono multipass America

for the title imagining Jason Lopez suit

emitted by eleven no point

why Questacon in China at the precinct

was to say it's not a zoo since on Oppo

ass if so they were a group Indonesian

we request a Omega value acquire cuesta

give and acquire notice is over there is

solely what try what give me through the

stands

let's say you'll be magic recheck when

won't you give me back one gimmick Wow

look at the shadows here and the shadow

there can this be now I'm gonna take

getting worse and worse to have to say

look have a picture come here and then

only one son of him according to the

shadows where would you place the source

more or less what if you don't wanna

pursue dies which I acquiesced in the

second to the condo poster is the photo

develop folder must have a father who's

here we do may know a crystal did

several of your solar no you saw really

finished so he is no parallel question

when the Sun is on the side all shadows

on the ground must appear parallel to

each other can you explain why in this

NASA picture the shadow of the Lamb and

those of the rocks in foreground appear

to be clearly diverging instead given

that this scene is supposedly lit by the

Sun which is millions of miles away can

you explain why the shadows lead to a

source that is located not far from the

left edge of the image instead given

that the photographer's we interviewed

place the light source a few meters away

from the left edge of the frame

can you explain how this could be the

Sun

there is also another series of images

from the Apollo 12 mission suggesting

the use of an artificial light in all

these shots we can notice on the ground

a dark shadow of the astronaut who

supposedly took the pictures if we close

in on any of these shadows however we

will notice that they are entirely

surrounded by a grayish board kind of

edge

this blurred edge in the shadow is

absolutely unnatural for having been

caused by the Sun since the Sun is

millions of miles away it generates

sharp well-defined shadows on the ground

if you use an artificial light instead

you will get this kind of shadow with

soft and blurred edges some may suggest

that the blurring of the shadow is

simply due to a focusing mistake but

this is not the case if we observe the

ground next to the shadow we will see

that it is perfectly in focus from the

closest point to the farthest one the

depth of field here is absolute this is

not a focusing mistake it's really a

kind of light source that generates a

blurred shadow on the ground and which

therefore cannot be the Sun she turn

this way and okay look at the edge what

does that tell you

yes

could that be the Sun does the Sun casts

shadows that soft the studies focused on

Roswell

to understand scientists and if you

listen brother Anita

English is fanatically quest' ashenvale

Latinos were so late

oops what Christa Christa preferred aya

with a profit on competent ear khilafat

averted it's only fair on granita

crystals format or a pretty question

being millions of miles away the Sun

casts sharp shadows on the ground can

you explain why in these pictures there

is a soft edge all around the astronauts

figure instead

let's now tackle the most important

issue in the entire discussion on the

Luna pictures backlight photography when

we shoot a picture with the Sun in front

of us and the subject in the shade we

say that the picture is taken in

backlight in back light photography

subject and the shadow is always darker

than the ground directly hit by the Sun

let's use as an example this picture

taken in backlight as one can see the

entire part of the subject in the shadow

the cabin is much darker than the sand

underneath the reason is simple the sand

gets hit directly by the sunlight while

the cabin is lit only by the reflection

of the sand plus the diffusion caused by

the atmosphere obviously the light

reflected from the ground is always only

a fraction of the light it receives

which is called incident light for this

reason it is absolutely impossible to

balance incident light and reflective

light in backlight photography the

ground illuminated directly by the Sun

will always be brighter than the subject

in the shadow one of the techniques used

by professional photographers to get

around this problem is to use a highly

reflective portable panel let's look at

this example here the photographer is

shooting the model in backlight as one

can see the subject in the shadow is

much darker than the ground lit by the

Sun but if the photographer adds a

reflecting panel which bounces the

sunrays back onto the model then he can

get a good balance between the

illuminated background and the face in

the shadow the difference is obvious

while the luminosity of the background

is unchanged now the luminosity of the

face is balanced with the one of the

ground here is another example the

sunlight which comes from behind is

bounced off this reflecting panel and

goes to hit the model who is in the

shadow in this way the luminosity of the

model is perfectly balanced with the one

of the background

another technique used to balance the

background light and the subject in the

shadow is the use of a portable

flashlight this second resource will

illuminate the part

the subject in the shadow in this

example we can see on the left a picture

