Common "call outs" of this video answered. Upvote this so people can clarify: "There's no fire!!" - The lunar module's ascent propulsion system burns hypergolic fuel which produces a transparent flame (the titan-gemini also burns hypergolic; the exhaust is transparent). Additionally, the moon has no atmosphere, meaning the rocket exhaust has an infinite volume to expand into. Take something that's already very transparent, and stretch it out to infinity. You won't be able to see it. "Nice fireworks on takeoff" - those were likely small bits of the lander or even pieces of the explosive bolts that had just detonated to separate the ascent stage from the descent stage. "There should be way more dust!" - there was a lot of dust kicked up, it just didn't linger because once again, there is no atmosphere. On Earth, there is air for the dust particles to linger around in. On the moon, there is not, so the dust falls back down as does anything else. Also, there was a solid object directly between the engine and the surface of the moon. "What about the cameraman??" - there's this thing called remote control?? The first two or three times they tried to film the LEM taking off, they failed because they hadn't perfected the camera panning with a several second delay. This last time they got it. "The engines only turned on for half a second and it's in orbit? How?" - the engines were on for a while. You just don't see the plume. It's hard to tell because your only reference frame disappears, but it is accelerating upward. Not moving at a constant speed, not falling back down, but accelerating. "How come rockets are so big on Earth, but this was so tiny?" - The LEM is very lightweight. Also, let's not forget tsiolkovsky's rocket equation. dV = Veq * ln(mf/me). The moon has a low orbit velocity of about 1.7 km/s, and the Earth has one of about 7.8 km/s (let's also not forget the effect the atmosphere plays on earth rockets). You need exponentially more fuel to accelerate only four times as fast because of the physics behind this equation. Also, hypergolic fuel is very dense, so it takes up less volume.
Sammy , I appreciate very much your explanation of the fuel . I myself have never been a denier or hoaxer, I just didn't square with the take off . You , sir , nailed it .
I'm a believer, i.e. I believe in what I see and hear minus what I don't know and am cheated by my senses.What is explanation of no sound and vibration comming from 16 kN rocket engine? EDIT: I'm referring to some other video which is recorded within LEM during the same time. Recording device captures voices (no vacuum, inside is pressurised) but do not capture any sound of working engine on which they practically sit. Also I know now there's no turbo pump. Still there're turbulences, burning, rapidly expanding gases. I'd be glad if someone with particular knowledge of this kind of rocket engine provide me with information regarding sound level which should be expected in this case. Also this is a minor discrepancy and I do not give a fu.. about it anymore.
That rocket motor had to be 100% reliable with no chance of a misfire on takeoff. After having gone through the rigors of travelling through space , that was a very tall order.
@butchtropic Also they only needed 2 out of 8 available valves to work. Getting up was a lot safer than getting down, and both of those were a LOT safer than taking off from the cape. If not for the extra safety measures taken they could have gotten a lot more weight on the moon (and more samples back) as the fuels were far less effective per weight unit.
Chris Kleckner The rocket system that took man to the moon and back had 83 rocket engines - if Iremember that correctly. Vintage Space did a special video on the number engines. What rigors are you talking about? Do you even know for yourself?
yo don't worry if you saw the footage from inside he got back in it's just he went too fast for us to see him but nasa will send new missions to bring back the other cameramen
At 1:30 the leader asked Cameraman " You want to pick up the Camera " Then at 3:03 the camera focussed on the ridge of the hill but moved to the sky automatically by image sensor though there was no Digital Camera at that time and no image sensor to react so quickly at all. So, Cameraman may be starving there. They should hurry up!
I was the same age. I wrote to Nasa and they sent me 8x10 crew photos and mission reports even to a kid in Canada. I was thrilled and still have them. It inspired me to an aeronautical engineering career. Im sure 100s of 1000s of theres were similarly inspired. These bozos who weren’t even alive who say it was all faked really tick me off. What a slap in the face to their nation’s finest hour.
@@jaycharles3121 Do you know that you can reflect the laser in mirrors that were left by astronauts on the lunar surface? IS this proof enough? You have a precise coordinates on the Internet, point the laser at those coordinates, and you'll see the laser reflected. Boom,hoax debunked. Haha.
Jay Charles They lost the original tapes recorded on film in case the telecast didn’t work. What they lost were backup tapes. They didn’t “lose” the blueprints to build the Saturn V. The Saturn V was purposefully retired because it no longer had a use. Do you expect nasa to keep building a multi billion dollar 50+ year old rocket that had no use to them?
I suspect NASA would have built another spacecraft to replace the outdated craft by now. I also suspect after mastering manned moon visits, NASA would have returned post ‘72. I strongly suspect NASA would have displayed advancement in space travel, beyond aircraft (space shuttle), graphics screens, layered CGI videos, and actors in suspension harnesses. We have witnessed their capabilities, and they are severely lacking. Anyone using their higher mind knows why.
@@toberrdrawforc They have tried to build more Moon rockets and they have tried to go back to the Moon. But Nasa had a budget cut of over 4 times after Apollo and the budget continued to slowly decline. They simply didn't have the extra money (until recently) to carry out their ambitions. Research the Space Transport System proposal from 1969, The Constellation Program, and the Space Exploration Initiative.
The controller who was controlling the rover's camera had tried to get that shot on the 2 previous missions and couldn't do it, the delay of his commands going from Houston to Goldtone then to the Moon and back caused issues. They computed the delay they got from the previous attempts and for the last try, the controller started controlling the cam even before they took off.He sent the un-zoom and tilt command beforehand to make up for the delay. To be able to catch the pitch over point was a piece of work.
Lift off from the lunar surface fifty years ago yesterday. Knowing they were to be the last of the Apollo missions, they fit as much as they could into the 75 hours the LEM crew spent on th moon. Good that they did. Amazing achievement from beginning to end.
@@vsetenjoyer This is amazing camera work from Houston working on at minimum a 5 second delay. The way they timed the take off with a 3 second count down on a 5 second delay. Amazing.
@@mrmighty9862 What do you mean? What is your point here? This is in no relation to what my comment was, I was simply saying how Apollo 13 was an achievement too not comparing amazingness factor of each achievement completed by Apollo missions.
@@findkip It was a 1.3 second delay, each way. Seems you misplaced a decimal point. You only need a few Watts of power to transmit over that distance when the receiver is listening through a huge radio astronomy dish. You only need a small dish at the Moon when the transmission comes from the same radio astronomy dish.
A conversation with a UA-cam commentator proves nasa spent billions on nothing…. Only proves the kool aid you drink is way better than mine. How many watts does it take to transmit a radio signal 100 miles? Do you know do you actually know anything?
YOU SAID: "So how did the camera on the moon get the footage to earth remote?" == Radio. YOU SAID: "A tiny remote camera has enough power to transmit and be controlled?" == Yes. Radio. YOU SAID: "Wow that is a huge amount of power to transmit a radio signal 250,000 miles and be remotely controlled" == Which conspiracy video told you such a ridiculous thing? The first satellite radio was only 14 watts. Nobody had a problem receiving signals from it. You can go get a little 1 foot dish and receive hundreds of channels of satellite TV from a 50 watt transmitter. Voyager craft are billions of miles away, and we have no trouble remote controlling them. And, if you have a hard time believing all of that, ok, fine, you can do it yourself. It's called a "moon bounce." Go to any of the thousands of videos and websites that will describe to you what dish to buy, and you can aim it at the moon and bounce a signal off of it, and talk with someone half way around the globe, just from bouncing a backyard radio signal off of the moon. That's double the distance you're complaining about. YOU SAID: "with a 13 second delay." == Radio signals don't care about the delay. They either make it to their destination, or they don't. And, you're wrong. It's 1.3 seconds of delay from the Earth to the moon, not 13. YOU SAID: "Umm no for remote control it's more than 1.3 seconds" == Radio takes 1.3 seconds to get from the Earth to the moon. It doesn't matter if it's for the purpose of remote control, or the purpose of carrying audio signals, or whatever else. Radio operates at the speed of light. Do the math. YOU SAID: "sorry you have to see what you're doing." == Dummy, how does this conspiracy go, exactly? Do you think that the thousands of worldwide communications engineers who worked to design and build the network that allowed this stuff to work... were all too stupid to do this math that YOU are doing? The millions of communications engineers worldwide since then?? They're all too stupid to calculate this delay also? YOU SAID: "A few watts. Lol no it doesn't work like but whatever" == Who told you that? Why do you think you need more? The huge dishes they used during Apollo were designed to receive radio patterns from distant pulsars that are millionths of a watt, from tens of thousands of lightyears away. (Yes, literally.) Did a conspiracy video tell you that there wasn't enough wattage for this equipment to work? Did they dazzle you with fancy terminology like "inverse square law"? Did they falsely compare Earth-based broadcast towers with unidirectional dishes used for satellites and to/from the moon? YOU SAID: "A conversation with a UA-cam commentator proves nasa spent billions on nothing. Only proves the kool aid you drink is way better than mine." == What in the world are you talking about? YOU SAID: "How many watts does it take to transmit a radio signal 100 miles? Do you know do you actually know anything?" == You are going to compare omnidirectional broadcast towers to Apollo now, right? You are under the impression that the mathematical formulas for signals broadcasted from TV towers (which broadcast in all directions) are identical to the mathematical formulas for signals sent via a dish, right? A conspiracy video told you to make this comparison, and you just bought it hook line and sinker, right? Again, dummy, you can go buy a dish yourself, and bounce signals off of the moon. It's called a "moon bounce." It doesn't take a 50,000 watt TV transmitter tower to do it. You can go to the store today, buy a radio and a small backyard dish about 2 feet in diameter, plug it into your wall outlet, and send radio signals to a friend around the world by bouncing it off of the moon. You don't need to trust me, or Andre, or NASA, or anybody else. You can do this for yourself. There are thousands of "moon bounce" articles and videos on the internet that will tell you exactly how to do it. You have no idea what you're talking about. Quit accusing thousands of people of being criminals because of your psychotic need to pretend to know things you don't know.
@@yazzamx6380 At the speed of light there would be a 4 second delay in transmission. 2 seconds from the camera to earth and then 2 seconds remote response from earth to the camera on the moon. How did the cameraman in Houston pan and zoom the camera to follow the lunar module? How were the radio communications so quick too? How were they apparently faster than the speed of light? We witness camera delays here on Earth today (2019) just from one part of the world to another, but somehow it was instantaneous 230,000 miles away on the moon. I really would like to know.
@@DCTib - No my friend, at the speed of light the delay is 1.3 seconds in each direction, where communication was via *direct line of sight* between the massive radio telescopes/dishes here on Earth and the radio dish on the rover. Before lift-off, the astronauts mounted the TV camera on the rover, where it ran off the power left in the rover's batteries. For Apollo 15, there was a problem with the TV camera and so Ed Fendell couldn't pan the camera to track the Ascent Module; ua-cam.com/video/Y5f1oWu5VtY/v-deo.html For Apollo 16, Ed Fendell tried again. He had to *listen to the countdown and move the TV camera controls seconds before it reached zero* so that the commands reached the camera at just the right time to follow the Ascent Module. He timed the start correctly but he couldn't pan the camera up fast enough (because the astronauts parked the rover closer to the LM than planned), and so the Ascent Module went off the top of the screen; ua-cam.com/video/yn1S-flYkaQ/v-deo.html Apollo 17 was Ed's third and last chance. Guided again by the countdown so that he could react just before it reached zero, Ed managed to zoom the TV camera out and then panned the camera up at the correct speed, where this time he successfully kept the Ascent Module within the shot, as seen in this topic video.
@@landanwoodard7569 - you didn’t find those colourful sparkle bursts realistic? I’d like to think a dollar shop party popper could create a similar effect. Maybe I’ll create a similar video claiming i landed on a rainbow and have the masons push that information onto the sheeple. Oh I forgot, I’m not a part of that satanic cult!
Holy balls of steel. I would rather fight ten vikings to the death than get in that thing. All I can say is thanks guys. We would probably still be cavemen if not for guys like this and the people behind them.
@@unarammer2003 Ohh a flat earther. Because you saw a conspiracy video you have all the answers? Can you explain why it is not real? So they did this to fool the Russians? They will be going back soon. Will that be fake too?
@@MuckoMan ohhh sure they are going back...and they will have space force to protect them from alien attacks...grow the f**k up...you people are what's wrong with the world...when I say u people I mean the mindless masses that believe TV is reality...
@@unarammer2003 Why are you so confident? I felt that way at one time and in reality I don't really know for sure. I know they did put a lot of money into shooting giant rockets out into space. From there no one knows what happened. All I know is those guys had bigger balls than most of us.
Utterly amazing achievements; the two astronauts sound so calm in the final moments before lift off, you’d think they were popping to the shops! Incredible. I loved every minute of Apollo. Hope I’ll still be here to see the return of man on the moon.
He's still alive. You should ask him. If I ever meet him again, I'll ask. But, I honestly don't know if he just got it to work, or if he had to hold the switch the entire time.
@@rockethead7 it's great he's still alive..it's funny there's only 10 seconds where the camera doesn't work, I think right before liftoff he had to push a confirmation button or two(PRO?). Funny they had comm problems for at least a minute after takeoff, MC asking the LMP to switch to Aft Omni..I can picture Schmitt holding on to the switch, making sure he recorded this historic takeoff for generations to come, smiling his way up to orbit knowing he was ignoring MC for awhile.
So glad this footage is available to the masses. I for one would have never any desire to watch this if UA-cam were not in existence. It’s been a wild ride UA-cam
I know! I did too! And the fact that one of the two astronauts was a geologist on the moon was awesome. Man did he totally geek out over everything he saw.
Yes ,Stanley Kubrick was a great director One of the best movies... The audio script could have been a little better though.. He didn't have a big enough budget...
