Apollo 11 - First Moon Landing - Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins

[CommandoSac]

How can people say this is fake. Governments are already starting to divide land on the moon and the USA is talking about a permanent moon base...Damn liberals

[XRayCam]

Yep...this ones not fake. It the one where they see the aliens on the moon....and we were told to NOT COME BACK :-) Were still here......

[superman62228]

Wake up people even my 8 years old brother can tell this is damn fake!! Humans wouldn't risk their life's for such a crazy mission.. How they even could make it back ? The moon is actually waaay darker than it appears in this joke. I'm trying to find a purpose for this funny story?! WTH ?!

[Krakolio]

@superman62228 A group of astronauts were actually killed before this mission when the rocket caught fire before it took off. A lot of people wouldn't risk their life to go to space or to the moon but others would. It's very dangerous but people have done it anyway. Read about how they made it back. An 8 year old kid isn't a good judge in my opinion.

[IdesireCake]

@superman62228 ? I would even give/ risk my life for something way less heroic, interesting and cool. I'd do a lot to go to the moon (or in space for that matter). Ow, and I am a human being, (wìth a dream and vision). Bottem line is ... STFU.

[virgo396]

is this real footage o a reenactment

[mastinotje]

1ste landing on the moon in 69 was FAKE !! they just take off and go around the earth !! hollywood studio was ready to take over !!

The battle between America and Russia was too big

[Blahblobify]

@mastinotje

So russia watched the ship stay in orbit and didn't say anything? The rest of the world was asleep during that week? The other 6 flights to the moon the world didn't watch at all while they stayed in orbit?

WTF is wrong with you hoax advocates? You must be monumentally stupid.

[ApolloWasRealHoax]

@mastinotje

There was never a battle.The Americans had the corrupted Brezhnev paid well It is an estimated 5 bn$ in grain they paid aside of personal gifts.

This is why the Pravda (for the convenience of the fucking American devil USSR had only one news paper!)never exposed the hoax.Kissinger use to live in his Moscow apartment at the time of the moon hoax .

[jazzaqld24121971]

Been looking for this vid for ages added to my favs for sure

[5topper]

Someone say it's fake because the US flag waved in the moon but there's no air on the moon, and there's no flag on the moon.

I replied,"Fuck off you guys! it's real! How could NASA made a moon fake movie using the technologies in 1969?"

[thebehandonly]

@5topper They had the nuclear bomb long before that time, so it's no biggie setting up a fake set. If it's real, then answer me this- if they WERE on the moon, how come EVERYTHING around the moon (the universe) is PITCH BLACK? WTF, there's no SUNDOWN in space. That's what I want to know. i don't care if the flag waved in the wind or whatever, why's there not a fucking thing else!

[srmgin]

Just a pity they never went to the moon.

[Blahblobify]

@srmgin

A pity they did go to the moon, landed 6 times, but idiots like you are allowed to vote.

[srmgin]

@Blahblobify It is amazing how brainwashed people like you always resort to insults.

[Blahblobify]

@srmgin

I don't suffer fools lightly. People who claim the Apollo missions were all faked do not deserve anything but contempt and insults because they are being willfully stupid.

[TheMinecraftfan23]

you see that kid zero dislikes..

[woross1]

theres no wind in space but the flag is flapping..

[Tehquo]

Sweet

[inotnad]

Love it when people say we didn’t have the technology in 1969 to go to the moon. How many people know that the Russians in 1959 circled the moon with a probe, took pictures that were transmitted back. They were intercepted in England and the first pics were published in British newspapers,( while the Russians were still reviewing the photos) small victory for the west. So when Kennedy announced a mission to the moon in 1961, he knew the technology was there.

[inotnad]

The best minds and engineers were put on the Apollo missions. Throughout mankind’s history it has been 5% of the population that invents and comes up with the ideas, with 15% that can understand and implement the idea or technology. 80% either do the grunt work or don’t understand. Look at the technology around you today…80% have no idea how it works.

