How were Moon take offs FILMED?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 พ.ย. 2022
- This video looks at the RCA GCTA - an early motorised mount that allowed remote control shooting to film the Lunar Module take offs.
Doogee T10 Sponser:
Official website: www.doogee.cc/products/t10.html
AliExpress: www.aliexpress.com/item/10050...
Doogeemall: doogeemall.com/products/dooge...
Please consider supporting the channel by making purchases through my Amazon affiliates: geni.us/Affiliate
PATREON: / davemckeegan
MERCH: teespring.com/stores/dave-mck...
INSTAGRAM: dpmphotographs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Music by Bensound.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#moon #nasa #moonlanding #apollo17 #apollo #apollotakeoff #moontakeoff - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
the artemis missions are actually a long-term plan to bring the cameraman back. lol
Actually, the cameraman is Daneel Olivaw. He donated unlimited time to the project. He'll be back with the Artemis guys, in time to help invent the warp drive.
And they had C-rations back then, not MRE's.
When you go on a mission ALWAYS leave something/someone valuable behind so you have justification for the next mission. :-)
Yeah, and they were off about 800 tons 🙄.
Who would've thought, they did a bit of planning for a moon landing
Conspiracy: Artemis program is actually a rescue mission to bring back the last cameraman that was left on the moon.
His children and grand children run the cameras used for backing up cars these days. And they miss him badly.
Bluetooth ofc;)))
Conspiracy #2 - Artemis Program is actually a rescue mission to deliver pizza and soft drinks to the cameraman on the moon :)
Another great video. The only thing missed was the man who controlled the camera from Earth. Ed Fendell controlled the camera on the LRV on Apollos 15, 16 and 17. I got to meet Mr. Fendell at MSC in April 1971. He was getting ready for Apollo 15 at that point. He took great pride in what he was doing. You can see him in a couple of videos on the people of Mission Control. An interesting fellow.
Somewhere on yt there was a story related to problems at apll16: control signal delays - from the console to the moon I think it was around 1min
@@przemekgesicki6021 That actually happened a few times. More to do with NASA's Deep Space Network (DSN) In Spain, Australia and The U.S. Sometimes they had an issue when they handed off from one station to the next.
"A funny thing happened on the way to the moon."
Hahahahaha. Only boomers believed, and still believe in this non-sense. Hahahaha man on the moon ahahaha.
@@srenheidegger4417 - Knowing that man has been to the Moon only requires intelligence, the ability to comprehend some pretty basic concepts & to research facts.... boomers just have the added advantage of being around when the Moon landings occurred. Moon landing deniers on the other hand can't even formulate reasonable arguments to justify their disbelief.... & no, "nuh uh" isn't a valid argument!
It never ceases to astonish me to find that people still ask: "Well, who filmed Armstrong coming down the ladder?" I mean, the answer is so hard to find (sarcasm btw).
It confuse me how much people are themselves confused by such level of technologies, especially since almost everyone these days have a basic idea of robots and mechanical arms.
People like flat earthers don't watch debunk videos or anything that challenges their belief. That's why they still ask "who was filming in the moon when..."
A former flat earther who went by Ranty said that they don't watch debunk videos and I myself can confirm that as my brother is a flat earther. He shut me down as soon as I showed him 1 thing on a list I created with empirical evidence exposing flat earth lies. That is the mindset of so called "truth seekers".
@@expattaffy1
*GROW UP!*
I astonishes me how utterly blind people are who still beLIEve that men landed on a big space rock through the vacuum of space, making it through the van Allen radiation belts completely unscathed. Just this FACT alone should ring a few alarms in anyone who is able to think by themselves.
@@RocketPipeTV
Your contempt for science does *NOT* invalidate it, kiddo.
Grow up!
Wow the rainbow sparkles really sold it! ...we used to drive moon buggies and play golf on the moon.. 50-years later we can't even land straight.
its easier to fool someone than to convince them theyve been fooled.
Try something that hasn't been used to death by countless braindead deniers.
Yes, they did leave a camera man there. Everyone knows that the cameraman never dies.
Nicely done, as usual. Many thanks
@@ebeckableblud days "bad morning" to the teacher
Excellent description. Well done.