with only available light while on the

right an additional flashlight is used

the difference is clear on the left you

have no balance between light and shadow

on the right you do but without these

additional sources that is absolutely

impossible to balance the light hitting

the ground and the one reflected onto

the shadows in backlight photography on

the moon however something miraculous

seems to have happened despite the fact

that the astronauts did not have any

portable reflectors nor additional

lights there is a whole series of

photographs taken in backlight in which

the entire shadow area of the Lamb

appears perfectly illuminated as we can

see the luminosity of the astronaut in

the shadow is practically the same as

that of the terrain in the background

which is hit directly by sunlight not

only would this be impossible on earth

without the use of reflecting panels but

it is even more inexplicable on the moon

where you don't even have the atmosphere

as a secondary source of refraction in

other words while on earth we have both

the ground and the atmosphere reflecting

light onto the shadow part of the

subject on the moon we only have the

ground to do so because the sky is

completely black and the lunar surface

is known to have a very low reflectivity

as it can only reflect back about 8% of

the light it receives in fact in this

1964 document NASA wrote there is one

characteristic associated with the

near-vacuum

on the lunar surface which may be

extremely important to photography there

will be virtually no diffusion of light

since the lunar surface itself is a poor

reflector the subject material for

photography will be either in full light

or in full and complete shadows in other

words according to NASA itself the

shadow area of the lamp should have

looked more or less like this

we have such an abundance of luminosity

instead that even in the shadow area we

can clearly see all the smallest details

in this photo composition created by

NASA by joining several pictures we can

see clearly how the Sun is on the

opposite side of the LEM this being the

only source of light one wonders what

could have lit the shadow area of the

LEM so effectively despite not being

professional photographers some

debunkers insist that the mere

reflection of the sand would have been

sufficient to illuminate the shadow area

of the LEM conspiracy theorists are

saying that the shock had to have been

faked using a fill light personally I

think it's because the moon surfaces are

reflective to prove their point the

Mythbusters conducted a small-scale

experiment in which they tried to

reproduce the pictures from the Apollo

missions all right you ready I'm set all

right here we go taking the photo let's

see there it is oh there you go he's

standing full-on in the shadow and you'd

think he wouldn't be able to see me be

dark but he's not he's in brightest day

with a single light source with the

surface the same reflectivity as the

moon our astronaut is clearly visible

busting madness but the Mythbusters have

made a gross mistake again after

removing every possible source of

reflection by using black paper all

around the set they forgot to remove the

one of the two who was wearing a bright

white shirt obviously this white shirt

acts as a large reflector towards the

dark area of the LEM the same experiment

replicated by to rush and photographers

shows how important is the presence of a

white garment reflecting light onto the

astronaut in any case the problem is not

simply to be able to see the astronaut

in the shadows as every photographer

knows all you need to do to see in the

shadow is to open up the iris in your

lens the problem here was to balance the

luminosity of the shadow area with the

one of the ground

illuminated directly by the light source

and if we look more closely at the

results we will see that the myth

Buster's were not able to balance the

luminosity of the background with the

one of the astronaut anyway as one can

see from the direct comparison the sand

illuminated by the Sun is darker in the

NASA picture and it's lighter in the

Mythbusters 1 while the astronaut is

lighter in the NASA picture and darker

in the one from the Mythbusters in other

words there is a much larger difference

between light and shadow in the

Mythbusters picture than in the NASA

picture also from this image from their

own set one can clearly see how the

astronaut in the shadow is definitely

darker than the terrain illuminated

directly by the light source it's a much

different result from what we see in the

Apollo pictures thus the Mythbusters

again have proven the exact opposite of

what they intended to prove that without

additional lights it's not possible to

balance the area in the shadow with the

area hit directly by the light source

not even using their white shirt as an

additional reflector in any case the

idea that the sand is sufficient to

illuminate the shadow area of the land

can be easily refuted by using the same

NASA pictures all we need to do is to

look at other pictures taken with the

same source of light what supposedly is

the Sun to realize that the shadow area

in these pictures is practically pitch

black

if the lunar sound truly had these

magical reflecting powers this part of

the rock should more or less have the

same luminosity as the terrain in the