[MatrixFactoryGuy]

All modern day scientists and investigative reporters now agree that the moon landing was a complete hoax. We simply did not have the computer power and technical know-how to accomplish it way back then.....almost FIFTY YEARS ago!!!

This was a massive cover-up to put political pressure on the USSR and it worked

[TheDevilvivek]

Neil Armstrong was russian or american

[TheDevilvivek]

many says combustion does not takes place in space then why sun is not blowing

[TheDevilvivek]

at 1:01 who was recording rocket when it was about to reach space

[CamiloSanchez1979]

Amazing video and great editing...

[Wachatoey]

I believe the moon landing were real but the moon was acyually a prop made of Wisconson cheese.

[TaffyRaphie]

He should have said: "First!" and then strolled right off the fucking moon forever.

[The2ndJanester]

ok....how fucking hard should it be to find the original music to the apollo 11 landing? seriously, what is the name of it?

[Doctor699]

I issue a warning to NASA, move your asses back to the moon, or i will go there myself, without a degree, without a job, and i will take one of these hoaxers with me and we will show the truth of the landing!

[BoxxyfanSC]

Shooped.

[YouTiimmy]

I really don't wanna see any comments of how this was faked or any other space missions, CAUSE IT'S NOT F------ING FAKE ALRIGHT, STUPID PEOPLE.

[ross9099412]

@YouTiimmy disagree all you want,call me a fake troll but my dad's friend asked neil armstrong if it happened and he did'nt reply.maybe it did'nt happen.

[gonzaromero2007]

@YouTiimmy you are the stupid people who belives every stupid thing that the people said, cause this is a stupid film that stupids belive STUPID PEOPLE

[RasserPresser]

Fake

[XbandosXpker]

Yuri Gagarin was first person in space! Let's go soviot union! Must of been really scary to be in space !

[samee354]

Okay. If no one went to space and did exploration, how do our teachers know SO MUCH about space. If no one went there, we would barely know anything.

[Jorge7171CP]

Totally real. Neil Armstrong landed on the moon in 1969 and said the famous line: "One small step for men, one giant leap for man kind" on his first step on the Moon. They recorded every second of his 2:30 on the moon. He also traveled with Buzz Aldrin, And Micheal Collins. He was a man to remember, although people think now he was not the first one, there were men from other countries that did it first. Neil's steps are still on the moon today.

[samee354]

@Jorge7171CP Finally. SOMEONE WHO GETS IT!

[ross9099412]

@Jorge7171CP actually he did'nt say ''one small step for man,one giant leap for mankind.''.it was changed so it sounded better

[JuvelRubin]

@Jorge7171CP u got the quotation wrong, it's "one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind"

[HamBurglerMan]

take THAT soviets

[z4z5z6]

0 Haters :D

[2nasafakedit]

Apollo 11 - First FAKE Moon Landing -

Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins the Lying Traitors

[TransNeptunianObje]

Red Revue

[cagerat]

I like how they show a full moon..... It wasn't a full moon that night. It was a waxing crescent (i.e. first "eighth"). They landed right around the moon's sunrise. But hey, that's Hollywood for you.

[Th3BoxTrap]

I DONT think the moon landing was fake

[abcderqwtyz]

素晴しい！

[EvanWadeandJames]

but they wouldn't have coloured camera/videos/pictures in 1969....

[Jiminibobster]

@EvanWadeandJames There is colour footage of World War II. 1948 11 years before they went to the moon.

[webgeek111]

@Jiminibobster It was 21 years, not 11 - :). I agree Jim, they have had color cameras for ages.

[Jiminibobster]

@webgeek111 Oh yeah, might of been a typo not sure :S But yeah that guy is a moron :P

[webgeek111]

@EvanWadeandJames There were plenty of video cameras in color in 1969..look at shows such as Bewitched, which were filmed several years earlier, that were in color. It was more expensive, but by that late in the decade, it was much more common.