I enjoy learning more details from these videos. My knowledge of the events in your videos is always more complete after I watch the video than before. Keep up the good work.
I hope they never run out of flat earth arguments because it gives you reason to explain all this fascinating stuff
Yes. Thanks to their inability to read and/or understood any of this stuff, and insist on asking the same bloody questions endlessly, hoping for some sort of "gotcha", we get some great info from Dave McK and others who actually have bothered to research and disseminate their findings.
As a young teenager in the late 60's early 70's, I remember watching the astronaut moon walks live on tv. For years, prior to the actual first moon walk, experts in science, aerospace engineering, and Nasa officials explained how the gravity on the moon would enable the astronauts to make vertical jumps of 15 feet or more and horizontal leaps of 30-plus feet. Imagine how shocked, disappointed and flabbergasted when no astronaut ever achieved a vertical jump of more than six inches and a horizonal leap of more than 2.5 feet. Today experts tell us the escape velocity from earth is 24,000+ mph. I'm again flabbergasted because everyone knew in the 60's/70's the escape velocity from earth was 17,500 mph. Gravity is a predictable constant force and yet, in my lifetime, I've seen first hand how it does change. In the first case it changed in a minimal amount of time (enroute to the moon) and in the second case it took decades for it to change ( a planned trip back). Go figure?
@@oldman9150 you're confusing escape velocity with orbital velocity - every altitude less than infinity has its own orbital velocity so for Apollo at 115 miles parking orbit (100 nm) it is 17,445 mph. To go to the Moon Apollo did it in 2 parts - first get into a parking orbit and then fire up the CM engine to break out of orbit for the TLI (trans-lunar injection) to escape the Earth (24,700mph from orbit). In practice you only need to get to the E-M Lagrange L1 point at ~200,000 miles (not infinity) where the Moons gravity takes over.
The wiki entry for Apollo 8 gives the more exact figure of 24,200 mph for the _injection_ velocity (i.e. we are not going straight up from a stationary reference frame) which:
"was slightly less than the Earth's escape velocity of 36,747 feet per second (11,200 m/s), but put Apollo 8 into an elongated elliptical Earth orbit, close enough to the Moon to be captured by the Moon's gravity."
p.s. 11,186 m/s = 25,028 mph is the escape velocity from the surface
Excellent explanation. I read about this way back in the 1970's in some science mags that covered the technology of the video techniques used.
As for the time delay having to be overcome, I had that issue a couple of decades ago with the "new" digital cameras, there would be a time delay between pressing the shutter button to the actual time the photo was taken, this delay ruined many photos until I pressed the button a fraction of a second prior to the action happening, it worked.
It is outside this topic, but first commercial digital cameras did not have shutter sound because they didn't have one. It was very hard to transition to digital equipment when you lacked that very familiar auditory feedback.
One thing is that it's been proven that the temperatures on the moon would have immediately destroyed the film, the cameras weren't in protective cases as you can plainly see, there was NOTHING special about the film, that's been proven. All of this means that no photos were taken because no human has been through the Van Allen belt and you really, really need to wake up. This is all fact, go check.
The TV camera on the rover wasn't only used to send pretty pictures back to earth. It allowed the scientists and geologists back on earth to coordinate their activities with the activities of the crew on the moon. For example if the geologists saw a particular moon rock on the TV that interested them they could ask the astronauts to pick it up and bring it back. Also because it was a color camera the commander had red stripes on his helmet and sleeves that could be used to let controllers on the ground distinguish between the two astronauts.
boy did you watch that video? almost like it was a remote controlled miniature with a astroNOT figure that never moves.......
@@stanlee4217 Bro what? The walked around several times in the video.
@@popninja8658 and get on and off the rover? didn't see that... must have been edited out....
@@stanlee4217 You need a serious psychological examination.
@@stanlee4217 "never moves"
"walked around several times"
Oh no! The goal post was clearly too close! Quick! I must shift it before they notice! "get on and off the rover?"
Dude. You made a claim, and it was proven wrong. Get over it.