background these panels should be almost

as visible as the illuminated sand and

this shadow area of the rover would be

clearly lit as well instead everything

that is not directly illuminated by the

Sun appears as a deep black shadow this

proves that the sand is not sufficient

to brighten up the shadow areas by

itself for this same reason we can also

discard the idea that it was the earth

to illuminate the shadow area of the

Lamb if the earth shine were truly that

powerful all the other shadow areas of

the lunar terrain should be illuminated

as well but this is not the case there

is therefore no valid explanation for

the practically identical illuminate

of the area hit directly by the Sun and

the shadow area of the Lamb

in fact the professional photographers

we interviewed believe that in order to

achieve such results large reflecting

panels or additional lights placed on

the side of the photographer are needed

lot a CD chanson de comprar 2d geometry

Luna non-chan aminopterin Turkish lira

50 de reflect we are quick cuesta mucho

correspond the question is a

correspondent enter into this the Chavo

deposition Penelope Arakawa / que la

luce see a cozy check my Superman NKC to

say in River Mine

I believe everyone a Cossack equivocal

Xia called Ochoco support item I think

we were lacking the target we finally

the police

Lucia get Romano lost ran outta prison

totally a booyah sutala alumina perky

channel tribuna Oh Joe

kikuno confer Oh Valerie repartee tanta

Rosie qui tam Tahoe signal apart Booga

Booga out the dough baby NS solution

pillow a best completamente naira on a

cello million Chavo six so gently

secondary sensor reflect or eNOS

terrible possibly not Kristen Priscilla

very banheiro McPhee

virus Avedon could scale it to the metal

you know it show reflects on you know

who should the sorry Gabby Bianca

replacer Rose Queen the darkest apart

check on Arusha the main problem here is

back light on the moon

you have no sky behind you to refract

the light and you only have to send they

did not have any artificial illumination

which was here too we have you can see

they're almost the same luminosity in

the front in the back now my experience

tells me you have at least two stop

difference when you turn around and back

light and that's when you have the

atmosphere yeah but that is totally

Annette with a reflector

you tell me that's that's all that's all

discussion only that I don't want to get

into it's fake Oh

or the mom landing was fake but these

pictures are fake I think I would say

hundred positional containers because

all this cannot exist that way

so if you ask me as a photographer yes I

have to say this cannot be because you

have the source here that should be all

black it will not be black then this

would be burned out a lot then you get

some that supposed to be the Sun does

that look like the Sun to you if this is

the Sun and the only light and this is

how whatever reflects which is

ridiculous because the kid NASA can

reflect this then this would be so

burned out and bleached out to get any

structure here the adult mind same as

the others have said the same thing the

mustard to be just black

with this comment Turin Bert

well summarizes the professionals

opinion time to have a studio sequester

vortices ceccacci possibly the grand

infidelity and TV channel set to very

flash and maybe it's not a coincidence

that on the set of the imax film large

reflecting panels were used right behind

the lamb in order to replicate the NASA

pictures a source of light placed behind

the lunar module and large reflecting

panels used to bounce the light onto the

dark area of the LEM by using this

technique the luminosity in the shadow

area is perfectly balanced with the one

of the terrain illuminated directly by

the source exactly like in the Apollo

pictures

in 2014 the nvidia software company

created a computer simulation thanks to

which they believed to have identified

the source of light that could have

brightened the shadow area of the Lamb

in their opinion it was the

photographer's white suit Neil Armstrong

himself

there is a huge glowing bright white

light and as we analyzed that video a

little more we realized it's Neil

Armstrong himself the bright white space

suit that he was wearing reflected all

that sunlight off of him and back onto

Buzz Aldrin

so essentially Neil Armstrong himself

was a light source in that scene but the

professional photographers explain how

the white suit could at best partially

brighten up the Companions figure but

it's too small and too far away to be

able to illuminate the entire shadow

area of the Lamb a possibility I

recommend que la ruta de la strategy

photographer que Bianca risk affair

acousto control Uche again a possibility

extra distance is not excessive posting

the Chuck we roya see the boy to Luke

wait for that day shall illuminate upon

a path the worktop you be : well

superficially are sufficiently flattened

over the the model say there are crystal

supervision unless you've achieved a

couple of atom omega-7 please drop long

time

Tropico at repellant on Oh miserably

America in order to conclusively discard

this hypothesis all one has to do is to

look at the television images from the

very Apollo missions here for example

there is an astronaut hit by sunlight

