I remember seeing this.One parachute collapsed,but could land on two chutes.I don't think they could have made it on one.It would hit the ocean too hard.
All the moonlanding hoaxers theories were debunked on an episode of the tv show "mythbusters". They waved a flag in a vaccuum chamber and it kept waving longer than in an air filled environment. The footprints were proved to be true in moondust with the same boots used on the moon. Funny the conspiracy theorists never addressed any of this...because their theories were debunked. We went to the moon and that's a fact.
in the video of the moon landing of apollo 11, why is it that when the american flag was raised, the flag fluttered like there was wind, but there is no wind in the moon. If there was wind, sands and dust from the moon must fly away.
@KIBProductionz It is because the moon is a vacuum. A flag in a vacuum has no air resistance to slow its waving. A flag moved in a vacuum will wave for minutes on end like a pendulum until the momentum finally dissipates. There is no footage of a flag ever waving without an astronaut first manipulating it.
@KIBProductionz You really need to get an education and quit believing nonsense by every kook an the internet. Most of the "researchers" you hear this nonsense from are kooks, kids, and dropouts.
The flag is moving because it was meant to look that way. It was suspended by a vertical pole on the top was swinging on that pole as the astronaut moved it. An atmosphere is not necessary...
@bibbler227I'm educated and still learning.I watched a documentary, it seems that the inertia of the astronaut's motion to the pole, also moved the flag. It was also proven that there was no wind and atmosphere on the moon. However, some of my schoolmates, thought that IF there was no wind on the moon, what 'friction' or 'force' stopped the flag from waving? Sir, is my answer correct?: the flag stopped moving because of the absorption of vibrations in the ground, where the pole was placed.
@KIBProductionz -- No pendulum is completely without friction at the hinge point at the top. Even in a vacuum with no air resistance, the small resistance at the top of the pole would stop the flag from swinging after a few minutes.
The pole that held the flag out would have a dampening effect, as well as the flag material itself providing resistance to motion and eventually making it stop.
No onboard navigation system. No retrorockets, a re-entry speed equal to gravitational escape velocity of approx 25,000 mph, with only atmospheric wind resistance and 2-3 parachutes to reduce the six tonne capsule to circa 25mph before final splashdown in the Pacific. Just think about it for a minute. The whole thing is utterly preposterous.
@KIBProductionz The CM's reentry velocity would have been around 25k per hour or 7 mile per second, just as that was the velocity the Saturn rocket had to acheive to escape Earth's gravitational pull. The CM had no retro rockets to aid decelaration. It had no aerolons to create drag. It's only means of reducing velocity was atmospheric wind resistance. It would be impossible for that alone and just 3 parachutes to reduce a 6 tonne capsule to 25mph in time for safe splashdown. It's a farce.
@gardenchair there was a navigation system.And like all objects, when they fall their maximum speed is around 200mph. It is called air resistance. The chutes only had to slow the craft down from 200 to 25mph and not from your 25k mph. Just think again einstein....
There wasn't an onboard navigation guidance system fit for the purpose of guiding the module down to a specific point in the Pacific from the point of re entry. And air resistance alone does not slow down a 6 ton craft from 25k mph to 200 mph. I'm guessing you were educated in America if you think that, and also naive enough to believe this US propaganda nonsense. Think again Hawking..
@gardenchair -- So you don't think space flight is possible at all, I guess. Have you ever heard of the space shuttle? How about Mercury & Gemini? Maybe Vostok? ... no? Have you bothered to even look up anything about atmospheric reentry? Apparently not.
It's kind of sad to see people spouting ignorance based on their own imagination without even the slightest attempt to understand anything about the subject the think they're giving some sort of technical explanation of.
@gardenchair there was not exact point in the pacific they aimed for. It was an area in the pacific they aimed for. It all comes down to calculations and math. They sent an or multiple aircraft carriers out, equiped with helicopters and on the look out for the spacecraft. And the slowdown, it is air resistance and the correct angle of attack. Read wikipedia (dot) org/wiki/Space_capsule. If you would also have looked for things yourself, you'd see in my profile that I'm not even from the USA
@gardenchair If you do not think the computers were adequate enough for reentry, you are saying every rocket launch and reentry beforehand was also faked. Indeed, you are also saying the V2 was fake. Furthermore, Atmospheric reentry is a fantastic retardant for speed, its called aerobreaking. It exploits the Bernoulli principle and the Coanda effect. No conspiracy, just wonderful fluid dynamics, Newtonian physics, and a lot of courage.