Excellent as always Dave 👍
Thanks Dave :)
I was aware of how most of the camera setup on the rover worked, but I don't recall hearing the pan and tilt were at a single fixed rate. Thanks for that!
Besides recording the LM ascent stage liftoff, the rovers could continue to show the now deserted landing site, at least until the rover batteries ran out. I recall seeing the TV networks returning to that view for a bit. I'm curious to find where NASA has that video online. 🤔
Baaaahaaahaaa online. Wake up.
@@deanhall6045 Sheep noises - how appropriate.
@@phildavenport4150 no, that's me laughing my guts out. Please, open your eyes, NASA has been telling lies for decades, the big one is the moon. You aren't stupid, just open your mind to the possibility that it is simply not possible to send humans through the Van Allen belt, no one. Not the Russians, Not the Chinese or Japanese and certainly not America, you need to understand that. If anyone tells you differently, just research, you will discover that they are either lying, arrogant or both. Its not hard mate, Van Allen Belt. Research and you'll understand why no human has been to the moon. That, besides the thousand other holes in this fraud. Cheers.
@@phildavenport4150 and, NASA admits years ago that they wiped all the videos to reuse them as a cost cutting measure. A cost cutting measure.....?? Does that not in itself, stink to high heaven.?? The biggest event in human history, ...I'm about to bust out laughing again, goodbye.
Do you recall how there was no water up there too?? None. That's what they've said for decades. Big problem. The Chinese, who did actually get real samples found, guess what ? This is recently, guess what they found heaps off ?? No prize. Such a big, big lie, the human moon landings, shame on those who tried to pull it off. Every time someone else actually does go to the moon with a craft and get samples, they put another hole in the big lie. Amazing.
Amazing info, thank you. Yes, I was one of those who where skeptical about the filming of the take offs, but this explanation perfectly clears everything. THANK YOU.
Honest question: You were skeptical that the camera could be remote controlled or put on a timer? I don't get it. I mean that wouldn't exactly be some technological marvel. 🤷♂️
At th-cam.com/video/K67VIbfVPxY/w-d-xo.html , I noticed that the camera starts to zoom out before the camera starts tilting up and the Lunar Module takes off. Any idea why the zoom wasn't done on the earlier missions?
no answer a year later
@@user-hj7ld4ff7p The camera on the rover was controlled by Houston, and was only availble on Apollo missions with lunar rovers (15,16,17). There asked and answered...
“……with a camera. I’ll see myself out.”
…
I’ll see myself out
given the rest of the infinite complexity of the mission, it is mathematically/programmatically trivial to have a remote camera auto-track the craft.
Great video. I was privileged to watch the take off from the moon live. My brother and I were kind of giggling when, after the Lunar Assent Vehicle went out of frame it panned down and then moved around to watch the landing area devoid of people. Of course the media had been making a big thing of the remote controlled camera in advance so there was not anything unexpected there.
Congratulations, your brain washing treatment lasted into what most people would consider adulthood, while clinging on to such childish notions of landing on a light in the sky, in the vacuum of space with temperatures between -200 to + 200 degrees, no harm to the equipment or the Astro-nots even when passing through the van Allen radiation belts.
50 years later with super computers at everyone’s disposal, NASA is still trying to find a solution for Gemini mission.
Doesn’t that make you think?
aren't you a bit old to watch and comment on youtube video's grandpa?
@@stanlee4217 Ah.... but I likely have been a tech nerd and professional computer programmer with some diving into electrical work since before you were born. Helped companies sign up on a freshly launched yahoo, have been using internet before it went public, and my first GUI was the original UNIX X-windows... before Microsoft launched Windows. You young whippersnapper, you haven't lived until you've programmed 8KB systems.
@@stanlee4217 Ah, you young whippersnapper. I may have been soldering circuit boards and programming computers before you parents were born and help posting original web page details into Yahoo back when it was a manual operation instead of having web spiders.
@@bit-tuber8126 it was alta - vista without a mouse buddy and yeah i studied all the binary and npn pnp silica components and etched my own circuit-boards too. So you believe they went to the moon with 256meg memory because you watched Fim beamed to your cutting edge B$W Cathode tube television Propaganda device? Thats what brainwashing is and your Generation is surely the most affected it seems...Did you get your JAB?