@@raulm1961 imagine how good they would do it now! Better sets, CGI ! Apps to control the delay, so you don’t need the CIA on the earpiece prompting them.. or bits of cardboard at the spaceship window! They would make it look beautiful and believable!
@@Dazza19746 Is this seriously what you are doing with your life? Why watch the videos that you claim to hate? By literally giving space agencies money from YT revenue lmao
@@MeltedToast84 where did I claim to hate it? It’s entertaining, watching how pathetic the fakery is, and also interesting to watch how people like you react vehemently defending the lie. It’s pretty much the same as religious people ‘defending their faith!!’ A large number of awaking individuals, now know about many of the lies we’ve had moulded into this ‘reality’ And please explain how ‘space agencies’ get money from some Italian guys YT channel 🤔😂
@@Dazza19746 "A large number of awaking individuals" you mean the middle-aged men with nothing better to do than listen to retarded liars like yourself? If you cant understand basic science, and i KNOW you can not as you are clearly extremely uneducated in actual physics, thats not my problem. You use your disgustingly cynical mindset to laugh at and make fun of people with opposing views. How the fuck do you expect people to join you? Your literally doing the same concept as those protestors destroying art in galleries all over the world. The fact that you are "entertained" by watching others "fail" as you call international achievements, proves to me that you are in the worst state of mental health I have ever seen. I dont know if this is because your lover ditched you (understandably) or you just had so much lying nonsense shoved down your throat that you had no other option than to join the cult. As I am now fairly concerned with your tragic state of mind, i can not for the life of me be bothered to respond anymore than I have done. Utter buffoons like yourself are far, far beyond saving and unlike you in your sad lonely little life interacting with online trolls, I actually have things to do outside of the internet. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤪🤪🤪🤪🥰🥰🥰😜😜😜😜😜😜😜 Legit you ^
Apollo Houston The amazing thing about it is, the man who had to control the camera had to time it approximately 6 seconds before lift off when to push the stick up to control the camera. That's how long of a control input delay it was...
British Broadcast Gaming Network actually its just not true. A remoe controlled camera from the moon surface? Serious? If that was the case they would of already sent a rover to the moon last week to show everyone the flag and around the moon. But the problem is his "It's hard to think straight when people lie to you" David Blaine in Space!
PizzaT Back than it wasn't as simple to get to the moon, therefore it was significant to see two men get launched back into orbit from the surface of the moon.
+Roger Clemons Computer generated images. In the late 60s and early 70s. When a computer took up a majority of a room and could basically just do math. Sounds legit.
+InitialDsTak The doubletalk of these hoax nuts! They want to claim that NASA had the computer tecnology to produce hours of CGI, but not to run flight control software without virtually zero graphics display!
We should have gone back many times by now.. yeah. - and we likely would have, had it not been for the ALIEN UFO BEINGS WHO WARNED THE U.S. ASTRONAUTS ON THEIR APOLLO MISSION, (TO), "STAY OFF THE MOON! THIS IS NO PLACE FOR YOU!!" NASA's reply was: "OK then. You got it, Mr. E.T.'s "sirs". Message heard, received and understood. 'Your' moon. 'We' bad." End of discussion (and moon flights!) ;o)
This historical event, I still see it and I am moved by the precision and that they have used two cameras to document it. It is simply an amazing achievement.
@@cha7664 yeah, ok🤣🤣🤣 haha, Hey you guys, look at this ballon head over here. Dropping in with your space balls account pic all like; hi! my name is.. Who? My name is.. What? My name is; Chicka chicka Fuc*ing GlobeTard👌🏼 Get the f*** out. 😂
It was a hypergolic engine, the two fuels burn on contact, the flame for then is nearly invisible. Combine that with the lack of any atmosphere from keeping the flame pushed together, and a camera from the early 70s, and you won’t be able to see it
The camera was operated from earth using an anticipated 1.2 second delay to account for the distance the signal needed to travel. You can see the exhaust at launch. Since there is little gravity and atmosphere, the visual is completely different that you'd witness on earth. What you see from @3:02 to @3:04 would be impossible to recreate on earth.
You see the blast at separation when it kicks up dust and debris. The hypergolic fuel used puts out a very clean exhaust which is virtually invisible in a vacuum. Fuel and oxidizer were stored in tanks on the sides of the ascent stage. Since they had different densities, one tank is bigger than the other, which is why the LM looks a bit asymmetrical from the front. The motor was housed in the center of the ascent stage (part of it sticks up into the cabin - there are plenty of drawings online that show the arrangement). The camera was controlled from Houston by a man named Ed Fendell, who had to account for the lag time in the signal.
The fuel was stored in a tank with pressurized helium. There was no motor. The helium pushed the two chemicals into a chamber where it mixed and caused thrust. You could have looked this up yourself ya know. It's okay to educate yourself on the matter instead of asking stupid questions that you think are proof, instead of revealing how are ignorant you are to the masses.
The camera was set up by the astronauts and was remotely operated from Houston. LOOK IT UP. Don't be ignorant your whole life on the matter. LEARN something.
Look up field sequential color to find out why the video looks odd. I actually have a color polaroid of the lm taking of moment, taken from the video screen at JSC. My late dad designed the circuit to separate the video signal into the 3 separate colors, to recombine into color later, so frame rate is 1/3 of normal. Remember the camera with the rotating 3 color filter in front of it? This video is as real as it gets!
These color artifacts also prove that these scenes are indeed recorded by a live video camera - not recorded on film and then broadcast afterward on video. I point this out because if the shots were hoaxed, they would have to be first recorded on film (especially for any supposed "slow motion" low gravity astronauts on moonwalk effect). You would not get the peculiar RGB separations or highlight streaks that are telltales of primitive video sensors, if the scenes were first recorded on film. Then again, I'm giving hoaxers too much credit to assume they even understand the difference between film and video.
@@Steveaustin007 : Right, we know you didn't know that. Because you're uneducated in science and physics. Thus, you're not the type to have an opinion that any educated person cares about.
@Boris Madzarevic 😆 🤣 😂 the cameraman was left there with 50 years worth of snickers bars and died in 2013 when he ran out. He weighed 102 lbs when he died. Last person he ever talked to was president Nixon on a landline and then they lost the technology to be able to communicate and as astroNOT Don Petit said, they "lost the technology" to go back or communicate. The cameraman became a Buddhist monk in order to cope with loneliness. He dropped the mirror when he died do its no longer visible with the laser. Of course it was there until them tho and anyone thar questions it is a brainwashed moron.
I consider this possible the most amazing footage of the entire program. I got up early to watch Neil step off the ladder onto the moon, but this really pumps me up.
What I find fascinating is that around the 4:40 mark in the video, the rover's camera pans around the landing site, zooming in on descent stage absent, of course, the LM ascent portion. It gives us a glimpse as to what the sites of all 6 landing missions would look like were we lucky enough to see them as they are today. Let's hope that at some future time, we will preserve each and every one and forever be a testament to human ingenuity and the drive to explore other worlds.
To all the hoaxers who think it's impossible for radio signals to travel that far and operate a camera, the first "wireless" remotely controlled torpedo was demonstrated by Nikola Tesla in 1898, 74 years before Apollo 17. Archibald Low was known as the "father of radio guidance systems" for his pioneering work on guided rockets and planes during the First World War. In 1917, he demonstrated a remote-controlled aircraft to the Royal Flying Corps and in the same year built the first wire-guided rocket. In World War I, the Imperial German Navy employed FL-boats (Fernlenkboote) against coastal shipping. These were driven by internal combustion engines and controlled remotely from a shore station through several miles of wire wound on a spool on the boat. An aircraft was used to signal directions to the shore station. EMBs carried a high explosive charge in the bow and traveled at speeds of thirty knots. The Soviet Red Army used remotely controlled teletanks during the 1930s in the Winter War against Finland and the early stages of World War II. We had devices that can pick up signals in pico and atto watts (10^-15 to 10^-18 watts for a very long time). Your phone GPS works with weaker signal strength than that and even an average FM radio receiver is sensitive enough to work with signals in the pW range. Now I hope you understand what a Watt is or how a radio receiver is. And if you come here spitting "Space is fake", then I'm sorry, I can't convince genuinely brain damaged or retarded folk.
A lot of the space effort was for publicity, so it’s no wonder that cameras were on board and left behind on the Moon. There’s nothing explicitly strategic about going to the moon. except for the devices created along the way.
So much energy required to launch that thing into lunar orbit yet strangely no gas exhaust no dust either, the mission scientists were pretty sure they would not get footage due to the amount of gas exhaust and dust
@@AndrewAHayes the exhaust of the fuel used, aerozine 50, is already hard to see in the atmosphere, but in a vacuum, where rocket exhausts get thinner and wider, it's practically invisible, but you can see some of the descent stage's top catch fire 2:58
The engine of LM's ascent stage had 3500 pounds of thrust (non-throttleable) and enough fuel to last for about 7 1/2 minute. During that time it climbed to a 110 km high orbit with a speed of about 5800 km/h.
The capsule isn’t really that little, but here’s how it got unfolded after they landed on the moon. The buggy was left behind when they took off. ua-cam.com/video/NBNhUNROV5U/v-deo.html
The Apollo missions were just so exciting! I remember the Apollo 17 mission well. I was a space-crazed 10 year old, and I was so disappointed that the lunar EVA's took place while I was in school! I tell younger people I feel very fortunate to have watched Apollo 11 mission (as well as all of the other Apollo missions) live as a child - missions that will be remember just not for hundreds, or even thousands, but tens of thousands of years from now when humanity set foot on another world!
When you look through a window you CAN look in more than one direction. In the case of a window in the vertical plane you can look up at the sky or down at the ground, or to left or right. You are not constrained to looking only at the horizon. The camera in this case was mounted to point somehwat towards the surface. After the pitch-over manoeuvre (when the LM orientates itself to a more facedown attitude) the camera is even more likely to be pointing straight down. Finally, IIRC the LM windows where not completely in the vertical plane but looked towards the surface by some angle - after all their main function was to allow its pilots to eyeball the lunar surface during the last few minutes of descent.
@@eventcone those windows weren't big enough. And the lunar module was blocking the view on the bottom of the window. They wouldn't have stuck a camera in the window either which would block the view they needed during navigation.
@@eventcone how on earth could the pilots eyeball anything out those windows. They were well above the pilot seats. It doesn't add up. And... In the other video... The pilot was holding that same camera. Was he standing in order to point that camera down through the window while also navigating.
@@TheCatBilbo Bell industries is awake now. After a helicopter lands it drops the engine. The second engine it carries will bring the chopper up in the air again. Airplanes can do the same. After landing they drop two engines and use the two remaining engines for lift off. In the future cars will have two engines. One for driving forward and one for parking backwords. In area 51 there are many ufo engines the aliens dropped because they wanted to get back home after landing on our planet. I think the alien space ships visiting many planets must have had a thousand engines they dropped all around the galaxy.
@@gmailaccount1894 Um, right. I was meaning: one engine in the lander section (left on the Moon); one engine in the ascent stage (to reach orbit again); both had to work and that means having a lot of faith in them, hence the astronauts being brave. I wouldn't tell everyone about the Aliens and their many engines...the Men in Black will come find you. ;-)
Actually, yes - through something similar. Wi-Fi uses low power radio signals (usually UHF) to transmit data between devices. The RCA camera used here was mounted to the rover, and was powered by its batteries. The rover had a high gain S-band antenna that was pointed toward earth, linking to the giant radio telescopes of the Deep Space Tracking Network.
All signals used for long distance communications are ground based and bounced off atmosphere, and connected via cables when possible, nothing has been bounced off the moon. It is not a rock in outer space. People working in this field know this. The satellites never shown in NASA video are not there. Transfer towers also assist with connecting signal networks. The missing curvature allows this too.
Please speak for urself. Even the men who “went” were ashamed of themselves for lying. Their first interview wasn’t men ecstatic to tell the world of their great adventure. They were sullen sad and frankly didn’t wanna talk about it. Then none of them went around to schools telling all the school children to reach for the moon and when confronted about it as older men they got very angry. And buzz Aldrin now that he is really old has been recorded saying they didn’t go to the moon. See as you get older you get diahreah of the mouth and ur brain wants to cleanse the heart and soul of lies. The fact is we didn’t go to the moon. We can’t go to the moon. There is a gas up there that snuffs out all fire. So it’s impossible. But notice I said up. Yes there is an up and a down. We r the down. The earth is flat and we have a fixed firmament over us dividing the waters from the waters. So it’s us .. then a glass firmament and water above that and then God. We r His footstool. And once you realize everything in the book of Genesis is true and that God made all this and we can’t go anywhere you start to realize what matters and that’s ur relationship with Christ.
How did the microphones inside the LEM not pick up the ignition? And how is he so calm when he says "We're on our way, Houston!" When he should be experiencing g-force from the sudden liftoff? Or turbulence? I'm not one of those idiots who denies the moon landings, but the audio just doesn't match. Is there a delay?