This video proves it was all Fake and even Far Fetched. Zero chance for them to know exactly where they would splash down.
They dropped it out of a Cargo plane then filmed it splash in the water. Get real people. Anyone who says the Moon landing claim is true are lying to you are just plain stupid.
@timrocket2008 How comes you are so sure about all this and not even guys like Stephen Hawking ever said a word of doubt?You must be smarter than him then,right?
Bill Clinton couldnt even keep the Lewinsky-Blow job a secret in the 90´s and after 40 years YOU come along and FINALLY discover by YT-VIDEO ANALYSIS how it was all done...just tell me one thing honestly: What is your job in real life? That would be really really interesting to me..
@stevehislop How do you Know Stephen Hawking doesn't say anything anonymously? Or anyone you can name for that matter.
I seriously doubt anyone's life was in danger due to Clinton's sex life. Get real. You are an idiot.
You are the type of person who would not know the fact that the government spent more money investigating Clinton's sex life than on the 9/11 investigations.
@timrocket2008 So you agree that Clinton could not keep something a secret that not even endangered anyones life...chrchrchr, but you believe that the 450000ppl involved in the Apollo program all kept the secret for 40 years...yeah right.
@theapollomoonlanding It's just my opinion. When I think about it, I ask myself how a capsule holding 3 people traveling through the air at such high speeds (500 mph +?) could be slowed down by 2 parachutes (or even 3 parachutes) like that,. I also wouldn't expect a helicopter to be there waiting to film it.
@rog944 Why. A 300+ mph drag racer is slowed by much smaller parachutes. It's no big deal really. The Apollo program is one of the most documented events in history. They filmed not only for record of the event but for analysis.
@Synthetrix You're probably right. It just seems implausible to me. I'm an American, and I was born in 1970, So believe me, it's not easy for me to disbelieve everything I've ever been taught about the space program. Yorre probably right about the parachute issue, but it still seems unlikely that a capsule with no navigation system could be guided down so precisely like that. I mean, how did they know it would land in that exact spot, with a helicopter waiting?
@rog944 It's all about trajectory. Do a search for "Entry and Splashdown: Apollo 11, The Untold Story" on Popular Mechanics website and you can learn more about the bad weather that they had to avoid when coming in. It's fascinating.
@rog944 -- When capsules or the Shuttle return from low orbit, they hit the atmosphere at about 17,000 miles per hour. Apollo, after falling all the way from the moon would have hit at almost escape velocity of about 25,000 miles per hour.
They come in shallow and skim across a thousand miles of atmosphere on the way down to reduce most of their speed. Then they deploy the first set of chutes at a couple hundred MPH and larger chutes after that to land.
Apollo had more than 3 parachutes. First, 2 high speed drogue chutes were deployed. At ~125mph, the drogue chutes were jettisoned and the three mains were pulled out by pilot chutes. The Command Module was also designed to create a small lift in one direction and by rolling the capsule, this lift could be used to steer the CM to the planned landing area. Btw. a Space Shuttle booster weights over 100 tons and also lands on 3 chutes, while the Apollo CM had less than 6 tons.
@rog944 -- watch this to see the Shuttle launch and solid rocket booster re-entry, parachutes & splashdown: watch?v=lihn9li4dh8 or this one: watch?v=vPQvTgD2quQ
The shape of a capsule like Apollo with the mostly flat but rounded bottom and pointed top is very steerable once it hits the atmosphere by gently nudging it one way or another with thrusters. And they had done something like 25 to 30 landings of capsules by the time they did this one.
@theapollomoonlanding -- Oh my god, even with one chute collapsed and with a bit harder landing, I'll bet that impact the water was a good feeling after spending more than a week in the middle of space with nothing but an infinity of vacuum around.
:27 What a joke. POP out of nowhere. lol WE never ever wen to any moon u braindead fucktards. lol Gullible sheeple shills that believe anything u r told by an official source.assholes.We STILL can't go to the moon u idiots.And it has noting o do with fucking money.The US government PRINTS MONEY.with the corrupt Fed Reserve doingthe printing.One for u-two for me-one for u-two for me. lol
the impact here is fierce! one chute failed. These Astro-Nots were all smiles and waving as if they were on parade floats. right...i've seen footballers more tired after a match. These blokes were in their 40's and 50's...just wondering...
The Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio. There's a partial summary of hoax evidence posted on a science forum. To see it, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon"?. The summary is on page 15. It's the 7th post from the top.