6:25, I didn’t know Huston was in Greenland 🇬🇱 you learn something new everyday! 😂
Is that the HAND OF GOD??!!??
1:30 RCA made the Apollo11 video camera used in the command module, but Westinghouse made the video camera that was pointed at the ladder when Armstrong first stepped onto the moon.
I doubt it was advanced or affordable enough to be mass produced especially considering there werent that many Televisions back then and there were only 3 or 4 stations.
Thank you for making those videos. It's always nice to see a professional approach the claim from a different perspective and explain it in a different way 👍👍
Yeah, great new spin on the propaganda piece of NASA. Really amusing to see the fan boys lick up all that nonsense. Quite entertaining 😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@RocketPipeTV
Get a clue!
@@RocketPipeTV Argument from incredulity again. That's all you guys have.
@@RocketPipeTV _Yeah, great new spin on the propaganda piece of NASA._
Which you apparently are completely and utterly unable to actually debunk 🙄
@@RocketPipeTV Not nonsense - hard science.
In the Apollo mission documentary "Moon Machines: The Lunar Rover" it's mentioned how they messed up getting the shot the first few times and finally got it right on the third mission (Apollo 17): th-cam.com/video/5DwBlVM39Jg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=mEDDVjuQEkV12daC&t=2588
The entire "Moon Machines" series is absolutely fantastic. Six episodes focusing on various machines used in the Apollo missions. Here's a playlist: th-cam.com/video/6syfevpG-1U/w-d-xo.html
The most expensive camera setup of all time!😅
In total, thousands of pictures came back from the surface in six missions - most taken by the Hasselblads, but some with other specialized cameras. A few of the cameras themselves also returned, Levasseur says, but NASA was nervous about having enough fuel to get off the moon and back to the orbiting command module
Why take 3 lbs of camera when you can take 3 more lbs of moon rocks?
@@texmex9721
Because Mitchell wanted to bring one home.
Ed Fendell was the man on earth who operated the remote controls.
incredible that he caught it so well with a 2 and a half second delay.
@@softcolly8753 He got the tilt pretty good by Apollo 17.
If you believe that then you have had too many C19 injections!
@@MrCharlieSurf Great non sequitur! Got any more?
@@phildavenport4150 So you believe that they went to the moon and back in 69'?
I don't need anymore than that!
You too may be intellectually diminished!
Why have they not been back since 72' then?
Either they don't want to or they can't
Very interesting stuff! Thanks for taking the time.
So which camera did Neil smuggle back from the moon ? He also grabbed an optical device used for docking, was it just duct taped on the window?
None of this is discussing apollo 11.
@@MeerkatADV because this person obviously isn't stupid and sees right through this whole damn lie. There is no Apollo discussion, you've been lied to and believe it, most people don't so why speak of a lie ? You need to wake up, all of you Americans. We have.
Those cheap pieces of foil really have yall fooled
That’s a great explanation… however, if you notice on 17, the camera zooms out during the LMs accent. I know you talked about ground control having control over pan and pitch but did they also have control over zoom?
Yes. Look at the Wikipedia article "Apollo TV Camera". The following quote is from that article: "Once the LRV was fully deployed, the camera was mounted there and controlled by commands from the ground to tilt, pan, and zoom in and out."
The article says more about the zoom features.
@@michaelfuchsawesome thanks for the info!
RCA started selling pan/tilt/zoom tripod heads commercially in 1936. The tech is that old.
I recreated that when I was 12 or 13, using my model LEM, an 8 mm movie camera, and a firecracker.
The great great great great great grandfather of the current PTZ (pan, tilt, zoom) cameras of today.
How haven't these moon landing deniers seen the dust/dirt being kicked up as the guys move about the moon and how it takes longer to come back to the surface then what it would on earth.
Moon landing deniers (I like to call them hoax folks) are in it for the responses. They say whatever they need to to get responses. Some believe it some don't, but it is secondary.
They only see what they want.
I saw the dust kicked up y the buggies. It doesn't appear to follow the perfect arc that you would expect without an atmosphere, but appears to encounter resistance.