[vladika07]

It never happened

[aguytojoin]

I don't know what to believe but a hoax! I wonder how they progressed through the van allen radiation belt... simple question with no answers, weird i think! gets brought up time and time again ... no answers.

[krisdevalle]

@aguytojoin There's no research that definitively states that passage through the Belts would be either fatal or immediately harmful. The risk is long-term instead of immediate. Many trips through, or constant exposure, would be dangerous. If you research the Belts, yes, they are a hazard to space travel, but wet roads are a hazard to driving too. They're a hazard, not an obstacle.

[Sam67SG]

@aguytojoin

It's very simple and was answered several times. They needed 90 minutes to pass the VAB. The radiaton-exposure corresponded to the double exposure in one year on earth. And this is far away from being deadly.

[chessbuff]

the flag isn't flapping because of any wind. there is some gravity on the moon and so the flag moves as it hangs.

[webgeek111]

@chessbuff The flag is also on several poles that make it sit that way - not just one pole, but several.

[PenguinOkez]

Why is the flag moving, there should be no wind in space as there is no gravity!

[Ron911truth]

@timmhg: also, vacuum low temperature will actually increase net rocket thrust because less resistance outside the rocket engine. Thanks for your comment.

[Ron911truth]

@timmhg: I just read your comment on gasses in a vacuum how they reduce in temperature, and thus pressure. This is a GREAT comment and might be part solution. I am going to explore this idea...too busy at this moment. Thanks again. By the way... if this is true, then the LM descent video has to be false because there should be no blow effect on the surface, thus no dust blow - yet we see distinct blow. More later...

[Ron911truth]

@timmhg: the word "blast" is confusing. Its better to "hole" Imagine pushing a garden hose into the dirt. The water digs a hole. In the LM case, we have a 6000 lb thrust hose shooting air (gasses) at the lunar surface only 18 inches away, and no "hole". Just this alone indicates some huge problem. I would like discussion focused on this item.

[Ron911truth]

@timmhg: I only focus on a single issue: Why Apollo 11 LM on descent did not sculpt out a hole in the moon's surface due to the descent engine. Pictures indicate the surface was powdery/sand. Consensus seems to be about 6000 lbs of thrust at the nozzle for controlled descent. Video shows powder/ lighter material beginning to stream at 50' altitude on decent. Yet no "crater" (hole) under the descent engine. Any comment?

[musicbruv]

The LM thrust was only about 3000lb at touch down the engine nozzel was 54 inches diameter, so the pressure on the ground was about 1.3 PSI which is not alot you could proberly put your hand under it, and the dust layer was only a couple of inches deep after that is was a hard surface so at the most you would get a 2 inch deep hole.

[Ron911truth]

Something still seems fishy: LM weight was 6000, how do you figure thrust was 3000 at touchdown? Also what is formula for 1.3 psi measured where, in a vacuum, and at (?) what temperature? Thank you very much for your help. Also, reducing thrust to thrust/square inch is an illusion. 6000 lbs had to be supported 18 inches above the surface just at touchdown. Descent rate was constant and stable. Thanks.

[Ron911truth]

Thanks very much for responding. I need all the help I can get. The standard answer to date has been reduce the thrust to sq inch, however this is an illusion, total thrust had to be just a touch below total LM weight, which means 6000 lbs sitting on a river of gas touching down on a dry sandy surface, sand maybe "feet" thick (who knows?).. Fishey.. thanks for helping me.

[musicbruv]

The Lem weighed at lift off 33,205 lbs on the moon that would be 5534 lb, alot of this weight was fuel which by the time it touched down would have been mostly used so 3000lbs is plausible, the math for working out the PSI is pi (3.142) X r X r ( 27 inches) this figure is half the nozzel dia (54 in) So radius x radius = 729 X 3.142 = 2290.5 weight of lem 3000 lb, so divide 3000 by 2290.5 = 1.3 PSI this is at the nozzel the gases would spread out in a vacuum so the real figure is lower

[Ron911truth]

The math looks good however still same problem (ie) supporting a 3000lb object 18 inches above the lunar sand, on a river of gas (with 3000 lbs of force in it) yet no crater being dug in the sand/dust. Something is wrong. Video shows blow starting at 50'AGL and increasing downward. Sorry I keep repeating problem. My conclusion: fake pictures.