Most of the noise we here from rockets here on Earth comes from the hot gases exiting the nozzle at hypersonic speed and colliding with the sounding air, generating light, heat and sound. There's no air on the moon, it's a vacuum, therefore there's no sound from the rocket engine to be heard. Also, the lack of air means their no air resistance and therefore no turbulence. And the g-force from lift-off in the 1/6 gravity of the moon was not significantly enough to effect the astronauts. And yes there is a delay in the audio in all the places where we would expect a delay :-)
YOU SAID: "How did the microphones inside the LEM not pick up the ignition?" == Yazzam answered already, but I'll just echo his reply. With no atmosphere, a rocket isn't going to make as much noise. What little noise is able to reverberate through the metals (the only sound you'll hear if you're in a vacuum to begin with), is greatly dampened. And, 3500 pounds of thrust isn't very much, relatively speaking. But, let's flip this around a bit... almost nobody denies that the astronauts were able to speak during a Saturn V launch (7.5 million pounds of thrust). Granted, the astronauts were further away from the engines. But, c'mon, 7.5 million pounds of thrust in an atmosphere (loud), vs. 3500 pounds of thrust in a vacuum (almost zero sound)... the conspiracy folks are complaining about the wrong thing. They should be complaining that they should't be able to hear the astronauts during the Saturn V launch, not the tiny little LEM. But, that doesn't fit [most of] their narrative for how they think the moon landings were "faked," so they only complain about the aspects that fit the narrative, and ignore the aspects that don't. YOU SAID: "And how is he so calm when he says "We're on our way, Houston!"" == Sounds excited to me. YOU SAID: "When he should be experiencing g-force from the sudden liftoff?" == They were strapped in by harness cords that attached to their suits to keep them in place. And, this wasn't a 5G climb or something. It was around 1G. No big deal. YOU SAID: "Or turbulence?" == You get turbulence from an atmosphere. There is virtually no atmosphere on the moon. YOU SAID: "I'm not one of those idiots who denies the moon landings, but the audio just doesn't match. Is there a delay?" == You must be aware of where the recordings were taking place. They were taking place in Houston. You won't hear a delay between when an astronaut speaks and when CAPCOM answers because that's where the recording it taking place. You hear the delay in the opposite direction.
The only manned lunar mission that happened during my lifetime...I was born in the summer of '72! 😉 I remember watching STS-135 lift off with my year and a half old son, and telling him that it was the only shuttle mission that he'd ever get to watch live.
@@Spark-In-The-Dark don the tinfoil hats...I'm not chasing you down that rabbit hole. But you can keep being you and keep propagating someone else's lies all you want. Just don't do it on my posts. And I assure you that they are lies.
@Brent Boswell Be careful you don't think too much so you don't give yourself an embolism. There's way too much air going through your head, for it to be safe for you to think if you believe the moonlandings were real.
Remote controlled? Lmfao.... I built THE most powerful transmitter and reciever available for my rc jetplane.... and it still crapped out over 5 miles...buahahahahahahaah 238000 miles is the moon ....buahahabababa remote controlled camera on the moon buahahahahaha IN THE 60S buahahhahhaahah
So how did they control the camera watching them take off. This is almost 50 years ago! Also what's that thing moving across the screen just after they take off
Remote control via a radio link through the Lunar Rover's dish antenna to the camera. The controller (Ed Fendell) sent his commands in advance, according to a predetermined sequence, because of the signal delay. What moving object?
First of all, this is apollo 16 not 11. Also remote controlling was invented in 1956. If you’re referring to the debris, well that’s because they had to be broken of so it could detached from the legs. If you’re referring to the dark smudge on the smaller screen, that’s the eagles shadow?
Pisses me off that you didn't put the damned YEAR... I guess it was around '72 and the last mission, without Googling it? At any rate, I remember how sad it was how *routine* moon missions had become. So routine, that this mission was hardly noticed. Hardly paid any attention. They came back home and just a BIG "So what". What an amazing irony for so great an accomplishment.
I’m still amazed at this time (2019) that the Americans could pull this trip off. I remember as a kid when this took place but did not realize just how hard it was for this mission to succeed. I really wonder what NASA could do with todays technology on going back to the moon. One thing for sure is that there will be wonderful pictures and videos/cameras. Maybe they could leave a couple of live feed PTZ cameras for us to play with via the internet !!!!
Ross in Ontario Like you, I remember those days. One thing is for certain. If we go back, there would be a new generation of conspiracy lunatics calling it a hoax.
@@kingmanta7679 critical parts of the technology are lost because the men who designed and built them by hand are dead. This was one of the disadvantages of doing the space race under a time constraint without modern-day computer and engineering technology. We will have to reinvent such technology and join it to much more advanced technology, or perhaps find completely different ways of accomplishing a return to the Moon. that does not mean that the evidence we have that they actually did go to the Moon successfully isn't accurate oh, it just means we don't have all the information and Technology to do so presently. also NASA's budget is much less than it was in the 1960s when we were doing this race to the moon, And also the national and political will is not unified behind this goal as it was then.
I knew you guys would never leave anyone behind from a mission . He will sure be happy to see in a couple of years. And thank god you had klingon oxygen tanks back then. Good job guys.
@@yazzamx6380 Well, yes. I do question things I don't understand. That is how it is supposed to work, right? Are you telling me you don't question things that don't make sense? That explains a lot.
@@sheshotjfk8375 - You said "Well, yes. I do question things I don't understand. That is how it is supposed to work, right? " That is not what you were doing here and hence you prove the point I was getting too. If you don't understand something then you should make the effort to understand it so that your opinions can come from an informed position, that's where the questions come in. But suggesting something you don't understand is FAKE just *because* you don't understand it, is actually called denial! Hence your reply of "uh huh. Right!" is you saying I'm wrong despite the fact you don't understand it and clearly have done no research into what I'd said, so all you've offered here is denial :-|
@@merendobereglidditz9304 before CG? ok, but what about the movie 2001 Space odissey from Kubrick??? Years later from that??? (with better practical effects)
@@ffccardoso (Why am I doing this?) [sigh] Let me hold your hand and guide you through this carefully. Practical effecrs would've been done BETTER. Camera angles, lighting, background ( they'd avoid putting stars in? Would've been too perfect. Don't even say it, Kubrick. They woud've TRIED TOO HARD. No self respcting cinematographer would allow [gasp!] less than precise results. Even if "they" said, "rough it up", too many random behaviors of the spacecraft were...random. Nobody could anticipate that. or portray it accurtely. Physics is physics. Don't bother replying. I'm too busy screwing with astrologers and Trump supporters. You guys are small game. 🌎🚀
@@merendobereglidditz9304 pfff... I just put some questions about your assumptions... and you answers with more assumptions... I'm questioner. You are a believer. I don't have a solid faith about any claim. If the man really did it, whatever. I'll do the questions: where are the original films made by the Apolo missions? That is a simple question. But this simple question scares people like you to the point to call me "Trump supporter", and "astrologer"...
It takes 8 seconds for the signal to travel back to the earth, then another 8 seconds from Houston back to the moon. That's a 16 second delay at best. That's 16 secs only if the supposed camera operator responds immediately to the lift off! No way with 60's tech at the time would this shot be perfectly timed to record this lift off! Think about that!
Apollo 11 was the history making landing the but for my money seeing Apollo 17 from lift-off til landing driving around on the lunar surface and collecting lunar samples and carrying scientific experiments and of course the occasional singing by the Astronauts made Apollo 17 mission a most enjoyable of all the Apollo moon missions. Also I as 14 year old kid back then I learned a lot about the moon more so than any other mission.
I totally get the fact that doubters have questions. Some of the questions are natural; some are a stretch, but since every single question has a plausible answer it's obvious that deniers just WANT so BADLY for it to be a hoax that they decide before hearing the answer that it's a lie. I guess you don't have to be a flat earther to be a moon landing denier, but you DO have to be a moon landing denier to be a flat earther.
I’d have to agree with you about flat earthers needing it to be fake, but since I’m not a flat earther, I can’t speak for them. However, I think you’ve got it ass-backwards when it’s diehard moon landing believers that want it to be real sooo bad, they’ll accept this obvious garbage as being real. They’re no longer capable of critical thought & will easily accept any ridiculous explanation the proven liars put before them, no matter how absurd it may be. This crap-pile is crumbling fast & those who continue to stand on this dung-heap are liable to melt into it if they don’t jump off soon.
Artamus Gordon - So please present your favourite hoax evidence. I have seen many, and not a single one survives scrutiny. It’s all paranoia and ignorance.
Flat earthers are just plain morons. I can understand why someone would have doubts of the moon landings. It’s not based on any of the actual evidence though, and it’s never started from any actual evidence. It’s about the us motivation. Very plausible that they’d fake the landing to 1 up the Russians. Everything then collapses when you look at all the actual evidence and all the hoaxers arguments are debunked (and have been for 5 decades).
The Earth is flat the moon landing was faked and our history is a lie 9/11 was an inside job how many lies do we have to hear before the truth comes out they're pushing the satanic agenda time to wake up people we are being lied to #FLATEARTH NO DOUBT ABOUT IT
What?? Just kidding. You’re not suppose to use ur brain just blindly believe!! When the fact is we can zoom in on the moon with cameras now. So now they go to the “back” of the moon that we can never see🙄🤦🏼♀️ there are not tracks no four wheeler on the moon nothing. And we know this and they know this. It has been said it easier to fool a man than to convince him that he’s been fooled.
It’s really not that mind boggling. The World has been at war in the last 120 years and each war had aircraft. If you consider the aviation tech in the mid 40s, especially the 50s and ultimately be 60s, going alittle faster and building something tougher doesn’t seem much of a reach. The issue is people are deluded with sci-fi media. It makes space seems extremely complicated. And although it is still very sophisticated, there’s still some bare bones elements to it.
@@paulnotdownunder3172 You should see what they've used to record the moon landing and what we've done to make the footage more presentable. It's been 51 years, you can't expect the footage to remain like it was shot. I would ask you: if in your mind, it really happened, how would it have been and also looked with the technology from that time? Not as good right?
@Alf G You should see the historical part of it, they were pressured to go to the moon and the money to fund it wasn't a problem, they couldn't let the Russians get there first (they already caught up in some steps). After these moon landings, there was no need to keep going because they had already beaten the Russians, and also because they got everything they needed to make research; we still have the moon soil gathered from the Apollo crew and it's been more than enough. What we lacked is the technology to sustain life there, to live there, landing is no problem, but what's the point of spending billions when the outcome is always the same. That's what the Artemis program is aiming for, don't bother making up things, sit down and wait for 2024, we're getting back on track.
Does anyone ever wonder how they retrieved the footage of that camera on the outside? If I remember correctly they didn’t have the advanced tech we have today. Can anyone answer that?
Well, you could read the description of this video. That's a good start. But, I'll make it more clear. The rover has a TV camera on it, and a radio dish to transmit the signal. If you watch any of the Apollo 15/16/17 missions, you'll know that they would park the rover at each of their stops, align the dish, and then the camera was remote controlled from Houston.
Ginkum Pow I have a feeling I know why you think that. Respect to all of the people who lost their lives for the knowledge and understanding of humanity
@Boris Madzarevic 😆 🤣 😂 the cameraman was left there with 50 years worth of snickers bars and died in 2013 when he ran out. He weighed 102 lbs when he died. Last person he ever talked to was president Nixon on a landline and then they lost the technology to be able to communicate and as astroNOT Don Petit said, they "lost the technology" to go back or communicate. The cameraman became a Buddhist monk in order to cope with loneliness. He dropped the mirror when he died do its no longer visible with the laser. Of course it was there until them tho and anyone thar questions it is a brainwashed moron.
When people like you do zero research into something they don't understand at all, and them come and advertise their complete and utter ignorance for all to see saying dumb stuff like 'it doesn't add up', the rest of the world laugh and laugh and laugh. I'm surprised you even know how to type!
@@biggawinnacrapsa3870 This particular situation was in everyone's mind from the very beginning, since there had never been a 'launch' from any other place but the Earth. It was Collin's nightmare scenario at the lunar orbit, for flying alone back home would have been devastating. But the lander launching itself out of nowhere with two guys strolling around is a different nightmare.
Agreed. The technician in Mission Control tried on Apollo 15 and Apollo 16 2 track the lunar module after lift off from the Moon, and couldn't get the timing because of the delay in radio signals from Earth to Moon and back, and the delay in camera response, but they finally got it right on this one, Apollo 17. I was always amazed to see the launch from the Moon and was thrilled to see them Arc up into orbit.
@@vernoncorv3862 Camelot is a crater? Got it. Thanks:-) As for the lander I suppose it could be a reflection but from what? It still looks like something is moving/spinning to me. To the left of that there seems to be a light flashing on/off. Or maybe it's just radio interference affecting the camera.
When I watched this on tv as a young guy the video would have the word simulation in the corner of the tv screen. I think the whole thing was a simulation.
Moron of the highest order. Watched it himself and grew into a manchild believing flimsy conspiracies. How old are you but still holding onto childish beliefs and the desire to feel special? Grow up old man, it's time.
Back in 1985 I had the privilege (fortuitously) to have a private dinner with Gene Cernan, a great guy. Learned he was a HS classmate of NFL great Ray Nitshke and a flight school classmate of John Akers (then CEO of IBM). An American hero!
Did John Akers say why he wkold have let B. Gates have IBM DOS intellectual property and deprive IBM investors of the future proceeds that MS DOS received? Besides "Gate is a 'genius?'" The DumbA$$!
The swings effect is due to remote cameras controlled from the rover via the operator on earth trying keep the LEM in the camera view. Much like you taking a picture of a fast moving bird curving away fron you. The television camera communicated from Earth using a high-gain antenna on the rover, but there was a slight time delay for the radio waves to travel (a couple of seconds) between the Earth and the Moon. The flight path of the LEM had a 15 sec ascent follwed by "Pitchover". At pitchover the automatic computer and preset guidance system ( very primitive) would lock in two guide stars and angle the ship in the correct position to achieve orbit and rendenzous with the Command module. Yes reading reading scientific stuff can be boring but you cant do proper research without it. (Transcript is from Apollo 11) Frank O'Brien writes, "At this point, Buzz is performing an alignment of the LM's inertial platform. Rather than the traditional Program 52, which requires sighting two stars through the AOT, Program 57 is used. All platform alignments require determining the exact position of two references is space, which is all that is necessary to determine the platforms orientation to any reference. Normally, stars are used as the references, as they combine the necessary quality of being in fixed, well-defined locations in the sky. Program 57 does use one star for its orientation, but the fact the LM is on the surface allows the platform to use another well understood reference: the gravity field of the moon. Thus, performing a fix on a star, and sensing the gravity vector for its second directional reference supplies all the information necessary for the computer to align the platform to a known orientation."