@@softcolly8753 It's not perfect!? That's it!, that's the proof we've been searching for! Non-perfect dust arks. We can finally stop asking who held the camera that was on a tripod and other less "concrete" evidence.
@@DeputyNordburg there are countless other inconsistencies, but that one was relevant to the comment I was replying to.
Could I take a wild guess that you are fully vaccinated?
I have diving fins and webbed gloves. Can I turn around in space?
You could twist around your center of mass but the fins and webbed gloves wouldn't be helping.
@@Lee.S..B Yep. He's already been answered in detail at another video.
I wish your springer could be more involved in the presentations. such a lovely puppy.
how did the buggy fit inside the ship ?
folded up inside a storage quadrant, as has been public knowledge for half a century
@@Agarwaen ✔
Why do you think it was "inside the ship"? Have you bothered to search YT for videos of its deployment?
@@maxfan1591wtf where should i be ? It was a 3k crosscar with an umbrella
@@peterblond1273 "wtf where should i be ? It was a 3k crosscar with an umbrella"
It was folded up and placed on the side of the lunar module descent stage, next to the ladder. One of the first things the astronauts did on their first moonwalks was to deploy the rover.
th-cam.com/video/hliHiQNn8_g/w-d-xo.html (6 minutes)
David - thank you for being a faithful Brother of The Craft.
Wow.. I had No Idea.. Now I'm Smert...LOL Thank you, that was Very Interesting!!
When somthing looks flawless, then suspect.
Reality is not edited.
When someone wants to full you, he makes it perfect.
so since they needed 3 attempts to somewhat keep it in view... it's real then should be your conclusion right?
I guess you must not be a reality denier, then.
Afterall, from the conspiracy theorist's perspective, their whole lives revolve around trying to show the "imperfections" (which is just their misrepresentation of things they don't understand or aren't willing to understand).
From the sane person's perspective, there are many "flaws" regarding the whole Apollo project. Example? The first Apollo mission ended up in a tragedy, with 3 dead astronauts. Hey, reality can't be edited. No one couldn't unwidow their wives. How about Apollo 13? Wasn't it supposed to land on the Moon, just like Apollos 11 and 12 before, and Apollos 14, 15, 16 and 17 after? Why can't you find footage of Apollo 13 on the surface of the Moon? Hint hint: reality is not edited.
Ahh yes, the "it looks so fake, therefore it has to be real" school of ignorance. The art of subterfuge is lost on the overly fluoridated mind
@@Agarwaenlol, you deffo believed the jab the layman think of as a vaccine would end transmission, didn't u
Awesome. You can't bloody lose out of that rubbish. Wake up.
The camera didn't just pan upward, it also zoomed out (unless the zoom was simulated later). The video from Apollo 16 wasn't zoomed.
Zoom pan and tilt were part of the RCA built system on the camera. It was modified for space, but these units were commercially available a full decade before the Apollo missions. Many a Las Vegas cheat was astonished to find out he’d been observed on video. Video guided bombs were a thing in wwii, radio controlled guided torpedos were thing in WWi.
@@DeputyNordburg do you even know what you're talking about ? What a load of crap, a decade before Apollo ? No one has been to the moon, add that to your garbage list.
@@DeputyNordburg radio controlled torpedoes were a thing in WW1. Get real.
@@DeputyNordburg are you like, 6 years old or just lonely ?
@@deanhall6045 Can't I be both?
Patent US1301690A J, H. HAMMOND, JH, SYSTEM 0F TELEDYNAMIG CONTROL.
APPLICATION FILED - APR. 6. 1916
This invention relates to systems for controlling and .operating mechanisms from a distance, and relates more particularly to systems in which pneumatic, hydraulic or other Fluid pressure or vacuum controlled machinery for operating the steaming gear, engines or other controlling devices of torpedos and other vessels the like, is Controlled by radiant energy transmitted from a distant station.
Yay love your channel, all the stuff I've wondered about you address.
And you've actually convinced me they did go there for sure and your debunking the deniars is well researched and correct.