[musicbruv]

As I have shown the pressure on the ground is 1.3 PSI or even lower, you keep saying about 3000lb weight but that is not what it is about, forget that it is the pressure, the weight is spread out over a large area, there is a picture I have seen of a rocket running in a vacuum and the plume spreads out to about 85 degrees after leaving the nozzel, does a 10 ton helcopter leave a crater,in sand? no it does not yet the river of gas (air) is supporting 10 tons (22,400 lb)

[musicbruv]

The "sand" was 2 inches deep

[Ron911truth]

So, do you think 2 inches of "sand" and then "rock". Pictures I have seen indicate consistent surface. No sign of "bedrock".

Also, under LM, definetly not sitting on "bedrock". Looks like fake stuff to me.

[musicbruv]

If you look around you will find pictures taken which show marks on the ground beneath the lander radiating outwards, if the pictures are faked dont you think they would have thought of that and dug a crater? in the video of Niel Armstrong's landing you can see dust being blown away just before touchdown, remember this is the moon not earth conditions are different, also as there is no atmosphere there is no turbulance and the hot gases instanly disperse into the vacuum of space.

[Ron911truth]

Looks like you have made up your mind and I wish you well. Watch the touchdown again and you will see blow starting at 50' and getting worse as gettting closer. Whatever caused the blow at 50' was there at 18 inches. There are a "million" secondary logic arguments - all circimstantial- I want to stay with objective evidence. Thanks for your input.

[musicbruv]

Looks like you have made up your mind and I wish you well.

I have provided some info which I would have thought would have some creditbility, so can you give me some info on why you think there should be a crater?

[Ron911truth]

First of all, I am amazed, you actually gave a response that indicates your mind is actually open - vs the guys that say they are open, but in fact are closed. Have you been reading the comments for the whole discussion, or just spot items - (either if fine)

[musicbruv]

I have read hours of comments, most hoax believers dont give facts, can you give me any to support your belief that there should be a crater? or are you just assuming ther should be one? BYW watch the video again and one thing you need to keep in mind is that the lem was moving when forward when it touched down so was not hovering over one spot, also you can see that not alot of dust was blown away as you can still see the ground through the dust cloud.

[Ron911truth]

I have watched the video twice. Drift is quite small from 50' foot down. Blow starts at 50' getting all consuming of view until touchdown / engine shutdown. Yet no hole over a 54 inch river of gas supporting 3000 lbs. Look carfully at the purported photos direclty under the engine. Some small marks - some undisturbed dust - but all fake - should be a big hole. Best theory I can figure is faked landing.

[musicbruv]

Why shoud there be a big hole? if the dust is only few inches deep then it could not be a deeper hole than that, as the PSI is only 1.3 or less, (if you believe my figures) so how much of a hole would a 1.3 lb psi make? I use a hammer at work twice that weight Also take you weight divide by two then work out in PSI the pressure each of your feet is exerting on the ground, may be more than the rocket engine did.

[Ron911truth]

Let me rephrase the challenge: I will go with the 1.3 psi. So how can 1.3 psi cause surfact material to blow when the LM is 50 feet above the surface?? 50' is about the length of a semi-truck.