Not at all, because first the axis of the sine wave would be centered on the middle of the video and not its bottom, first, and second, as there was a delay between the command and its effect, it would have looked like a square wave and not a sine wave.
Forget Moons gravity. They need 1 g acceleration and the Moon has 1/6th of that only. Since the ascending stage has had no tilt mechanism for the drive nozzle, the correction nozzles wold have to fire permanently to hold the path, but they don´t...
So on all of those lunar flights someone gets off and places a camera to capture someone getting off and getting back on and then the lift off. So the camera is functional for awhile down there on the surface.
Neil Armstrong himself made about 40 successful 'practice landings' on Earth prior to the Apollo 11 mission. The flying simulator used - the LLRV/LLTV - made about 700 successful flights and landings by the end of the Apollo program.
@@eventcone I believe it's double of what you are saying. I think Armstrong had about 40 flights in the LLTV in the last month before the Apollo mission... but, I believe he would do two landings per flight, before needing to refuel.
Craig, why would you think such silly things? Why? They had hundreds upon hundreds of practice landings in the computerized simulators. And, they all performed dozens of practice flights/landings in the LLRVs and LLTVs (actual flying simulators that were designed to simulate 1/6th G. Where are you getting your notions from? (Let me guess, a conspiracy video told you they never had practice landings, right?)
@@eventcone No thanks required. But, just to add, Armstrong also had flights in the LLRV a year before his flight. The 40 flights (two actual takeoffs and landings per flight) were just in the last month before Apollo 11. But, there was about a year when he didn't fly, because he had crashed in the LLRV, and NASA banned the use of the LLRVs after that, and wanted them to only use the LLTVs after that crash. But, the LLTVs weren't done yet. And, then, finally, when the first LLTV was done, it crashed before they turned it over to the astronauts. So, Armstrong had to wait until the 2nd LLTV was built before flying one of them again.
It was television. It was captured by the TV camera that was mounted on the lunar rover for the express purpose of allowing NASA to monitor the astronauts' activities each time they made a station stop as they roved across the surface, far from their landing site. Capturing this lift off was kind of a 'nice to have' idea. The rover had a high gain dish antenna that both received remote control commands from Earth AND transmitted the TV pictures back, where they were subsequently recorded.
LOL. Nice try. This was the last Apollo mission, and the last time humans have ever been to the moon. You were watching Battlestar Gallactica, my friend.
Request to UA-cam : A effing simple ignore system. 1. See someone who is dense and stupid. 2. Hit IGNORE 3. Done The way it is now, it's easier to launch nuclear tipped cruise missiles than it is to ignore someone who denies something that clearly happened.
Jack Schmitt had real trouble with getting the camera to work, and nearly didn't get it working. They almost had to scrap the idea of filming it at all from the inside. I wonder if maybe there is no internal footage of the moments when the flag was blasted on Apollo 17. There's plenty of footage of the flags on some of the other missions. I'm not sure if it exists for Apollo 17. I'd have to check my archives, because I don't easily see any of it on UA-cam either.
@@rockethead7 The footage of the Apollo 17 flag being blasted by the takeoff was recorded, albeit for just 1-2 seconds. That is enough "eye candy" for me in my opinion. I've seen it in the documentary movie "For All Mankind" by Al Reinert. You can see the flag sway violently. I can confirm that the film was Apollo 17 because you can see the large Rudolph crater and can see the flag and 4 visible white spots (forming a quadrilateral). If you super-impose the film with the LRO pictures of the Apollo 17 landing site, it matches perfectly, including the position of the take off camera and the ALSEP equipment just south of the Rudolph crater.
Damn, I need to correct myself. I believe the filmmakers used another flag being blasted from another Apollo mission and inserted it just before the take-off scene on Apollo 17. On the film, the flag being blasted had 2 white objects several feet from it. There are no such objects on the higher altitude film of Apollo 17 taking off and on the LRO images that were taken several years ago.
@@Armis71 I have copies of every second of TV video and film video from each Apollo mission. I haven't watched it in decades, so I certainly don't remember (and I wouldn't trust my memory after this much time anyway). I'd have to dig through my copies to see if I have anything showing the flag blowing. But, given what you just posted, I'm definitely wondering if it simply doesn't exist for Apollo 17.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Common "call outs" of this video answered. Upvote this so people can clarify:
"There's no fire!!" - The lunar module's ascent propulsion system burns hypergolic fuel which produces a transparent flame (the titan-gemini also burns hypergolic; the exhaust is transparent). Additionally, the moon has no atmosphere, meaning the rocket exhaust has an infinite volume to expand into. Take something that's already very transparent, and stretch it out to infinity. You won't be able to see it.
"Nice fireworks on takeoff" - those were likely small bits of the lander or even pieces of the explosive bolts that had just detonated to separate the ascent stage from the descent stage.
"There should be way more dust!" - there was a lot of dust kicked up, it just didn't linger because once again, there is no atmosphere. On Earth, there is air for the dust particles to linger around in. On the moon, there is not, so the dust falls back down as does anything else. Also, there was a solid object directly between the engine and the surface of the moon.
"What about the cameraman??" - there's this thing called remote control?? The first two or three times they tried to film the LEM taking off, they failed because they hadn't perfected the camera panning with a several second delay. This last time they got it.
"The engines only turned on for half a second and it's in orbit? How?" - the engines were on for a while. You just don't see the plume. It's hard to tell because your only reference frame disappears, but it is accelerating upward. Not moving at a constant speed, not falling back down, but accelerating.
"How come rockets are so big on Earth, but this was so tiny?" - The LEM is very lightweight. Also, let's not forget tsiolkovsky's rocket equation. dV = Veq * ln(mf/me). The moon has a low orbit velocity of about 1.7 km/s, and the Earth has one of about 7.8 km/s (let's also not forget the effect the atmosphere plays on earth rockets). You need exponentially more fuel to accelerate only four times as fast because of the physics behind this equation. Also, hypergolic fuel is very dense, so it takes up less volume.
Sammy , I appreciate very much your explanation of the fuel . I myself have never been a denier or hoaxer, I just didn't square with the take off . You , sir , nailed it .
Are you serious? I couldn't think of a cool name like Boyce Hopkins in a million years@shillslayer
shillslayer Who’s lying? You have anything to contradict OP’s comment?
Ok I'll stop lying. I don't think @Boyce Hopkins is a very cool name. Sorry@shillslayer (And Boyce)
I'm a believer, i.e. I believe in what I see and hear minus what I don't know and am cheated by my senses.What is explanation of no sound and vibration comming from 16 kN rocket engine?
EDIT: I'm referring to some other video which is recorded within LEM during the same time. Recording device captures voices (no vacuum, inside is pressurised) but do not capture any sound of working engine on which they practically sit. Also I know now there's no turbo pump. Still there're turbulences, burning, rapidly expanding gases. I'd be glad if someone with particular knowledge of this kind of rocket engine provide me with information regarding sound level which should be expected in this case. Also this is a minor discrepancy and I do not give a fu.. about it anymore.
That rocket motor had to be 100% reliable with no chance of a misfire on takeoff. After having gone through the rigors of travelling through space , that was a very tall order.
Very funny 😂
@butchtropic Also they only needed 2 out of 8 available valves to work. Getting up was a lot safer than getting down, and both of those were a LOT safer than taking off from the cape. If not for the extra safety measures taken they could have gotten a lot more weight on the moon (and more samples back) as the fuels were far less effective per weight unit.
@butchtropic Quite so. Scott Manley actually just made a video about one of the ways they might try to fix it, which is why this struck a chord.
butchtropic Can you imagine blasting off from the moon with the hatch still open! I think that was what SM said?
Chris Kleckner
The rocket system that took man to the moon and back had 83 rocket engines - if Iremember that correctly. Vintage Space did a special video on the number engines. What rigors are you talking about? Do you even know for yourself?
NASA is planning other moon mission in 2024 to bring back cameraman
You didn't know that the camera to record the footage was located on the lunar rover and operated remotely from mission control?
Sailor Man you didnt know it was a joke?
That was a simple but great one 😆🤣
yo don't worry if you saw the footage from inside he got back in it's just he went too fast for us to see him but nasa will send new missions to bring back the other cameramen
At 1:30 the leader asked Cameraman " You want to pick up the Camera " Then at 3:03 the camera focussed on the ridge of the hill but moved to the sky automatically by image sensor though there was no Digital Camera at that time and no image sensor to react so quickly at all. So, Cameraman may be starving there. They should hurry up!
The camera man: hey wait for me
Fala Lala LoL 😂 would be funny except it was a remote controlled camera
@@christineayres5339 Yes. A TV remote, with a long cable.
Maker Marx lol
Like Matt Damon left on Mars..
@@christineayres5339 it was a joke
from age 6 to age 10 I loved Apollo and saw most, if not all of the launches and lunar exits. Such an inspiring time!
I was the same age. I wrote to Nasa and they sent me 8x10 crew photos and mission reports even to a kid in Canada. I was thrilled and still have them. It inspired me to an aeronautical engineering career. Im sure 100s of 1000s of theres were similarly inspired. These bozos who weren’t even alive who say it was all faked really tick me off. What a slap in the face to their nation’s finest hour.
Frikin gullible you are. Its a prop. A toy. Even a child can see that
But..who filmed the take off?
@@snorungar70a camera mounted to the LRV which was remote operated by a person back on Earth
@fraplu....they only had trad Hasselblad cameras.idiot
After two previous failed attempts, they finally got the liftoff camera programmed correctly. Great and historic video.
about 2004 NASA said that they 'Lost' the tapes of Apollo and cant find the blueprints for the ship either...Hmmm...
@@jaycharles3121 Do you know that you can reflect the laser in mirrors that were left by astronauts on the lunar surface?
IS this proof enough?
You have a precise coordinates on the Internet, point the laser at those coordinates, and you'll see the laser reflected.
Boom,hoax debunked. Haha.
Jay Charles They lost the original tapes recorded on film in case the telecast didn’t work. What they lost were backup tapes.
They didn’t “lose” the blueprints to build the Saturn V. The Saturn V was purposefully retired because it no longer had a use. Do you expect nasa to keep building a multi billion dollar 50+ year old rocket that had no use to them?
I suspect NASA would have built another spacecraft to replace the outdated craft by now. I also suspect after mastering manned moon visits, NASA would have returned post ‘72. I strongly suspect NASA would have displayed advancement in space travel, beyond aircraft (space shuttle), graphics screens, layered CGI videos, and actors in suspension harnesses. We have witnessed their capabilities, and they are severely lacking.
Anyone using their higher mind knows why.
@@toberrdrawforc They have tried to build more Moon rockets and they have tried to go back to the Moon. But Nasa had a budget cut of over 4 times after Apollo and the budget continued to slowly decline. They simply didn't have the extra money (until recently) to carry out their ambitions. Research the Space Transport System proposal from 1969, The Constellation Program, and the Space Exploration Initiative.
Grew up with, breathed it, lived it about as much as a school kid could...and still can't get enough of it. Thank you for posting.
You belive in this movie? Maybe you don't know but Star Wars is based on a true story 🤣🤣🤣
Do you really think this is real? ?
@sundownsolutions2 I don’t think you’re real.
T.J. Cunningham
Is this the mission where Collins is circling ?
@Toberr Drawforc This is Apollo 17.
The controller who was controlling the rover's camera had tried to get that shot on the 2 previous missions and couldn't do it, the delay of his commands going from Houston to Goldtone then to the Moon and back caused issues.
They computed the delay they got from the previous attempts and for the last try, the controller started controlling the cam even before they took off.He sent the un-zoom and tilt command beforehand to make up for the delay.
To be able to catch the pitch over point was a piece of work.
Wow. Cool. 👍
Thanks for that, It's something I've wondered about for a while.
Zoomer30
Yeah right.....lol
Merendo Bereglidditz
Not really, just way past the technology of the time lol
@@thearcadian290
Withdrawn. 😞
Lift off from the lunar surface fifty years ago yesterday. Knowing they were to be the last of the Apollo missions, they fit as much as they could into the 75 hours the LEM crew spent on th moon. Good that they did. Amazing achievement from beginning to end.
Extraordinary achievements
Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17
Awesome work
13 was still an achievement, they were the farthest from Earth anyone has ever been and returned safely from a dangerous failure.
@@vsetenjoyer sure they did.
@@mrmighty9862 What're you tryna get at here?
@@vsetenjoyer This is amazing camera work from Houston working on at minimum a 5 second delay. The way they timed the take off with a 3 second count down on a 5 second delay. Amazing.
@@mrmighty9862 What do you mean? What is your point here? This is in no relation to what my comment was, I was simply saying how Apollo 13 was an achievement too not comparing amazingness factor of each achievement completed by Apollo missions.
So how did the camera on the moon get the footage to earth remote? A tiny remote camera has enough power to transmit and be controlled?
Wow that is a huge amount of power to transmit a radio signal 250,000 miles and be remotely controlled, with a 13 second delay.
@@findkip It was a 1.3 second delay, each way. Seems you misplaced a decimal point.
You only need a few Watts of power to transmit over that distance when the receiver is listening through a huge radio astronomy dish. You only need a small dish at the Moon when the transmission comes from the same radio astronomy dish.
Umm no for remote control it's more than 1.3 seconds sorry you have to see what you're doing. A few watts. Lol no it doesn't work like but whatever
A conversation with a UA-cam commentator proves nasa spent billions on nothing…. Only proves the kool aid you drink is way better than mine.
How many watts does it take to transmit a radio signal 100 miles? Do you know do you actually know anything?
YOU SAID: "So how did the camera on the moon get the footage to earth remote?"
== Radio.
YOU SAID: "A tiny remote camera has enough power to transmit and be controlled?"
== Yes. Radio.