I may be wrong of course 🙃
first ze moon, then ze flat earth
@@tf_d The deniers are not motivated by evidence. Rather, they get excited by other deniers making ridiculous claims that appear to them to be "gotcher" evidence, and no debunking evidence/explanation that Dave or anybody else presents will be seen by the deniers as anything other than more cover up and NASA lies, and therefore more evidence of conspiracy at work. Same with the flat Earth morons.
No no, it was a safe and 3ff3ctive trip to the moon because someone said so. Believe that too ?
In the video at 4:10, if the camera is filming astronaut jump saluting and the lander and rover with camera visible on it are in the same frame, who is taking the shot?
The camera is on the rover and was remote controlled by mission control, one astronaut is posing with the flag and the other astronaut is on the other side taking a photo of it
@@DaveMcKeegan They had more than one of those cameras?
@@user-bi9jj6gz1q They had the TV camera which was fitted on the rover, a 16mm TV camera they could hand hold and a stills camera which they took photographs with
@@DaveMcKeegan Thx Dave. Have a good one man !!
@@DaveMcKeegan rubbish Dave, its a scam so stop telling lies. I'd love to know what you make from this crap. No one has been through the Van Allen belt, you know it too.
Electronics and chips were so basic then. It’s amazing how much they achieved then
Questions still remain about your sanity. Your defending the indefensible.Stop embarrassing that dog.
Would you like to try again, and this time refute something in the video?
Its easier to fool people than to explain that they have been fooled
If you have no evidence of fakery, then be honest enough to admit it. Innuendo isn't evidence.
Yes, and you were fooled by the ignorant Apollo deniers.
It is shockingly ironic that a conspiracy theorist would say this.
Some additional information. The rover video camera was controllable for pan, tilt, and zoom. And it could only be controlled when parked because the umbrella shaped directional antenna had to be accurately pointed at earth to send and receive signals.
It depends what you mean by accurately. Any moon hoax person is going to say laser precise which is far from the truth. It essentially had to be less than 50 degrees off, which is to say vaguely in the right direction. And it worked fine while they were driving in a fairly straight line.
@@texmex9721
I think you're confusing the audio antenna with the video dish.
Love it
Without having yet watched this video: The Rovers on Apollos 15 - 17 had color video cameras that were controlled remotely from Mission Control on Earth.
Really? 😂 Remote frpm earth on lifetime with 4MB Lol and wirephone
@@peterblond1273did you have a stroke?
What are your thoughts about all the bits of the pictures and video that NASA cropped out?
More info please.
They had to edit everything to make it even half believable. Then they taped over everything to reuse the tapes as a cost cutting measure but the moment you mention that, everyone goes quiet. The biggest event in history taped over. Smell the stench yet ?? The Van Allen belt isn't penetrable by humans, that also shuts them up. Thousands of holes in this charade.
@@deanhall6045 the Smithsonian might have them beat on misplacing/losing high priority records, documents, artifacts, etc.
@@Wanderer_Rogue ha, only bloody just, it'd be a close thing mate. Smithsonian's and NASA, .... both safe and effective.
@@phildavenport4150 You know, all the edits, cropped images and the like.
It took several goes but eventually they got the timing right
Great video! The real conspiracy theory is that your dog isn't actually that chill all the time, you cut the video to make her look chill all the time
Following a target in advance on the last mission...no pressure 😮
The 360 pan is proof that it wasn’t staged
The 360° pan is proof that a front screen projection set-up could be mounted on a spinning platform, within a relatively small, 360° stage set-up.
The videoed 360° pan was only done for Apollo 17, if I'm not mistaken. Therefore, the 360° elaborate set-up only done once for the one alleged mission to the Moon.
@@FakeMoonRocks You are mistaken 🙂
360° pans were also done on _Apollo_ 15 and 16.
Also, the front screen projection tech couldn't have been used to fake the _Apollo_ footage.
@@Jan_Strzelecki No, I'm not mistaken and, as usual, the so-called 'tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist' knows the 'official' story better than the fanboy.
You don't differentiate still photography from video, or otherwise know the difference?
Heck, there is a photographic 360° pan of the claimed Apollo 11 site, stitched together using multiple still images, if you really want to go there. But it does nothing to disprove anything I said about video, or to otherwise prove manned Moon missions.