[musicbruv]

I cannot hear then say 50 ft, they say 30ft down 2 and a half, then later 4 forward, not 100 % sure what that means, could mean 30ft forward down 2 and half, then later 4 forward as they slowed down to land, which makes sense because that would be a "glide" angle just like aircraft do, also the small details on the surface dont get much bigger from the 30ft point and touch down, so I think when the dust was kicked up they were jut a few feet from touchdown

[Ron911truth]

At least you are thinking and paying attention. I thiink "glide angle" is an idea that leads to confusion. Instead I think controlling drift is more accurate. If you watched some of the tests trying to get the LM to land during Earth tests, you get the idea. Photos indicate basic straight down for the last 50'. So - what about the 1.3 at 50' blowing, what would 1.3 do at 18 inches?

[musicbruv]

What did the 30 down 2 and a half mean then? he was looking for a place to land, so he would not be coming straight down as he could not see the ground directly below him, I still say its 30 ft forward 2.5 down.

[musicbruv]

Further as I said the exhaust would spread out to about 85 degrees as soon as it left the nozzel, so if the LEM was at 50' I would say non of the exhaust would reach the ground as it would rapidly disperse into the vacuum of space, as for the 18 inches the 85 degree would still apply and the pressuse would be even lower, I will try to work it out at work, I am tired at the mo, how can you tell from photos that it went straight down from 50'?

[musicbruv]

Have to go now, I will talk again later, but feel free to leave a comment for me, bye.

[musicbruv]

Have you dropped out of the debate?

I worked out some figures and came up with these, they are based on 54 inch diameter nozzel, 85 degree spread of exhaust leaving the nozzel, and a LEM weight of 3000lbs.

At a height of 30ft, (not 50ft as they never mention 50ft) the pressure on the ground would be 0.005 PSI, so there is no chance of this video showing dust being kicked up at that height, and at 18 inches from the ground it would be .4 PSI.

[Ron911truth]

I am still here. I concur with the 85 degree spread, and I am basically seeing there should be a low degree of ground blow at any sort of altitude, and lots of blow at 18 inches. The best (uncut) video I have seen violates both ends: Distinct blow at 50' and no hole at landing. Have you seen the video with distinct blow at 50'. Your calcs indicate there should be "no blow" at 50' and I agree - yet the vid shows blow???? something's wrong.

[musicbruv]

How do you know it is at 50' ? please give the link to the video, thanks

[musicbruv]

Nothing is wrong, have you any idea how much pressure 0.005 PSI is? it is about the weight of half a sheet of A4 paper and that is at 30ft! and as I said I dont think any pressure would reach the ground this is in a vacuum remember, why would the molecules stay close together? they would rapidly spread out, and in this video I dont think they are at 30ft as I think that is 30ft foward 2.5 down, its hard to say how high they are as the terrain has nothing to use as a scale.

[Ron911truth]

We are dealing with an illusion and we have to be able to see thourgh the illusion. Whatever force capable at blowing material at 50' was certainly present at touchdown. Its is reasonable to believe ground effects are exponential as the LM approaches the surface.

[Ron911truth]

Thanks for thinking, and allow me to challenge you. If you look carefully at the (purported) ground characteristics you will see 50% sand, 49% dust, few little rocks. Now, I will throw a big challenge at you on the next comment.

[Ron911truth]

Whatever caused moon material to be blown at 50' was present at 18 inches, do you agree to this?

[timmhg]

Really Ron911truth? What about the laser reflectors installed by Armstrong on the Moonin 1969? After that, Four Observatories made measurements of Moon-Earth distance by laser ray reflected by those reflectors. Paris University released a document about the procedures to perform those measurements in 1971. Guess who proved that first?. Moon landing is a Hoax? Ignorant.

[Ron911truth]

Timmhg: Thanks for your comment. No contest on supposed laser reflector experiments because not enough information. However on the purported lunar landing, no blast crater is a big problem. Please respond. Thanks.

[timmhg]

@Ron911truth, all astronomers know about that Moon-Earth measurements method in University classes. Google can help you to get the information about it. Observatoire de Paris issued a resument for dummies. Written by Jean Chapront and Gérard Francou, named "LUNAR LASER RANGING" provides you info about all Laser reflectors arrangement during Apollo Project.