who is moving right outside the edge of

the frame we can see how the reflection

from his white suit partially brightens

the underside of the rover but does

absolutely nothing to the LEM in the

shadow which is much larger and far away

here the same astronaut enters the field

of view from the right and again the

light he reflects goes to partially

brightened the underside of the rover

but it has no effect whatsoever on the

darkened mass of the lunar module and

finally there is another detail

suggesting the use of a secondary source

of light either a reflecting panel or a

small flashlight and it's this shiny

glare repeatedly appearing on the heels

of the astronauts boots not Norquist a

24-bit color

okay questo you know almost a so problem

check was to the value or these

questions requests over here

I can't a did you meet the

chrysalis order restrictive or be like a

charge into delucci telepathy the key

photon littering being a realtor you

slowly add it for some flesh no no

pleasure Melanie requisition finish but

you know these shoes this is a

reflective you don't can you show me

again and where does this come from

right

could there be a flashlight give a NASA

statement that since the lunar surface

itself is a poor reflector the subject

material for photography will be either

in full light or in for and complete

shadows can you explain why the site of

the LEM in the shadow is brightly

illuminated instead as we have just

shown the reflection from the sand is

not sufficient to brighten up the parts

in the shadow of the lunar landscape and

the astronauts suit is too small and too

far away to brighten up the dark side of

the LEM can you then explain what source

of light has managed to illuminate so

clearly the dark side of the lunar

module given that the lunar soil

reflects only 8% of the light it

receives how is it possible that the

shadow area of the LEM which is lit only

by reflected light has a similar

luminosity to the terrain hit directly

by the Sun given that not even the

Mythbusters with their experiment have

managed to balance the reflected light

with the one hitting the terrain can you

explain how that could have happened

with several of the apollo pictures

given that the professional

photographers we interviewed have stated

that these pictures would not have been

possible without the aid of reflecting

panels and additional lighting can you

explain how they could have been taken

by the astronauts on the moon who didn't

have any reflecting panels nor

additional lighting

faced with this apparent falsification

of the lunar pictures several people

have suggested an extreme possibility

that man did go to the moon but the

pictures will later re shot here on

earth because for some reason they had

not turned out properly the first time

around

but this is not possible for at least

two reasons first of all the use of

studio lighting is evident in all the

different missions from Apollo 11 to

Apollo 17 one would have to explain what

exactly the photographic problem was

that would have forced NASA to reshoot

all these pictures in a studio for six

missions out of six secondly anyone can

verify how the photographs and the

television pictures match each other

perfectly in that every single detail

present in the television pictures is

also present in the photographs this

means that both the pictures and the

television images were shot at the same

time and in the same place in other

words the set is the same for the

pictures and for the TV images and since

the television images have always been

broadcast live this means that also the

photographs must have been taken at the

same time and not later or possibly

before if the television scenes were pre

recorded in a studio but certainly not

after the date of the live broadcast

at this point we are left with only one

consideration to make if it's true like

all this evidence seems to suggest that

someone at NASA decided to fake the

lunar landings they would have certainly

needed to convince the astronauts to

play their role all the way through to

the end it could not have been possible

to fake the lunar landings without their

full cooperation and astronauts are some

exceptional people courageous and

motivated by a deep sense of pride which

comes from constantly putting their

lives at risk

in order to advance the progress of

science it must have not been easy for

them to participate in such a fraud just

to satisfy the need of the United States

to affirm their leadership in front of

the entire world let's then take a

closer look at the story of the three

most famous astronauts of all Armstrong

Aldrin and Collins the historical crew

of Apollo 11 on July 24 1969 astronauts

Neil Armstrong Buzz Aldrin and Michael

Collins triumphantly returned from the

most important mission ever accomplished

in human history they have just been on

the moon they are the first human beings

to have ever visited another celestial

body and to have safely returned from it

on the recovery ship they are welcomed

by President Nixon in person after a

brief exchange in front of the cameras

Armstrong Aldrin and Collins are placed

in quarantine for a few weeks of

isolation then on September 16 they

appear for a press conference in front

of the global members of the press who

welcomed them with a standing ovation

[Applause]