Like it or not, in 1969 the first men walked on the moon. No hoax, no conspiracy. Just science, damn good engineering and a lot of courage brought them to it.
Hey you fucking moron, if you bothered to do even the most minute bit of research perhaps you would gain some perspective on the utter stupidity of your invalid opinion. Of course we all know you won't as your bullshit theories are more compelling to you than real human achievement. Do the rest of the world a favor and die in a fire.
If you went to a set where they fake the missions then you got duped. I hope it was a free tour.
Nothing we say will change your mind. We just hope to keep you from poisoning other peoples minds. You tear down one of the greatest accomplishments of mankind, and what for?
I love YouTube but this place is a breeding ground for misinformation and clever "dramatic" editing.
@J700JAM Did also the soviet scientists knew it? Although they had the instruments to unveil any forgery of the Americans apparently they did not realize it. Rather silly isn't it?
I can't believe many pepole still are into this wild conspiracy. I has been refuted so many times already.
Viper77Wolverine 1 month ago
I remember seeing this.One parachute collapsed,but could land on two chutes.I don't think they could have made it on one.It would hit the ocean too hard.
GGE47 5 months ago
All the moonlanding hoaxers theories were debunked on an episode of the tv show "mythbusters". They waved a flag in a vaccuum chamber and it kept waving longer than in an air filled environment. The footprints were proved to be true in moondust with the same boots used on the moon. Funny the conspiracy theorists never addressed any of this...because their theories were debunked. We went to the moon and that's a fact.
nobadges 6 months ago
in the video of the moon landing of apollo 11, why is it that when the american flag was raised, the flag fluttered like there was wind, but there is no wind in the moon. If there was wind, sands and dust from the moon must fly away.
KIBProductionz 1 year ago
Comment removed
gardenchair 1 year ago
Comment removed
gardenchair 1 year ago
@KIBProductionz It is because the moon is a vacuum. A flag in a vacuum has no air resistance to slow its waving. A flag moved in a vacuum will wave for minutes on end like a pendulum until the momentum finally dissipates. There is no footage of a flag ever waving without an astronaut first manipulating it.
UndeadPizzaGuy 1 year ago
@KIBProductionz You really need to get an education and quit believing nonsense by every kook an the internet. Most of the "researchers" you hear this nonsense from are kooks, kids, and dropouts.
The flag is moving because it was meant to look that way. It was suspended by a vertical pole on the top was swinging on that pole as the astronaut moved it. An atmosphere is not necessary...
Please educate yourself.
bibbler227 11 months ago
@bibbler227I'm educated and still learning.I watched a documentary, it seems that the inertia of the astronaut's motion to the pole, also moved the flag. It was also proven that there was no wind and atmosphere on the moon. However, some of my schoolmates, thought that IF there was no wind on the moon, what 'friction' or 'force' stopped the flag from waving? Sir, is my answer correct?: the flag stopped moving because of the absorption of vibrations in the ground, where the pole was placed.
KIBProductionz 11 months ago
@KIBProductionz -- No pendulum is completely without friction at the hinge point at the top. Even in a vacuum with no air resistance, the small resistance at the top of the pole would stop the flag from swinging after a few minutes.
prosperomage 4 months ago
@prosperomage oh ok.
KIBProductionz 4 months ago
@KIBProductionz
The pole that held the flag out would have a dampening effect, as well as the flag material itself providing resistance to motion and eventually making it stop.
Blahblobify 3 months ago
No onboard navigation system. No retrorockets, a re-entry speed equal to gravitational escape velocity of approx 25,000 mph, with only atmospheric wind resistance and 2-3 parachutes to reduce the six tonne capsule to circa 25mph before final splashdown in the Pacific. Just think about it for a minute. The whole thing is utterly preposterous.
gardenchair 1 year ago
@gardenchair is it that the re entry speed must be greater, but with air resistance, it's slower?
KIBProductionz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KIBProductionz The CM's reentry velocity would have been around 25k per hour or 7 mile per second, just as that was the velocity the Saturn rocket had to acheive to escape Earth's gravitational pull. The CM had no retro rockets to aid decelaration. It had no aerolons to create drag. It's only means of reducing velocity was atmospheric wind resistance. It would be impossible for that alone and just 3 parachutes to reduce a 6 tonne capsule to 25mph in time for safe splashdown. It's a farce.
gardenchair 1 year ago
@gardenchair there was a navigation system.And like all objects, when they fall their maximum speed is around 200mph. It is called air resistance. The chutes only had to slow the craft down from 200 to 25mph and not from your 25k mph. Just think again einstein....