[Ron911truth]

timmhg: Overall context of my discussion is improbible Apollo 11 landing because no blast crater. Laser Ranging experiments purported to use the Apollo 11 equipment placement, don't solve the no crater problem. Can you help on the crater problem?

[timmhg]

@Ron911truth, do you expect a crater from a blast on the surface of the moon? a crater in the vacuum from a explosion propulsion as the impact of meteorite? It is not possible. The meteorite keeps the momentum until zero in a limited area, and the thrust explosion from an exhaust lunar module is not focused in a limited area, it is spread out on it. Even more, when the Lunar is landing even less power is needed.

[timmhg]

@Ron911truth, How you can expect a crater or hole in a so hard surface? On Earth experiments the lunar rocks can't be melted even with 3000 Celsius degrees. On the Moon the exhaust temperature is decreased until 540 Celsius degrees just "touching" the vacuum.

We don't expect crater at all.

[Ron911truth]

540 C exhaust temperature is interesting. Do you know how the exhaust temperature is measured for the LM on lunar descent, in a vacuum, and the moon surface was in daylight. If you have more info I would appreciate it. Thanks.

[timmhg]

@Ron911truth, the temperature on surface of moon is 120 Celsius degrees during "daylight" and -153 Celsius degrees during "night". At one meter up from the Moon, in the vacuum, the temperature is -270 degrees, why? due to the almost perfect vacuum of space. The sun radiation is transfered by electromagnetic waves. When waves reach a "black body" this object absorbs the sun radiation and produces heat. It's about Planck's law. The 540 C temperature sounds suitable, or maybe 545 C. It's up to you

[Ron911truth]

Moon landing is a hoax. Biggest problem is the lack of a blast hole from landing on talcum powder. Everyone: turn your critical thinking on.

[lugench]

Ron, lack of a blast hole? Did you not watch the footage, certainly your profile says you are old enough to have viewed on T.V. in '69. Thrusters were cutoff just prior to landing due to the moon's weak gravity, so no blast hole (see Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity). Also, if you so much kick up talcum powder and iron filings in vacuum they would fall at extacly the same rate (see Galileo and Newton). Did you even finish school?

[Ron911truth]

Lugench: Thanks for the response.Check rate of decent was constant from approx 1000 feet all the way to the surface. Lander weight in lunar gravity is about 2000 lbs, Thruster Diameter was about 36 inches (from memory), purported video from about 50 feet above touchdown shows beginning of dust plume.  Please respond. Thanks.

[lugench]

Wrong, breaking thrusters were used at about the last 100 feet or so at touchdown. 2000lb is quite light considering that there ejector seat systems that can push at least 3 times that much for fighter pilots.

[musicbruv]

Ejector seats!! what would they do?

[Ron911truth]

@lugench, from watching the whole lunar descent video, starting at about 16,000 feet (from memory), decelleration was constant and very smooth all the way to the surface. No last minute blast.  Engine shut off was at touchdown. We should see a "hole" but none = fake video to me.

[lugench]

perhaps the moon dirt is composed stellar material ie. iron, nickel, carbon etc. and carries an electric static charge. So it would not want to be moved to make a hole. Maybe it was being stubborn.

[musicbruv]

You are partly correct, the dust is very rough as there has never been any weathering to smooth it out and the particles tend to stick together.

[lugench]

music, lol good to know

[Ron911truth]

By the way, it looks like most people are settling on a LM weight of 6000 lbs. In my earlier post I used 2000 just to be way safe. Also most seem to be settling on a diameter of 54 or 62 inches. Missing crater is still a problem.

[timmhg]

@Ron911truth, the real problem is to see a crater from a explosion of gases. That could be so suspicious. Explosion of gases spread out all around meanwhile and about an impact of meteorite or some object at very high speed on Moon surface can produce a "crater" depending on the weight and speed of the moving object crashed because the stop of the momentum produces heat.