YOU SAID: "Wow that is a huge amount of power to transmit a radio signal 250,000 miles and be remotely controlled"
== Which conspiracy video told you such a ridiculous thing? The first satellite radio was only 14 watts. Nobody had a problem receiving signals from it. You can go get a little 1 foot dish and receive hundreds of channels of satellite TV from a 50 watt transmitter. Voyager craft are billions of miles away, and we have no trouble remote controlling them. And, if you have a hard time believing all of that, ok, fine, you can do it yourself. It's called a "moon bounce." Go to any of the thousands of videos and websites that will describe to you what dish to buy, and you can aim it at the moon and bounce a signal off of it, and talk with someone half way around the globe, just from bouncing a backyard radio signal off of the moon. That's double the distance you're complaining about.
YOU SAID: "with a 13 second delay."
== Radio signals don't care about the delay. They either make it to their destination, or they don't. And, you're wrong. It's 1.3 seconds of delay from the Earth to the moon, not 13.
YOU SAID: "Umm no for remote control it's more than 1.3 seconds"
== Radio takes 1.3 seconds to get from the Earth to the moon. It doesn't matter if it's for the purpose of remote control, or the purpose of carrying audio signals, or whatever else. Radio operates at the speed of light. Do the math.
YOU SAID: "sorry you have to see what you're doing."
== Dummy, how does this conspiracy go, exactly? Do you think that the thousands of worldwide communications engineers who worked to design and build the network that allowed this stuff to work... were all too stupid to do this math that YOU are doing? The millions of communications engineers worldwide since then?? They're all too stupid to calculate this delay also?
YOU SAID: "A few watts. Lol no it doesn't work like but whatever"
== Who told you that? Why do you think you need more? The huge dishes they used during Apollo were designed to receive radio patterns from distant pulsars that are millionths of a watt, from tens of thousands of lightyears away. (Yes, literally.) Did a conspiracy video tell you that there wasn't enough wattage for this equipment to work? Did they dazzle you with fancy terminology like "inverse square law"? Did they falsely compare Earth-based broadcast towers with unidirectional dishes used for satellites and to/from the moon?
YOU SAID: "A conversation with a UA-cam commentator proves nasa spent billions on nothing. Only proves the kool aid you drink is way better than mine."
== What in the world are you talking about?
YOU SAID: "How many watts does it take to transmit a radio signal 100 miles? Do you know do you actually know anything?"
== You are going to compare omnidirectional broadcast towers to Apollo now, right? You are under the impression that the mathematical formulas for signals broadcasted from TV towers (which broadcast in all directions) are identical to the mathematical formulas for signals sent via a dish, right? A conspiracy video told you to make this comparison, and you just bought it hook line and sinker, right? Again, dummy, you can go buy a dish yourself, and bounce signals off of the moon. It's called a "moon bounce." It doesn't take a 50,000 watt TV transmitter tower to do it. You can go to the store today, buy a radio and a small backyard dish about 2 feet in diameter, plug it into your wall outlet, and send radio signals to a friend around the world by bouncing it off of the moon. You don't need to trust me, or Andre, or NASA, or anybody else. You can do this for yourself. There are thousands of "moon bounce" articles and videos on the internet that will tell you exactly how to do it.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Quit accusing thousands of people of being criminals because of your psychotic need to pretend to know things you don't know.
Who was controlling the remote camera showing the takeoff from the surface?
Was Houston controlling that camera?
Correct my friend. From Apollo 15 onwards the Apollo TV cameras were remotely controlled by Ed Fendell at mission control.
Obviously somebody in a Hollywood studio.
Just getting moon-landing deniers are losers!
@@yazzamx6380 At the speed of light there would be a 4 second delay in transmission. 2 seconds from the camera to earth and then 2 seconds remote response from earth to the camera on the moon. How did the cameraman in Houston pan and zoom the camera to follow the lunar module? How were the radio communications so quick too? How were they apparently faster than the speed of light? We witness camera delays here on Earth today (2019) just from one part of the world to another, but somehow it was instantaneous 230,000 miles away on the moon. I really would like to know.
DCTib nice observation
@@DCTib - No my friend, at the speed of light the delay is 1.3 seconds in each direction, where communication was via *direct line of sight* between the massive radio telescopes/dishes here on Earth and the radio dish on the rover.
Before lift-off, the astronauts mounted the TV camera on the rover, where it ran off the power left in the rover's batteries. For Apollo 15, there was a problem with the TV camera and so Ed Fendell couldn't pan the camera to track the Ascent Module;
ua-cam.com/video/Y5f1oWu5VtY/v-deo.html
For Apollo 16, Ed Fendell tried again. He had to *listen to the countdown and move the TV camera controls seconds before it reached zero* so that the commands reached the camera at just the right time to follow the Ascent Module. He timed the start correctly but he couldn't pan the camera up fast enough (because the astronauts parked the rover closer to the LM than planned), and so the Ascent Module went off the top of the screen;
ua-cam.com/video/yn1S-flYkaQ/v-deo.html
Apollo 17 was Ed's third and last chance. Guided again by the countdown so that he could react just before it reached zero, Ed managed to zoom the TV camera out and then panned the camera up at the correct speed, where this time he successfully kept the Ascent Module within the shot, as seen in this topic video.
What a marvel of engineering and example of bravery.
Bravery as in having the audacity to pass off a low budget sci fi movie scene as a actual achievement of human ingenuity? 😆
Funny thing is they claim the technology is now destroyed and can't be rebuilt.
@@landanwoodard7569 - you didn’t find those colourful sparkle bursts realistic? I’d like to think a dollar shop party popper could create a similar effect. Maybe I’ll create a similar video claiming i landed on a rainbow and have the masons push that information onto the sheeple. Oh I forgot, I’m not a part of that satanic cult!
@@landanwoodard7569 how do u know it’s fake baby
Yeah so historic that they destroyed the technology and lost all the documents. So now we are struggling to send even a monkey.
Holy balls of steel. I would rather fight ten vikings to the death than get in that thing. All I can say is thanks guys. We would probably still be cavemen if not for guys like this and the people behind them.
Do grown folks believe this is real??? You have got to be joking...there is no way a grown person can believe this is real...
@@unarammer2003 Ohh a flat earther. Because you saw a conspiracy video you have all the answers? Can you explain why it is not real? So they did this to fool the Russians? They will be going back soon. Will that be fake too?
@@MuckoMan I don't debate with delusional people that believe this nonsense is reality...
@@MuckoMan ohhh sure they are going back...and they will have space force to protect them from alien attacks...grow the f**k up...you people are what's wrong with the world...when I say u people I mean the mindless masses that believe TV is reality...
@@unarammer2003 Why are you so confident? I felt that way at one time and in reality I don't really know for sure. I know they did put a lot of money into shooting giant rockets out into space. From there no one knows what happened. All I know is those guys had bigger balls than most of us.
Utterly amazing achievements; the two astronauts sound so calm in the final moments before lift off, you’d think they were popping to the shops! Incredible. I loved every minute of Apollo. Hope I’ll still be here to see the return of man on the moon.
Because it’s fake
@@TheEpoxyExpert no.
@@TheEpoxyExpert Yeah, because in the video the moon looks greyish, but everyone knows it is yellow and made out of cheese!
Their heart rates told a different story. Neil A was famed for having a really low one though even during the stressful parts.
They were probably totally concentrated on all instruments and controls. No time to even think about being nervous.
How is the inside 16mm camera so smooth from 3:07 on? I thought Schmitt said it wouldn't work without holding it?
He's still alive. You should ask him. If I ever meet him again, I'll ask. But, I honestly don't know if he just got it to work, or if he had to hold the switch the entire time.
@@rockethead7 it's great he's still alive..it's funny there's only 10 seconds where the camera doesn't work, I think right before liftoff he had to push a confirmation button or two(PRO?). Funny they had comm problems for at least a minute after takeoff, MC asking the LMP to switch to Aft Omni..I can picture Schmitt holding on to the switch, making sure he recorded this historic takeoff for generations to come, smiling his way up to orbit knowing he was ignoring MC for awhile.
3:03 I must go, my planet needs me!
So glad this footage is available to the masses. I for one would have never any desire to watch this if UA-cam were not in existence. It’s been a wild ride UA-cam
How did they filmed the landing from 200m away?
They didn't film the LANDING except from inside the LM. They remote-controlled the camera on the rover to film the TAKEOFF.
The rover was 1 kilometre away and the camera mounted on it was controlled by Houston.
I saw this on LIVE TV - as it happened - in real time. Striking!! UNFORGETTABLE.
I know! I did too! And the fact that one of the two astronauts was a geologist on the moon was awesome. Man did he totally geek out over everything he saw.
Yes ,Stanley Kubrick was a great director
One of the best movies... The audio script could have been a little better though.. He didn't have a big enough budget...
Me too!
@@Cameron46 You are on the wrong channel. This is for grown-ups.
@@julesdomes6064 Replied the bot !!
Still great to watch this decades later. It never gets old. Brilliant.
Right. It never does.
@@raulm1961 imagine how good they would do it now! Better sets, CGI ! Apps to control the delay, so you don’t need the CIA on the earpiece prompting them.. or bits of cardboard at the spaceship window! They would make it look beautiful and believable!
@@Dazza19746 Is this seriously what you are doing with your life?
Why watch the videos that you claim to hate? By literally giving space agencies money from YT revenue lmao
@@MeltedToast84 where did I claim to hate it?
It’s entertaining, watching how pathetic the fakery is, and also interesting to watch how people like you react vehemently defending the lie.
It’s pretty much the same as religious people ‘defending their faith!!’
A large number of awaking individuals, now know about many of the lies we’ve had moulded into this ‘reality’
And please explain how ‘space agencies’ get money from some Italian guys YT channel 🤔😂
@@Dazza19746
"A large number of awaking individuals" you mean the middle-aged men with nothing better to do than listen to retarded liars like yourself?
If you cant understand basic science, and i KNOW you can not as you are clearly extremely uneducated in actual physics, thats not my problem.
You use your disgustingly cynical mindset to laugh at and make fun of people with opposing views. How the fuck do you expect people to join you? Your literally doing the same concept as those protestors destroying art in galleries all over the world.
The fact that you are "entertained" by watching others "fail" as you call international achievements, proves to me that you are in the worst state of mental health I have ever seen. I dont know if this is because your lover ditched you (understandably) or you just had so much lying nonsense shoved down your throat that you had no other option than to join the cult.
As I am now fairly concerned with your tragic state of mind, i can not for the life of me be bothered to respond anymore than I have done. Utter buffoons like yourself are far, far beyond saving and unlike you in your sad lonely little life interacting with online trolls, I actually have things to do outside of the internet.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤪🤪🤪🤪🥰🥰🥰😜😜😜😜😜😜😜
Legit you ^
Just wondering how the camera followed Apollo when have liftoff ? The camera has been manipulated by the team from Earth?
Yes, in the Mission Control Room at Houston, one operator had the task of maneuvering throught his console the LRV's (Lunar Roving Vehicle) Camera.
Oh, I see now. Thanks!
Apollo Houston The amazing thing about it is, the man who had to control the camera had to time it approximately 6 seconds before lift off when to push the stick up to control the camera. That's how long of a control input delay it was...
British Broadcast Gaming Network actually its just not true. A remoe controlled camera from the moon surface? Serious? If that was the case they would of already sent a rover to the moon last week to show everyone the flag and around the moon. But the problem is his "It's hard to think straight when people lie to you" David Blaine in Space!
PizzaT Back than it wasn't as simple to get to the moon, therefore it was significant to see two men get launched back into orbit from the surface of the moon.
How lonely and still the Moon appears after the liftoff. We should go back again now.
+Roger Clemons But where would they get a studio that could fit the moon in it??
+Roger Clemons Computer generated images. In the late 60s and early 70s. When a computer took up a majority of a room and could basically just do math. Sounds legit.
+InitialDsTak The doubletalk of these hoax nuts! They want to claim that NASA had the computer tecnology to produce hours of CGI, but not to run flight control software without virtually zero graphics display!
+eventcone Oh, we've had Photoshop and CGI software since the 30s. The Illuminati just didn't release it until recently.
We should have gone back many times by now.. yeah. - and we likely would have, had it not been for the ALIEN UFO BEINGS WHO WARNED THE U.S. ASTRONAUTS ON THEIR APOLLO MISSION, (TO), "STAY OFF THE MOON! THIS IS NO PLACE FOR YOU!!" NASA's reply was: "OK then. You got it, Mr. E.T.'s "sirs". Message heard, received and understood. 'Your' moon. 'We' bad." End of discussion (and moon flights!) ;o)
This historical event, I still see it and I am moved by the precision and that they have used two cameras to document it. It is simply an amazing achievement.
😂😂😂
@@aemrt5745 it’s amazing alright. An amazing fraud that so many are still falling for.
@@aemrt5745 so clever it still to this day has you fooled 😂😂😂
LOL!
@@cha7664 yeah, ok🤣🤣🤣 haha, Hey you guys, look at this ballon head over here. Dropping in with your space balls account pic all like; hi! my name is.. Who? My name is.. What? My name is; Chicka chicka Fuc*ing GlobeTard👌🏼 Get the f*** out. 😂
3.04 . so was the module on big spring like a jack in the box? because thats how it looked.
Nope, a Jack-in-the-box doesn't accelerate after the spring has sprung.
It was a hypergolic engine, the two fuels burn on contact, the flame for then is nearly invisible. Combine that with the lack of any atmosphere from keeping the flame pushed together, and a camera from the early 70s, and you won’t be able to see it
It was a hypergolic spring!😃
Cables just like the Astro nots had on them when they were tripping, and falling around on the "moon" 😎
Hi,where is the jet blast?where was the rocket fuel stored?where was the motor ?who panned the camera?
Google "hypergolic rocket fuel", "Lunar Module drawings" and "Ed Fendell, NASA".