Caellest89 1 year ago
@Caellest89
There wasn't an onboard navigation guidance system fit for the purpose of guiding the module down to a specific point in the Pacific from the point of re entry. And air resistance alone does not slow down a 6 ton craft from 25k mph to 200 mph. I'm guessing you were educated in America if you think that, and also naive enough to believe this US propaganda nonsense. Think again Hawking..
gardenchair 1 year ago
@gardenchair -- So you don't think space flight is possible at all, I guess. Have you ever heard of the space shuttle? How about Mercury & Gemini? Maybe Vostok? ... no? Have you bothered to even look up anything about atmospheric reentry? Apparently not.
It's kind of sad to see people spouting ignorance based on their own imagination without even the slightest attempt to understand anything about the subject the think they're giving some sort of technical explanation of.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@gardenchair there was not exact point in the pacific they aimed for. It was an area in the pacific they aimed for. It all comes down to calculations and math. They sent an or multiple aircraft carriers out, equiped with helicopters and on the look out for the spacecraft. And the slowdown, it is air resistance and the correct angle of attack. Read wikipedia (dot) org/wiki/Space_capsule. If you would also have looked for things yourself, you'd see in my profile that I'm not even from the USA
Caellest89 1 year ago
@gardenchair If you do not think the computers were adequate enough for reentry, you are saying every rocket launch and reentry beforehand was also faked. Indeed, you are also saying the V2 was fake. Furthermore, Atmospheric reentry is a fantastic retardant for speed, its called aerobreaking. It exploits the Bernoulli principle and the Coanda effect. No conspiracy, just wonderful fluid dynamics, Newtonian physics, and a lot of courage.
UndeadPizzaGuy 1 year ago
@gardenchair lol... kid
TechmanFred 9 months ago
Comment removed
gardenchair 1 year ago
Comment removed
gardenchair 1 year ago
Comment removed
gardenchair 1 year ago
Comment removed
gardenchair 1 year ago
This video proves it was all Fake and even Far Fetched. Zero chance for them to know exactly where they would splash down.
They dropped it out of a Cargo plane then filmed it splash in the water. Get real people. Anyone who says the Moon landing claim is true are lying to you are just plain stupid.
timrocket2008 1 year ago 2
@timrocket2008 How comes you are so sure about all this and not even guys like Stephen Hawking ever said a word of doubt?You must be smarter than him then,right?
Bill Clinton couldnt even keep the Lewinsky-Blow job a secret in the 90´s and after 40 years YOU come along and FINALLY discover by YT-VIDEO ANALYSIS how it was all done...just tell me one thing honestly: What is your job in real life? That would be really really interesting to me..
stevehislop 1 year ago
@stevehislop How do you Know Stephen Hawking doesn't say anything anonymously? Or anyone you can name for that matter.
I seriously doubt anyone's life was in danger due to Clinton's sex life. Get real. You are an idiot.
You are the type of person who would not know the fact that the government spent more money investigating Clinton's sex life than on the 9/11 investigations.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008 Typical answer of a Hoaxhead: Insulting ppl is not a replacement for scientific facts.
And you didnt tell me what you do for a living....
stevehislop 1 year ago
@timrocket2008 So you agree that Clinton could not keep something a secret that not even endangered anyones life...chrchrchr, but you believe that the 450000ppl involved in the Apollo program all kept the secret for 40 years...yeah right.
stevehislop 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fake!
rog944 1 year ago
@rog944 Why do you say it's fake?
theapollomoonlanding 1 year ago 2
@theapollomoonlanding It's just my opinion. When I think about it, I ask myself how a capsule holding 3 people traveling through the air at such high speeds (500 mph +?) could be slowed down by 2 parachutes (or even 3 parachutes) like that,. I also wouldn't expect a helicopter to be there waiting to film it.
rog944 1 year ago
@rog944 Why. A 300+ mph drag racer is slowed by much smaller parachutes. It's no big deal really. The Apollo program is one of the most documented events in history. They filmed not only for record of the event but for analysis.
Synthetrix 1 year ago
@Synthetrix You're probably right. It just seems implausible to me. I'm an American, and I was born in 1970, So believe me, it's not easy for me to disbelieve everything I've ever been taught about the space program. Yorre probably right about the parachute issue, but it still seems unlikely that a capsule with no navigation system could be guided down so precisely like that. I mean, how did they know it would land in that exact spot, with a helicopter waiting?
rog944 1 year ago
@rog944 It's all about trajectory. Do a search for "Entry and Splashdown: Apollo 11, The Untold Story" on Popular Mechanics website and you can learn more about the bad weather that they had to avoid when coming in. It's fascinating.