[Ron911truth]

@timmhg: can you answer why no "hole" in the lunar surface after landing a 3-6000 lb object teetering on a river of gas, where we know there sandy/ dusty soil.

Thanks for your help.

[timmhg]

@Ron911truth, Easy. It's about MOMENTUM. Only objects at high speed (dymanics) stopped by the surface can produce heat and a hole due to the force to stop it. Spread out of gases (even with as explosion) can' t to do it due to it is not a concentrated force . Imagine the meteorite as a vector and the gas explosions (or handled) as many many vectors. It's Physics basics.

[jistru]

BUUUUULLSHIIIIITTTTT

[timmhg]

yes I'm agree jistru, a lot! tons of shit but in your microbrain.

[jistru]

u knw it is...

[yummyseed]

looks real to me , I can tell by the flag and how it hovers in a state that can only be explain by its invironment. All this talk of how the flag was flapping in the wind did not occur as you can see the astronauts move as the flag stayed in its form. 4:42.

[goku161]

Bugt at 4:40 the flag is wavin.. FAKEEEE

[yummyseed]

Hovering not east or west wind type flapping

[tikiteyboo]

@yummyseed The flag stayed up, it had a pole running through the top of the flag

[MrYougotjohn]

Guys, and girls. Please pay attention. There is a man in a studio and black screen behind him. It is not a man on the moon. IF it were real, we would see JUST ONE star in the sky. Just one little star. In a sky. You know??? Stars? Sky? Space? But we don't. Game over. You are all being hoaxed by NASA. Man, so simple. Ok, Sorry, truth has to come out.

[loftuslee72]

wow what an uneducated reply

[teebee1984]

That was wonderful. Those who say fake insult the brave men of Apollo 11. Great video thanks for posting.

[740446]

It was all Faked. No Rocket Ship has ever Landed On Earth or the Moon. The Lem did not work on Earth. Armstrong tested it and almost lost his Life. He Ejected one second before the thing crashed and burned.

It was all Faked, Faked, Faked, Faked, Faked, Faked.

Wake up and smell the coffee, we did not land on the moon.

[loftuslee72]

do some research before shooting your mouth off..

[15crb]

i agree 1000000000000000% because at 3:38 it shows neil armstrong exiting the apollo 11 stepping the first foot on the moon. one problem how he being recorded from that angle. its like someone set a camera just for the occation. like in a studio or something. THIS SHIT IS A BIG ASS HOAX AND OUR GOVERNMENT IS FUCKING HORRIBLE AT COVERING THIS SHIT UP

[monkeyboytheshill]

Calm the hell down crb.

The moon landings were real. Virtually all scientists around the world agree.

[Synthetrix]

Sorry to burst your CT bubble, but It's well-known fact that Armstrong pulled a D-ring to deploy the Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA) folded against Eagle's side and activate the TV camera. It did not require anyone to "set up" the camera. The first landing used slow-scan television incompatible with commercial TV, so it was displayed on a special monitor and a conventional TV camera viewed this monitor, significantly reducing the quality of the picture.

[timmhg]

15crb In the SHIT people everything is possible even reading is out of your hand.

[Tim0Power]

Kann ich das Video runterladen?

Where I can download this movie?

Wäre echt super nett, brauche ich für Referat in der Schule.

I would be very happy, because I need it for school

[ToughGuysOfAmerica]

stop saying its fake you dont know anything you just run your mouth but you have no say no one cares for you, weakminded people

[GrayStripe198]

I think its awesome...hey why are people calling this fake? Looks like real 1969 tv footage too me!

[noseham]

fake

[terreplein]

One giant leap for mankind. Tremendous, just tremendous. Thanks for the video.

[ThePeacenepal]

great video ........

great man

[championxeneixe]

That movie deserve an Oscar...great SPECIAL EFFECTS! Who direct this movie? NICE...

[poohdope]

yup thats an all time classic, lol

[malafe247]

fake eyes wide open!