The camera was operated from earth using an anticipated 1.2 second delay to account for the distance the signal needed to travel. You can see the exhaust at launch. Since there is little gravity and atmosphere, the visual is completely different that you'd witness on earth. What you see from @3:02 to @3:04 would be impossible to recreate on earth.
You see the blast at separation when it kicks up dust and debris. The hypergolic fuel used puts out a very clean exhaust which is virtually invisible in a vacuum. Fuel and oxidizer were stored in tanks on the sides of the ascent stage. Since they had different densities, one tank is bigger than the other, which is why the LM looks a bit asymmetrical from the front. The motor was housed in the center of the ascent stage (part of it sticks up into the cabin - there are plenty of drawings online that show the arrangement). The camera was controlled from Houston by a man named Ed Fendell, who had to account for the lag time in the signal.
The fuel was stored in a tank with pressurized helium. There was no motor. The helium pushed the two chemicals into a chamber where it mixed and caused thrust. You could have looked this up yourself ya know. It's okay to educate yourself on the matter instead of asking stupid questions that you think are proof, instead of revealing how are ignorant you are to the masses.
The camera was set up by the astronauts and was remotely operated from Houston. LOOK IT UP. Don't be ignorant your whole life on the matter. LEARN something.
Look up field sequential color to find out why the video looks odd. I actually have a color polaroid of the lm taking of moment, taken from the video screen at JSC. My late dad designed the circuit to separate the video signal into the 3 separate colors, to recombine into color later, so frame rate is 1/3 of normal. Remember the camera with the rotating 3 color filter in front of it? This video is as real as it gets!
These color artifacts also prove that these scenes are indeed recorded by a live video camera - not recorded on film and then broadcast afterward on video. I point this out because if the shots were hoaxed, they would have to be first recorded on film (especially for any supposed "slow motion" low gravity astronauts on moonwalk effect). You would not get the peculiar RGB separations or highlight streaks that are telltales of primitive video sensors, if the scenes were first recorded on film. Then again, I'm giving hoaxers too much credit to assume they even understand the difference between film and video.
Who was on the camera that followed the take off . -
Televisions didn’t have remote control wireless till the late 70’s.
Jesus dude, radio transmission had been around for a very long time before Apollo. Learn it. Live it.
@@kitcanyon658 sorry Karen : I never knew it travelled 250,000 miles away .
@@Steveaustin007 : Right, we know you didn't know that. Because you're uneducated in science and physics.
Thus, you're not the type to have an opinion that any educated person cares about.
Amazing....I can't imagine the horrible claustrophobia of being in that tiny spaceship....brave guys and an unimaginable experience.
@Teddy Hunt I have.!
@Boris Madzarevic 😆 🤣 😂 the cameraman was left there with 50 years worth of snickers bars and died in 2013 when he ran out. He weighed 102 lbs when he died. Last person he ever talked to was president Nixon on a landline and then they lost the technology to be able to communicate and as astroNOT Don Petit said, they "lost the technology" to go back or communicate. The cameraman became a Buddhist monk in order to cope with loneliness. He dropped the mirror when he died do its no longer visible with the laser. Of course it was there until them tho and anyone thar questions it is a brainwashed moron.
@Trevor Smith it was more like a hoax
Not to mention having to crap in their “space” suits. As if….
more over, the smell.
I consider this possible the most amazing footage of the entire program. I got up early to watch Neil step off the ladder onto the moon, but this really pumps me up.
I sat up all night watching it from landing to step out. I believed it but my father did not. He said it was just an American movie.
What I find fascinating is that around the 4:40 mark in the video, the rover's camera pans around the landing site, zooming in on descent stage absent, of course, the LM ascent portion. It gives us a glimpse as to what the sites of all 6 landing missions would look like were we lucky enough to see them as they are today. Let's hope that at some future time, we will preserve each and every one and forever be a testament to human ingenuity and the drive to explore other worlds.
I find it fascinating that a camera was there to film it. Did they leave the man who filmed it?
The film was good thru radiation! LMFAO
@@TheEpoxyExpert it was the camera on the lunar river they left
@@TheEpoxyExpert It one thing to be ignorant. It’s another to display it so publicly.
To all the hoaxers who think it's impossible for radio signals to travel that far and operate a camera, the first "wireless" remotely controlled torpedo was demonstrated by Nikola Tesla in 1898, 74 years before Apollo 17. Archibald Low was known as the "father of radio guidance systems" for his pioneering work on guided rockets and planes during the First World War. In 1917, he demonstrated a remote-controlled aircraft to the Royal Flying Corps and in the same year built the first wire-guided rocket.
In World War I, the Imperial German Navy employed FL-boats (Fernlenkboote) against coastal shipping. These were driven by internal combustion engines and controlled remotely from a shore station through several miles of wire wound on a spool on the boat. An aircraft was used to signal directions to the shore station. EMBs carried a high explosive charge in the bow and traveled at speeds of thirty knots. The Soviet Red Army used remotely controlled teletanks during the 1930s in the Winter War against Finland and the early stages of World War II.
We had devices that can pick up signals in pico and atto watts (10^-15 to 10^-18 watts for a very long time). Your phone GPS works with weaker signal strength than that and even an average FM radio receiver is sensitive enough to work with signals in the pW range.
Now I hope you understand what a Watt is or how a radio receiver is. And if you come here spitting "Space is fake", then I'm sorry, I can't convince genuinely brain damaged or retarded folk.
my man
Great comment but your wasting your time trying to convince the moon hoax morons .
Sorry mate but you could send these people to the moon and they would be calling you a liar
Tbh you’re right
Im not retarded but im damn sure man hasnt set foot on the moon and never will
The next moon landing we're going to have moon selfies.
Taken with Santa clause..
Dont hold your breath lol
And Willzy X
A lot of the space effort was for publicity, so it’s no wonder that cameras were on board and left behind on the Moon.
There’s nothing explicitly strategic about going to the moon. except for the devices created along the way.
With girls showing their naked body
We should all ignore any nonsense we may read down here below. Instead, we should be admiring that these were the final moments of men on the moon.
@@neatstuff8200 okay
@If you laugh you sub! Sure. Something like that
@If you laugh you sub! I've looked it up several times and each time it gets more and more bogus so no thank you.
@If you laugh you sub! pff alright. I gotcha
They left the cameraman behind.
Looks authentic to me! First time seeing the extended recording from the LRV camera. Thank you! What an exciting era this was.
So much energy required to launch that thing into lunar orbit yet strangely no gas exhaust no dust either, the mission scientists were pretty sure they would not get footage due to the amount of gas exhaust and dust
@@AndrewAHayes the exhaust of the fuel used, aerozine 50, is already hard to see in the atmosphere, but in a vacuum, where rocket exhausts get thinner and wider, it's practically invisible, but you can see some of the descent stage's top catch fire 2:58
How long was the burn time on that rocket? Did they have to boost more or was that one burn enough to leave?
it's a continuous burn and an invisible flame
@@gives_bad_advice Thanks.
The engine of LM's ascent stage had 3500 pounds of thrust (non-throttleable) and enough fuel to last for about 7 1/2 minute. During that time it climbed to a 110 km high orbit with a speed of about 5800 km/h.
@@fromnorway643 Thank you for the detailed reply very helpful.
where did they stuff that big dune buggy into that little capsule?
Just look it up. The answers to your questions are all there in the Apollo record.
They left it.
The capsule isn’t really that little, but here’s how it got unfolded after they landed on the moon. The buggy was left behind when they took off.
ua-cam.com/video/NBNhUNROV5U/v-deo.html
It was stored outside the lander folded.
This never gets old.
Half a century ago actually, that's old. And never bothered to go back since. 🤔
The Apollo missions were just so exciting! I remember the Apollo 17 mission well. I was a space-crazed 10 year old, and I was so disappointed that the lunar EVA's took place while I was in school! I tell younger people I feel very fortunate to have watched Apollo 11 mission (as well as all of the other Apollo missions) live as a child - missions that will be remember just not for hundreds, or even thousands, but tens of thousands of years from now when humanity set foot on another world!
I Hope Artemis mission will visit the Apollo 11 landing site. After morethan 5 decades... ✨🙏
Like Apollo 12 they visit the surveyor 3 landing site...
Are you all there?
Why is the triangle window pointed directly at the ground when those windows are on the side where the two strapped in?
When you look through a window you CAN look in more than one direction. In the case of a window in the vertical plane you can look up at the sky or down at the ground, or to left or right. You are not constrained to looking only at the horizon. The camera in this case was mounted to point somehwat towards the surface. After the pitch-over manoeuvre (when the LM orientates itself to a more facedown attitude) the camera is even more likely to be pointing straight down. Finally, IIRC the LM windows where not completely in the vertical plane but looked towards the surface by some angle - after all their main function was to allow its pilots to eyeball the lunar surface during the last few minutes of descent.
@@eventcone those windows weren't big enough. And the lunar module was blocking the view on the bottom of the window. They wouldn't have stuck a camera in the window either which would block the view they needed during navigation.
@@eventcone how on earth could the pilots eyeball anything out those windows. They were well above the pilot seats. It doesn't add up. And... In the other video... The pilot was holding that same camera. Was he standing in order to point that camera down through the window while also navigating.
@@eventcone that's not what they said. He was told to pick up the camera 30 seconds before launch. How do you pick up a mounted camera?
And why would you ask 1/2 your crew to pick up a camera when you need to navigate a complex launch
One engine for landing. Another for leaving the moon.
Yup, not much room for error! Brave men.
@@TheCatBilbo Bell industries is awake now. After a helicopter lands it drops the engine. The second engine it carries will bring the chopper up in the air again. Airplanes can do the same. After landing they drop two engines and use the two remaining engines for lift off. In the future cars will have two engines. One for driving forward and one for parking backwords. In area 51 there are many ufo engines the aliens dropped because they wanted to get back home after landing on our planet. I think the alien space ships visiting many planets must have had a thousand engines they dropped all around the galaxy.
@@gmailaccount1894 Um, right. I was meaning: one engine in the lander section (left on the Moon); one engine in the ascent stage (to reach orbit again); both had to work and that means having a lot of faith in them, hence the astronauts being brave.
I wouldn't tell everyone about the Aliens and their many engines...the Men in Black will come find you. ;-)
It's one small engine for land, one giant exhaust for leaving.
And none never failed... whats the odds
How NASA retrieve this footage?? Through wifi or something similar??
Should be the highlighted comment!
Actually, yes - through something similar. Wi-Fi uses low power radio signals (usually UHF) to transmit data between devices.
The RCA camera used here was mounted to the rover, and was powered by its batteries. The rover had a high gain S-band antenna that was pointed toward earth, linking to the giant radio telescopes of the Deep Space Tracking Network.
All signals used for long distance communications are ground based and bounced off atmosphere, and connected via cables when possible, nothing has been bounced off the moon. It is not a rock in outer space. People working in this field know this. The satellites never shown in NASA video are not there.
Transfer towers also assist with connecting signal networks. The missing curvature allows this too.
Sorry, no.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-Moon-Earth_communication
FosterZygote
Oh, yes. Already done
the test.
Humanity is proud of you guys. Well done.
It was the greatest lie ever above the JFK assassination geat work lads
Just USA citizens are proud of they, nothink more
Please speak for urself. Even the men who “went” were ashamed of themselves for lying. Their first interview wasn’t men ecstatic to tell the world of their great adventure. They were sullen sad and frankly didn’t wanna talk about it. Then none of them went around to schools telling all the school children to reach for the moon and when confronted about it as older men they got very angry. And buzz Aldrin now that he is really old has been recorded saying they didn’t go to the moon. See as you get older you get diahreah of the mouth and ur brain wants to cleanse the heart and soul of lies. The fact is we didn’t go to the moon. We can’t go to the moon. There is a gas up there that snuffs out all fire. So it’s impossible. But notice I said up. Yes there is an up and a down. We r the down. The earth is flat and we have a fixed firmament over us dividing the waters from the waters. So it’s us .. then a glass firmament and water above that and then God. We r His footstool. And once you realize everything in the book of Genesis is true and that God made all this and we can’t go anywhere you start to realize what matters and that’s ur relationship with Christ.
How did the microphones inside the LEM not pick up the ignition? And how is he so calm when he says "We're on our way, Houston!" When he should be experiencing g-force from the sudden liftoff? Or turbulence? I'm not one of those idiots who denies the moon landings, but the audio just doesn't match. Is there a delay?
Most of the noise we here from rockets here on Earth comes from the hot gases exiting the nozzle at hypersonic speed and colliding with the sounding air, generating light, heat and sound.
There's no air on the moon, it's a vacuum, therefore there's no sound from the rocket engine to be heard.
Also, the lack of air means their no air resistance and therefore no turbulence.
And the g-force from lift-off in the 1/6 gravity of the moon was not significantly enough to effect the astronauts.
And yes there is a delay in the audio in all the places where we would expect a delay :-)
The g-force due to acceleration, in combination with the moon's gravity, would still be less than Earth-normal gravity.
YOU SAID: "How did the microphones inside the LEM not pick up the ignition?"
== Yazzam answered already, but I'll just echo his reply. With no atmosphere, a rocket isn't going to make as much noise. What little noise is able to reverberate through the metals (the only sound you'll hear if you're in a vacuum to begin with), is greatly dampened. And, 3500 pounds of thrust isn't very much, relatively speaking. But, let's flip this around a bit... almost nobody denies that the astronauts were able to speak during a Saturn V launch (7.5 million pounds of thrust). Granted, the astronauts were further away from the engines. But, c'mon, 7.5 million pounds of thrust in an atmosphere (loud), vs. 3500 pounds of thrust in a vacuum (almost zero sound)... the conspiracy folks are complaining about the wrong thing. They should be complaining that they should't be able to hear the astronauts during the Saturn V launch, not the tiny little LEM. But, that doesn't fit [most of] their narrative for how they think the moon landings were "faked," so they only complain about the aspects that fit the narrative, and ignore the aspects that don't.