Synthetrix 1 year ago
@Synthetrix Thank you. Synthetrix. I will.
rog944 1 year ago
@rog944 -- When capsules or the Shuttle return from low orbit, they hit the atmosphere at about 17,000 miles per hour. Apollo, after falling all the way from the moon would have hit at almost escape velocity of about 25,000 miles per hour.
They come in shallow and skim across a thousand miles of atmosphere on the way down to reduce most of their speed. Then they deploy the first set of chutes at a couple hundred MPH and larger chutes after that to land.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@rog944
Apollo had more than 3 parachutes. First, 2 high speed drogue chutes were deployed. At ~125mph, the drogue chutes were jettisoned and the three mains were pulled out by pilot chutes. The Command Module was also designed to create a small lift in one direction and by rolling the capsule, this lift could be used to steer the CM to the planned landing area. Btw. a Space Shuttle booster weights over 100 tons and also lands on 3 chutes, while the Apollo CM had less than 6 tons.
blablubb12345 1 year ago
@blablubb12345 Thank you for this information. I was not aware of the additional parachutes.
rog944 1 year ago
@rog944 -- watch this to see the Shuttle launch and solid rocket booster re-entry, parachutes & splashdown: watch?v=lihn9li4dh8 or this one: watch?v=vPQvTgD2quQ
The shape of a capsule like Apollo with the mostly flat but rounded bottom and pointed top is very steerable once it hits the atmosphere by gently nudging it one way or another with thrusters. And they had done something like 25 to 30 landings of capsules by the time they did this one.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@theapollomoonlanding -- Oh my god, even with one chute collapsed and with a bit harder landing, I'll bet that impact the water was a good feeling after spending more than a week in the middle of space with nothing but an infinity of vacuum around.
prosperomage 4 months ago
:27 What a joke. POP out of nowhere. lol WE never ever wen to any moon u braindead fucktards. lol Gullible sheeple shills that believe anything u r told by an official source.assholes.We STILL can't go to the moon u idiots.And it has noting o do with fucking money.The US government PRINTS MONEY.with the corrupt Fed Reserve doingthe printing.One for u-two for me-one for u-two for me. lol
cadu1995 1 year ago
the impact here is fierce! one chute failed. These Astro-Nots were all smiles and waving as if they were on parade floats. right...i've seen footballers more tired after a match. These blokes were in their 40's and 50's...just wondering...
vealshanker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio. There's a partial summary of hoax evidence posted on a science forum. To see it, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon"?. The summary is on page 15. It's the 7th post from the top.
Also, do a YouTube search on "MarsFaker".
Cosmored 1 year ago
.
watch?v=m57dzOU7axQ
.
dopje31857 3 years ago
Like it or not, in 1969 the first men walked on the moon. No hoax, no conspiracy. Just science, damn good engineering and a lot of courage brought them to it.
.
dopje31857 3 years ago 25
and the footage taken during those flights were the real images of space and the moon
Roncace 2 years ago 6
i totally agree with engine22emt. i watched every liftoff and landing. these men were true american heroes.
radbcc 3 years ago 15
These men were heros. We would watch them all day at school. I had such pride in our country.
engine22emt 3 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Everybody knows the moon landings were a hoax. They were filmed on a film set in Los Angeles, I have been to the studio and seen the set.
J700JAM 3 years ago
Hey you fucking moron, if you bothered to do even the most minute bit of research perhaps you would gain some perspective on the utter stupidity of your invalid opinion. Of course we all know you won't as your bullshit theories are more compelling to you than real human achievement. Do the rest of the world a favor and die in a fire.
tapelegs 3 years ago 7
If you went to a set where they fake the missions then you got duped. I hope it was a free tour.
Nothing we say will change your mind. We just hope to keep you from poisoning other peoples minds. You tear down one of the greatest accomplishments of mankind, and what for?
I love YouTube but this place is a breeding ground for misinformation and clever "dramatic" editing.
laserfloyd 2 years ago 6
So they can put a man on the moon and they can't find a cure for cancer? Now that would be a giant leap for mankind in my book.
J700JAM 2 years ago
@J700JAM Did also the soviet scientists knew it? Although they had the instruments to unveil any forgery of the Americans apparently they did not realize it. Rather silly isn't it?
ottorosso 1 year ago