everyone expects to see three absolute

heroes radiating with happiness and

pride for their incredible achievement

but their faces appear somber tense

somehow preoccupied instead they seem

uncomfortable and there are several

truly embarrassing moments during the

event when the three astronauts are

asked the meaning of a mission that has

brought mankind on another celestial

body for the first time the three don't

seem too eager nor too enthusiastic

about answering the question many of us

and many other people in many places

have speculated on the meaning of this

first landing on another body in space

would each of you give us your estimate

of what is the meaning of this to all of

us

and when Armstrong describes their

achievement as the beginning of a new

era he seems more like a person forced

to read from a script that someone

actually convinced of his own words

entire program it's a beginning of a new

age possibly the most embarrassing

moment of all comes when the famous

astronomer and journalists are Patrick

Moore asks the astronauts whether they

could see stars from the moon when you

looked up at the sky could you actually

see the stars in the state of the corona

in spite of the death but not one of

them surprisingly remembers having seen

a single star by the naked eye we were

never able to see stars from the lunar

surface or on the daylight side of the

Moon by eye without looking through the

optics even Collins who was left

orbiting the moon while the other two

descended on the surface does not

remember seeing a single star this is a

truly disconcerting fact given that

their colleagues from the Gemini

missions who flew in space a few years

before them recall the long hours spent

looking at the stars we'd spend several

hours just with our faces pressed up

against the window at night with all the

lights turned down low and watching the

stars also the astronauts from the

shuttle missions like for example James

Riley recall seeing literally millions

of stars in out of space what are the

stars like in space like are they just

brighter than on earth or how would you

describe it

the they're brighter but they're

different a lot of things different

about one you don't have that mysterious

torsion so they don't twinkle right so

you see lots of points and you see the

lots of points and that literally

millions of them one wonders where the

Apollo 11 astronauts have truly been in

the crucial eight days of their mission

given that they don't remember seeing a

single star by naked eye another

surprising fact is that instead of

pursuing a successful career within NASA

after that triumph ignition the three

astronauts suddenly decided to leave the

space agency a little over a year after

their mission with the Apollo program

still

in full swing all three astronauts

resigned from NASA Armstrong literally

disappears from the scene moves to the

country decides not to give any more

interviews and shuns the public eye and

when NASA celebrates the completion of

the Apollo program which has carried 12

men to the moon in the course of three

years the most important of all Neil

Armstrong refuses to take part in the

ceremony Buzz Aldrin also falls into a

deep state of depression which leads him

towards the abuse of drugs and alcohol I

thrived on addictive substances

alcoholism and clearly that began to

predominate in my unstructured life in

1973 he appears in a photo in Perry

Match definitely changed in his physical

aspect to the French magazine Aldrin

declares they think of us as heroes but

the moon has destroyed us in a 1994

interview Aldrin is asked to give some

advice to the young people who want to

become astronauts in the future but

instead of encouraging them and

inspiring them with enthusiasm he warns

them against possible disappointments

space and its frontiers certainly are

new and challenging and because they're

new and challenging they're also

uncertain and I think anyone aspiring

that as a career field has to be

equipped with a lot of patience and the

ability to cope with things not turning

out exactly the way they may perceive

that they would ahead of time why would

a man who was just accomplished the most

important mission in the history of

mankind warned young people against the

risk of disappointments and failures

ladies and gentlemen Neil Armstrong

Armstrong sometimes reappears in public

but it's definitely not to sing the

praise for NASA in a ceremony hosted by

Bill Clinton in 1994 Armstrong makes an

ambiguous and mysterious statement while

talking to a group of students he

mentions some of truths protective

layers that young people should try to

remove in order to go on we leave you

much that is undone there are great

ideas undiscovered breakthroughs

available to those who can remove one of

truths protective layers later on

Armstrong stuns reporters again when he

refuses to take part in the celebrations

of the 40th anniversary of the Apollo

mission in 2004 filmmaker bart sibrel

produces a documentary called astronauts

gone wild in which he interviews the

astronauts from the Apollo missions and

asks them to swear on the Bible that

they really have been on the moon we

must keep in mind that in the United

States a sworn testimony filmed on

camera can be used in a court against

the person who has made that testimony

and in the United States perjury is a

crime that can even end you up in jail

we don't know if this is the actual

reason but it's interesting to notice

that once Neil Armstrong realizes he's

being filmed by sea Burrell's camera he

refuses to swear on the Bible I wanted

to give you the opportunity to swear in

the Bible that you walked on the moon

will you put your left hand on the Bible

and swear to God that you walked on the

moon Jenna

mr. sniper yes if he really walked on

the moon why would you not do that so

why don't you just put there even after

see Braille offers him five thousand

dollars in cash to be given to charity

Armstrong still refuses to swear yeah

five thousand dollars cash you can give

it to charity if you swear on the Bible

that you walked on the moon

it can be fine why don't you worry why

not why won't you do it Buzz Aldrin also

refuses to swear why don't you swear on

the Bible that you walked on the moon

why don't you swear on the Bible that

you walked on the moon like that I just

warned the Bible that you walked on the

moon

see Braille keeps insisting and even

insults Aldrin until the former

astronaut hits him with a punch but at

the end of the day just like Armstrong

did Aldrin also refused to swear Michael

Collins to the 3rd Apollo astronaut

refuses to swear and actually runs from

see Braille as if he had seen the devil

well asking you to swear in the Bible

that you orbited the moon would you

please go away well if you really

orbited the moon why won't you swear in

the Bible that you did so I just don't

understand why if you orbited the moon

you wouldn't have a problem about

swearing at the Bible or see Braille

certainly doesn't have a pleasant

approach but if someone has really been

on the moon why not swear anyway all you

would have needed to do to get rid of

the nuisance would have been to stretch

your hand out and swear on the Bible on

top Armstrong could have given five

thousand dollars in charity by simply

performing that act but none of the

three astronauts wanted to do it

why

[Music]

[Music]

all right here we go now hold it one

smile that's fine hold it steady

hey wait a minute wait a minute where is

the moon hey sorry I'll make it snappy

get in there to study it okay all right

here we go again now steady hold it

come on Betty come on give me a smile

that's right hold it okay

[Music]