YOU SAID: "And how is he so calm when he says "We're on our way, Houston!""
== Sounds excited to me.
YOU SAID: "When he should be experiencing g-force from the sudden liftoff?"
== They were strapped in by harness cords that attached to their suits to keep them in place. And, this wasn't a 5G climb or something. It was around 1G. No big deal.
YOU SAID: "Or turbulence?"
== You get turbulence from an atmosphere. There is virtually no atmosphere on the moon.
YOU SAID: "I'm not one of those idiots who denies the moon landings, but the audio just doesn't match. Is there a delay?"
== You must be aware of where the recordings were taking place. They were taking place in Houston. You won't hear a delay between when an astronaut speaks and when CAPCOM answers because that's where the recording it taking place. You hear the delay in the opposite direction.
Incredible engineering achievement
And the first handheld calculators were still in development.
Incredible pack of lies
Yep, a great achievement :-)
@@choclatesaltyballz Low self esteem issues? I guess science wasn't a strong subject for you...
incredible, yes
The only manned lunar mission that happened during my lifetime...I was born in the summer of '72! 😉 I remember watching STS-135 lift off with my year and a half old son, and telling him that it was the only shuttle mission that he'd ever get to watch live.
Happy 50th!
You actually believe the moon landings were real??? 😆 🤣 😂
@@Spark-In-The-Dark don the tinfoil hats...I'm not chasing you down that rabbit hole. But you can keep being you and keep propagating someone else's lies all you want. Just don't do it on my posts. And I assure you that they are lies.
@Brent Boswell Be careful you don't think too much so you don't give yourself an embolism. There's way too much air going through your head, for it to be safe for you to think if you believe the moonlandings were real.
@@Spark-In-The-Dark You actually believe the moon landings were fake??? 😆 🤣 😂
When they take off the camera zooms out and tilts back to follow them. So who is controlling the camera?
Thomas Hofstetter remote controlled by radio. Mong.
Remote controlled? Lmfao.... I built THE most powerful transmitter and reciever available for my rc jetplane.... and it still crapped out over 5 miles...buahahahahahahaah 238000 miles is the moon ....buahahabababa remote controlled camera on the moon buahahahahaha IN THE 60S buahahhahhaahah
@@gusmcgussy3299 You built WHAT? AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
@@gusmcgussy3299 is the government backing your project ? Yeah no
@@imZeroedIn physics is physics... don't need the govt sorry.... the craziest shit has come from indoviduals.... Why don't you edumacate yourself
So how did they control the camera watching them take off. This is almost 50 years ago!
Also what's that thing moving across the screen just after they take off
Remote control via a radio link through the Lunar Rover's dish antenna to the camera. The controller (Ed Fendell) sent his commands in advance, according to a predetermined sequence, because of the signal delay.
What moving object?
First of all, this is apollo 16 not 11. Also remote controlling was invented in 1956.
If you’re referring to the debris, well that’s because they had to be broken of so it could detached from the legs. If you’re referring to the dark smudge on the smaller screen, that’s the eagles shadow?
@@brohamletmeusethishandle And 9/11 wasn't a smokescreen for illegal wars for oil! 😂😂😂. You stupid bastards would believe anything
@@brohamletmeusethishandle and also radio control was first demonstrated with a toy boat in the 1890's. They could do it in 1969, for sure.
Just as mesmerizing today as when I was in high school. These guys had guts. I enjoyed all the Apollo 11 specials tonight.
You really believe people are inside that model?
@@adrenalinpump7601 - Really? So how big to you think the LM is in this footage?
Yazzam X
It’s a fairly large tin basket, from my perspective.
Binkle Babe
Mesmerizing is a really good word to describe this outer space belief phenomenon.
@@toberrdrawforc - Then I suggest you watch the following recorded moments before;
ua-cam.com/video/RWoMW9thdqc/v-deo.html
0.25x speed from 3:02 look at that nice engine blast
I see an igniter activation.
@@kenrose3464 eee what a meticolous.
Where is the dust. Oh. The artist forgot it.. Bwaahhaahhhaahhaa
@@stevewittwer7444 LOL "the artist"
thats the effect you got from blowing of firecrackers
Pisses me off that you didn't put the damned YEAR... I guess it was around '72 and the last mission, without Googling it? At any rate, I remember how sad it was how *routine* moon missions had become. So routine, that this mission was hardly noticed. Hardly paid any attention. They came back home and just a BIG "So what". What an amazing irony for so great an accomplishment.
How much fuel did it take for the LM to get into lunar orbit and meet the CSM?
I believe each propellant take held 1 cubic metre of fuel and oxidiser respectively. That's a (EDIT) thousand litres of each.
I’m still amazed at this time (2019) that the Americans could pull this trip off. I remember as a kid when this took place but did not realize just how hard it was for this mission to succeed. I really wonder what NASA could do with todays technology on going back to the moon. One thing for sure is that there will be wonderful pictures and videos/cameras. Maybe they could leave a couple of live feed PTZ cameras for us to play with via the internet !!!!
Ross in Ontario
Like you, I remember those days. One thing is for certain. If we go back, there would be a new generation of conspiracy lunatics calling it a hoax.
@@kabkab8441 I agree..some people just live in that small place called a brain...and some folks just have no free space for expansion..
Maybe someday they will make it to the moon,, maybe, if they can find the lost technology
@@kingmanta7679 The tech isn't lost; the will is.
@@kingmanta7679 critical parts of the technology are lost because the men who designed and built them by hand are dead. This was one of the disadvantages of doing the space race under a time constraint without modern-day computer and engineering technology. We will have to reinvent such technology and join it to much more advanced technology, or perhaps find completely different ways of accomplishing a return to the Moon. that does not mean that the evidence we have that they actually did go to the Moon successfully isn't accurate oh, it just means we don't have all the information and Technology to do so presently. also NASA's budget is much less than it was in the 1960s when we were doing this race to the moon, And also the national and political will is not unified behind this goal as it was then.
.
477 "Dislikes" ??? This is EXACTLY what it says it is. What, exactly, is "wrong" with it ??
.
It's the flatties. Also, I'm collecting money to buy ferris bueller a new kidney, but they run around 15 grand, so, would you mind...
looks like a model, how did they have no delay with Houston when we still have delay on earth with TV broadcasts?
I knew you guys would never leave anyone behind from a mission . He will sure be happy to see in a couple of years. And thank god you had klingon oxygen tanks back then. Good job guys.
I just can't help anthropomorphizing the lunar rover and feeling like it must be horribly sad as it watches its astronauts fly away forever.
Mike O'Sullivan
Ooohhhh Kay
Elon will send someone to drift it on the moon someday. 😂
50 years later...still absolutely astonishing! Bravo!
Anonymous infant.
Grow up.
@@MichaelKingsfordGray Up yours!
And still can't do it!
Afterwards the camera man just walks back to his hous on the far side.
From Apollo 15 onwards, the TV camera was remotely controlled by Ed Fendell at mission control.
@@yazzamx6380 uh huh. Right!
@@sheshotjfk8375 - So because you don't understand something you question it? :-)
@@yazzamx6380 Well, yes. I do question things I don't understand. That is how it is supposed to work, right? Are you telling me you don't question things that don't make sense? That explains a lot.
@@sheshotjfk8375 - You said "Well, yes. I do question things I don't understand. That is how it is supposed to work, right? "
That is not what you were doing here and hence you prove the point I was getting too.
If you don't understand something then you should make the effort to understand it so that your opinions can come from an informed position, that's where the questions come in.
But suggesting something you don't understand is FAKE just *because* you don't understand it, is actually called denial!
Hence your reply of "uh huh. Right!" is you saying I'm wrong despite the fact you don't understand it and clearly have done no research into what I'd said, so all you've offered here is denial :-|
Amazing how to stear into the exact path and speed for CM docking. I wonder how long it took to get in to the right position.
Was great to see live, great to see again.
I so agree. This was amazing when it happened and still is amazing to so these many years later.
3:03 still better visuals than any DC Movie
And the whacko deniers will
scream CG!
They forget the films were seen
by millions of people long before
CG existed.
@@merendobereglidditz9304 before CG? ok, but what about the movie 2001 Space odissey from Kubrick??? Years later from that???
(with better practical effects)
@@ffccardoso
(Why am I doing this?)
[sigh]
Let me hold your hand and
guide you through this
carefully.
Practical effecrs would've been
done BETTER. Camera angles,
lighting, background
( they'd avoid putting stars in?
Would've been too perfect.
Don't even say it, Kubrick.
They woud've TRIED TOO HARD.
No self respcting cinematographer
would allow [gasp!] less than
precise results. Even if "they"
said, "rough it up", too many
random behaviors of the
spacecraft were...random.
Nobody could anticipate that. or
portray it accurtely.
Physics is physics.
Don't bother replying.
I'm too busy screwing with
astrologers and
Trump supporters.
You guys are small game.
🌎🚀
@@merendobereglidditz9304 pfff...
I just put some questions about your assumptions... and you answers with more assumptions...
I'm questioner. You are a believer.
I don't have a solid faith about any claim. If the man really did it, whatever. I'll do the questions: where are the original films made by the Apolo missions? That is a simple question.
But this simple question scares people like you to the point to call me "Trump supporter", and "astrologer"...
@@merendobereglidditz9304 The film was prerecorded then played as if it was live...
Who was controlling the camera still on the moon???
Ever heard of a remote camera??
Stanley K
The camera operators name was Ed Fendell.
It takes 8 seconds for the signal to travel back to the earth, then another 8 seconds from Houston back to the moon. That's a 16 second delay at best. That's 16 secs only if the supposed camera operator responds immediately to the lift off! No way with 60's tech at the time would this shot be perfectly timed to record this lift off! Think about that!
Adrian Lee idiot, delay is 2 sec
What happened to the guy who filmed and left outside the LEM🤔
Remote control camera
@@kusipää69
You mean remote controlled cameras back in 1969?!
@@kyashmember5618 it was actually 1972, the last Apollo mission, it finally worked after a couple failed attempts
I remember following this whole mission as a kid.
Yes...me too! So glad I was alive to see the Gemini & Apollo missions
Apollo 11 was the history making landing the but for my money seeing Apollo 17 from lift-off til landing driving around on the lunar surface and collecting lunar samples and carrying scientific experiments and of course the occasional singing by the Astronauts made Apollo 17 mission a most enjoyable of all the Apollo moon missions. Also I as 14 year old kid back then I learned a lot about the moon more so than any other mission.
“Ahh shoot!” Not what you want to hear right before lift off. Lol
What I thought too 🤣
What happened? Did they just realize they forgot our cameraman?
I totally get the fact that doubters have questions. Some of the questions are natural; some are a stretch, but since every single question has a plausible answer it's obvious that deniers just WANT so BADLY for it to be a hoax that they decide before hearing the answer that it's a lie. I guess you don't have to be a flat earther to be a moon landing denier, but you DO have to be a moon landing denier to be a flat earther.
I’d have to agree with you about flat earthers needing it to be fake, but since I’m not a flat earther, I can’t speak for them. However, I think you’ve got it ass-backwards when it’s diehard moon landing believers that want it to be real sooo bad, they’ll accept this obvious garbage as being real. They’re no longer capable of critical thought & will easily accept any ridiculous explanation the proven liars put before them, no matter how absurd it may be. This crap-pile is crumbling fast & those who continue to stand on this dung-heap are liable to melt into it if they don’t jump off soon.
Artamus Gordon - So please present your favourite hoax evidence.
I have seen many, and not a single one survives scrutiny. It’s all paranoia and ignorance.
Artamus Gordon I’m waiting for your best evidence of this hoax. Just one.
Flat earthers are just plain morons.
I can understand why someone would have doubts of the moon landings. It’s not based on any of the actual evidence though, and it’s never started from any actual evidence. It’s about the us motivation. Very plausible that they’d fake the landing to 1 up the Russians. Everything then collapses when you look at all the actual evidence and all the hoaxers arguments are debunked (and have been for 5 decades).
The Earth is flat the moon landing was faked and our history is a lie 9/11 was an inside job how many lies do we have to hear before the truth comes out they're pushing the satanic agenda time to wake up people we are being lied to #FLATEARTH NO DOUBT ABOUT IT
Okay what was the object at 3:48 that dont a left turn on a rail?
What?? Just kidding. You’re not suppose to use ur brain just blindly believe!! When the fact is we can zoom in on the moon with cameras now. So now they go to the “back” of the moon that we can never see🙄🤦🏼♀️ there are not tracks no four wheeler on the moon nothing. And we know this and they know this. It has been said it easier to fool a man than to convince him that he’s been fooled.
Great time to be alive. I was 6 during Apollo 11 and loved watching all the missions.
Same here.
Absolutely mind-boggling to think that this happened nearly 50 years ago and humans haven’t left LEO since then.
It’s really not that mind boggling. The World has been at war in the last 120 years and each war had aircraft. If you consider the aviation tech in the mid 40s, especially the 50s and ultimately be 60s, going alittle faster and building something tougher doesn’t seem much of a reach.
The issue is people are deluded with sci-fi media. It makes space seems extremely complicated. And although it is still very sophisticated, there’s still some bare bones elements to it.
Maybe it didn't happen.
Have you considered that?
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504
Yes, I have considered that possibility, and then quickly dismissed it due to its sheer stupidity.
Piss off.
@@eccentricgamer4111
An open mind is a wonderful thing.
A closed mind is very limited in its use.
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504
Having an open mind is a good thing. Using it as an excuse to be a fucking idiot is not.
Again, piss off.
Is there a Hollywood studio?
No
There are several Hollywood studios. But only morons think this has something to do with the Apollo missions.
Unfortunately believe or not believe but All NASA missions are just lie.... They lied all the World...
Ramazan Malkoc the only unfortunate thing is that people like you still exist.
@@brohamletmeusethishandle pls show me real Earth picture without using photoshop...
Im just curious who stayed behind on the moon to move that camera upward as the capsule rose up higher? Just sayin
Nobody. Remote control camera.
Hi nicholas, please do not pretend to be an idiot, there are plenty of real ones in the comments section. Take care.
One of the last greatest moments of engineering magnificence in the 20th Century.
One can only imagine.
@SJ S Probably, maybe Egyptians believed that too!
Greatest hoax of mankind. Look at the LEM rocking from the window view at 2x speed. Brainwashed zombies.
@@paulnotdownunder3172 You should see what they've used to record the moon landing and what we've done to make the footage more presentable. It's been 51 years, you can't expect the footage to remain like it was shot. I would ask you: if in your mind, it really happened, how would it have been and also looked with the technology from that time? Not as good right?
@Alf G You should see the historical part of it, they were pressured to go to the moon and the money to fund it wasn't a problem, they couldn't let the Russians get there first (they already caught up in some steps). After these moon landings, there was no need to keep going because they had already beaten the Russians, and also because they got everything they needed to make research; we still have the moon soil gathered from the Apollo crew and it's been more than enough. What we lacked is the technology to sustain life there, to live there, landing is no problem, but what's the point of spending billions when the outcome is always the same. That's what the Artemis program is aiming for, don't bother making up things, sit down and wait for 2024, we're getting back on track.
That's actually an epic shot if you know the real story behind it. Can't wait for 4K moon videos in the next few years!~
I remember watching this live.
Does anyone ever wonder how they retrieved the footage of that camera on the outside? If I remember correctly they didn’t have the advanced tech we have today. Can anyone answer that?
Well, you could read the description of this video. That's a good start. But, I'll make it more clear. The rover has a TV camera on it, and a radio dish to transmit the signal. If you watch any of the Apollo 15/16/17 missions, you'll know that they would park the rover at each of their stops, align the dish, and then the camera was remote controlled from Houston.
@@rockethead7 from Houston even! Wow! They got you on the sauce huh?
@@LogicallyWoke Why did you even ask the question in the first place if you don't want or refuse to believe an answer?
@@HoudiniGTP I just want you to think about this nonsense. Just because it was on tv doesn’t mean that it was real.
@@LogicallyWoke You think that's the only evidence that it was real, because it was on TV? 🤣🤣
It was an incredible take off.
Incredibly fake.
@@pascalxavier3367 Idiot. No brains , you lot are laughed at everywhere, Thick as a bomb shelter.
Pascal xavier you are incredibly fake
Besides the fact they’re in a vacuum where thrust and combustion are literally not possible, yeah they nailed it…
@@LogicallyWoke You're literally completely wrong.
Wow, I never knew that Apollo 17 was called Challenger. That gives the name even greater meaning!
Isn't it bad luck to reuse a ships name, or rename a ship?
Ginkum Pow I have a feeling I know why you think that.
Respect to all of the people who lost their lives for the knowledge and understanding of humanity
Those guys were so brave! And whoever thought to video the launch was brilliant.
Yet you are an embarrassing anonymous infantile coward.
@Boris Madzarevic 😆 🤣 😂 the cameraman was left there with 50 years worth of snickers bars and died in 2013 when he ran out. He weighed 102 lbs when he died. Last person he ever talked to was president Nixon on a landline and then they lost the technology to be able to communicate and as astroNOT Don Petit said, they "lost the technology" to go back or communicate. The cameraman became a Buddhist monk in order to cope with loneliness. He dropped the mirror when he died do its no longer visible with the laser. Of course it was there until them tho and anyone thar questions it is a brainwashed moron.
Ok my question how you get the camera setup perfect and the video recordings back to earth if they left the camera there it’s not adding up
By radio. How else?
When people like you do zero research into something they don't understand at all, and them come and advertise their complete and utter ignorance for all to see saying dumb stuff like 'it doesn't add up', the rest of the world laugh and laugh and laugh.
I'm surprised you even know how to type!
I thought of a nightmare scenario whereby the thing deploys itself with the astronauts still walking (or driving) on the moon...
That would make a badass movie honestly lol
...oops...
Or he pushes the button and nothing happens. Hope you brought plenty of Granola bars.
Just call AAA. They will jump you...
@@biggawinnacrapsa3870 This particular situation was in everyone's mind from the very beginning, since there had never been a 'launch' from any other place but the Earth. It was Collin's nightmare scenario at the lunar orbit, for flying alone back home would have been devastating. But the lander launching itself out of nowhere with two guys strolling around is a different nightmare.
awesome footage
awesomely fake.
@@pascalxavier3367 Imagine being this ignorant.
Outstanding. I assume the remote was controlled from earth. Considering the time lag, great camera work!!
Ya, it was controlled from earth 🤣😂👌
Agreed. The technician in Mission Control tried on Apollo 15 and Apollo 16 2 track the lunar module after lift off from the Moon, and couldn't get the timing because of the delay in radio signals from Earth to Moon and back, and the delay in camera response, but they finally got it right on this one, Apollo 17. I was always amazed to see the launch from the Moon and was thrilled to see them Arc up into orbit.
It was in a movie studio so they just walked over to the camera and got the tape...
@@andersonpoopercnn4261 - So what was the size of your claimed LM model? Or are you saying they made a full size model to lift-off in a studio?
@@yazzamx6380 Full size but hollow...
What's moving on the lander 6:10 ? Also, what's this 'Camelot' they refer to?
Looks like a reflection maybe. Camelot is a named crater.
@@vernoncorv3862 Camelot is a crater? Got it. Thanks:-) As for the lander I suppose it could be a reflection but from what? It still looks like something is moving/spinning to me. To the left of that there seems to be a light flashing on/off. Or maybe it's just radio interference affecting the camera.
When I watched this on tv as a young guy the video would have the word simulation in the corner of the tv screen. I think the whole thing was a simulation.
This video is clearly not a simulation.
Moron of the highest order. Watched it himself and grew into a manchild believing flimsy conspiracies. How old are you but still holding onto childish beliefs and the desire to feel special? Grow up old man, it's time.
Back in 1985 I had the privilege (fortuitously) to have a private dinner with Gene Cernan, a great guy. Learned he was a HS classmate of NFL great Ray Nitshke and a flight school classmate of John Akers (then CEO of IBM). An American hero!
I wish I could meet one astronaut from apollo missions
Must have been awesome!! He was really cool and devoted his life to sharing with the world. Real hero!!
Rene Jakobsen
He was a really cool guy. Sad that he passed.
Lucky!
Did John Akers say why he wkold have let B. Gates have IBM DOS intellectual property and deprive IBM investors of the future proceeds that MS DOS received? Besides "Gate is a 'genius?'" The DumbA$$!
The swings effect is due to remote cameras controlled from the rover via the operator on earth trying keep the LEM in the camera view. Much like you taking a picture of a fast moving bird curving away fron you.
The television camera communicated from Earth using a high-gain antenna on the rover, but there was a slight time delay for the radio waves to travel (a couple of seconds) between the Earth and the Moon.
The flight path of the LEM had a 15 sec ascent follwed by "Pitchover". At pitchover the automatic computer and preset guidance system ( very primitive) would lock in two guide stars and angle the ship in the correct position to achieve orbit and rendenzous with the Command module.
Yes reading reading scientific stuff can be boring but you cant do proper research without it.
(Transcript is from Apollo 11)
Frank O'Brien writes, "At this point, Buzz is performing an alignment of the LM's inertial platform. Rather than the traditional Program 52, which requires sighting two stars through the AOT, Program 57 is used. All platform alignments require determining the exact position of two references is space, which is all that is necessary to determine the platforms orientation to any reference. Normally, stars are used as the references, as they combine the necessary quality of being in fixed, well-defined locations in the sky. Program 57 does use one star for its orientation, but the fact the LM is on the surface allows the platform to use another well understood reference: the gravity field of the moon. Thus, performing a fix on a star, and sensing the gravity vector for its second directional reference supplies all the information necessary for the computer to align the platform to a known orientation."
Not at all, because first the axis of the sine wave would be centered on the middle of the video and not its bottom, first, and second, as there was a delay between the command and its effect, it would have looked like a square wave and not a sine wave.
Forget Moons gravity. They need 1 g acceleration and the Moon has 1/6th of that only. Since the ascending stage has had no tilt mechanism for the drive nozzle, the correction nozzles wold have to fire permanently to hold the path, but they don´t...
So on all of those lunar flights someone gets off and places a camera to capture someone getting off and getting back on and then the lift off. So the camera is functional for awhile down there on the surface.
No the camera was mounted permanently on the Land Rover it had a remote control function
Six Apollo missions & not one successful practice landing on Earth (let alone in the Moons 1/6 Earth gravity) Absolutely ridiculous
Neil Armstrong himself made about 40 successful 'practice landings' on Earth prior to the Apollo 11 mission. The flying simulator used - the LLRV/LLTV - made about 700 successful flights and landings by the end of the Apollo program.
@@eventcone
I believe it's double of what you are saying. I think Armstrong had about 40 flights in the LLTV in the last month before the Apollo mission... but, I believe he would do two landings per flight, before needing to refuel.
Craig, why would you think such silly things? Why? They had hundreds upon hundreds of practice landings in the computerized simulators. And, they all performed dozens of practice flights/landings in the LLRVs and LLTVs (actual flying simulators that were designed to simulate 1/6th G. Where are you getting your notions from? (Let me guess, a conspiracy video told you they never had practice landings, right?)
@@rockethead7 Thanks for the info (again). :-)
@@eventcone
No thanks required. But, just to add, Armstrong also had flights in the LLRV a year before his flight. The 40 flights (two actual takeoffs and landings per flight) were just in the last month before Apollo 11. But, there was about a year when he didn't fly, because he had crashed in the LLRV, and NASA banned the use of the LLRVs after that, and wanted them to only use the LLTVs after that crash. But, the LLTVs weren't done yet. And, then, finally, when the first LLTV was done, it crashed before they turned it over to the astronauts. So, Armstrong had to wait until the 2nd LLTV was built before flying one of them again.
Yep! Dad let me stay home from school and watch this one. As a USMC pilot, he was cool about that.
My dad was an aerospace engineer. Same. He let me stay home to watch.
Screw all the people that say the moon landing was fake, this is as real as it gets!
The rocket booster only last 2 minutes on the space shuttle
looks like a model
lol
Can someone tell me how the video was communicated back. Was it a television type transmission or was there other tech at the time?
It was television. It was captured by the TV camera that was mounted on the lunar rover for the express purpose of allowing NASA to monitor the astronauts' activities each time they made a station stop as they roved across the surface, far from their landing site. Capturing this lift off was kind of a 'nice to have' idea.
The rover had a high gain dish antenna that both received remote control commands from Earth AND transmitted the TV pictures back, where they were subsequently recorded.
The view from inside the craft was 16mm film. The outside view was TV, as already explained.
Anyone noticed the side of the LEM was blown off
no it wasn't , thats where the rover is stored
And people still somehow believe this is fake
Science is awesome.
I remember seeing one of the later Apollo missions (with the moon rover) on TV as a little kid.
LOL. Nice try. This was the last Apollo mission, and the last time humans have ever been to the moon. You were watching Battlestar Gallactica, my friend.
@@BayviewFinch "Later" meaning "toward the end of the program".
Its crazy to think all that gear will still be in the exact same place untouched as it was left all those years ago
Request to UA-cam : A effing simple ignore system.
1. See someone who is dense and stupid.
2. Hit IGNORE
3. Done
The way it is now, it's easier to launch nuclear tipped cruise missiles than it is to ignore someone who denies something that clearly happened.
I kinda like that.
If they don't know they're ignored
it's like standing in an empty
room just raving.
Great idea.
amazingly brave men total respect and thank you for doing what most people could not do!
lol u believe that? haha
@@Jmriccitelli There's zero evidence to suggest this didn't happen.
I recall watching this liftoff with a family friend that had been born in 1897. He commented: “I wish the old timers could see this.”
Why was the internal view of the launch cut out? That was the best part seeing the flag violently sway from the blast.
Jack Schmitt had real trouble with getting the camera to work, and nearly didn't get it working. They almost had to scrap the idea of filming it at all from the inside. I wonder if maybe there is no internal footage of the moments when the flag was blasted on Apollo 17. There's plenty of footage of the flags on some of the other missions. I'm not sure if it exists for Apollo 17. I'd have to check my archives, because I don't easily see any of it on UA-cam either.
@@rockethead7 The footage of the Apollo 17 flag being blasted by the takeoff was recorded, albeit for just 1-2 seconds. That is enough "eye candy" for me in my opinion. I've seen it in the documentary movie "For All Mankind" by Al Reinert. You can see the flag sway violently. I can confirm that the film was Apollo 17 because you can see the large Rudolph crater and can see the flag and 4 visible white spots (forming a quadrilateral). If you super-impose the film with the LRO pictures of the Apollo 17 landing site, it matches perfectly, including the position of the take off camera and the ALSEP equipment just south of the Rudolph crater.
Damn, I need to correct myself. I believe the filmmakers used another flag being blasted from another Apollo mission and inserted it just before the take-off scene on Apollo 17. On the film, the flag being blasted had 2 white objects several feet from it. There are no such objects on the higher altitude film of Apollo 17 taking off and on the LRO images that were taken several years ago.
@@Armis71
I have copies of every second of TV video and film video from each Apollo mission. I haven't watched it in decades, so I certainly don't remember (and I wouldn't trust my memory after this much time anyway). I'd have to dig through my copies to see if I have anything showing the flag blowing. But, given what you just posted, I'm definitely wondering if it simply doesn't exist for Apollo 17.
@@rockethead7 Agreed, sadly it looks that way .