Neither does claiming front screen projection technology didn't exist, or wasn't usable, at a time when it most definitely was.
And regardless of whether it's still photography, video, or film, Apollo imagery always has that tell tale line between what is clearly real foreground, and what is just a projected backdrop.
By the way, the Apollo 17 360° pan I referred to was, in fact, motion picture video. Not just simply stitched together still photos, requiring no spinning platform.
Nope. I'm not mistaken and, as usual, the so-called 'tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist' knows the 'official' story better than the fanboy.
You don't differentiate still photography from video, or otherwise know the difference?
Heck, there is a photographic 360° pan of the claimed Apollo 11 site, stitched together using multiple still images, if you really want to go there. But it does nothing to disprove anything I said about video, or to otherwise prove manned Moon missions.
Neither does claiming front screen projection technology didn't exist, or wasn't usable, at a time when it most definitely was.
And regardless of whether it's still photography, video, or film, Apollo imagery always has that tell tale line between what is clearly real foreground, and what is just a projected backdrop.
By the way, the Apollo 17 360° pan I referred to was, in fact, motion picture video. Not just simply stitched together still photos, requiring no spinning platform.
@@FakeMoonRocks _Nope. I'm not mistaken_
I'm sorry, but you are, and it's quite evident that you don't know the "official story" as well as you thought you did.
_You don't differentiate still photography from video,_
Of course I do. I was talking about the 360º pans taken with the TV camera, which is why I only mentioned _Apollo_ 15 and 16.
_Neither does claiming front screen projection technology didn't exist,_
I didn't say that the FSP tech didn't exist. I'm saying that it had limitations that made it impossible to be used for the _Apollo_ footage.
_Apollo imagery always has that tell tale line between what is clearly real foreground, and what is just a projected backdrop._
That is also incorrect. Many _Apollo_ photos and videos have no such line. This is true even if the Moon landings are fake. Sorry.
_By the way, the Apollo 17 360° pan I referred to was, in fact, motion picture video._
You mean the TV camera footage.
The videos are great to learn how it was done. What I can't understand is waist our time discussing with Looney deniers. Let us discuss Particle Physics with Rusty. He is much more intelligent than the flat earthers.
*waste*.
@@bathin813 tks 🙂
Inverse Square Law. I've done the calculations and the Hasselblad camera they used along with the 22.6 f stop and 1/125th shutter speed with Low iso film would not generate the images we have of what the say is the moon on the surface. At 14 miles away from the moon there would be approximately 13,000,000 lumens. Calculate they lumens on the surface and it's insane. There are clues out there like this you have to do just a little bit of research and calculations and the story falls apart. I hope this helps someone. My channel most likely will be taken down. Thank you.
@@okcguitarbear410 And Rusty would say: "Go bark at then moon and stop waisting our time"
@@eduardoribeiro383 Thanks for your reply, have a great day!
The camera from Apollo 15 was actually the same camera that was used for 16 and 17. Yes, they tried to get a departure shot on Apollo 16 too, but the camera was positioned to close for the tilt-function to be able to catch the full ascent as we see from the Apollo 17 mission.
For the Apollo 17 mission Harley Weyer sat down and calculated where the camera needed to be for it to be able to capture the whole ascent.
Sorry, missed the mention and video of Apollo 16, I wrote the comment after the first 2 minutes of the video where you only mentioned 15 & 17.
All well!
Not to nit pick, but the 15,16, and 17 used the same type of camera. Saying it was the same camera kind of implies there was one camera used three times. (and we don't need hoax folks jumping on that as proof of a hoax)
One thing I think is forgotten in the how did they get that shot discussion, is this shot was not the purpose of the camera. The departure shot was kind of an afterthought. The purpose of the live video feed on Apollo 8-17 was to allow mission control to see what was going on and direct the astronauts. For example, a team of geologists could direct which rocks were photographed and collected.
Of course the public relations aspect became huge, and may have been a bigger part of why they went to color and remote controlled and mounted to the rover.
Nice
Who grabbed the videotape from the camera?
whomever was back on earth where the signal got transferred to tape.
Sorry flat earthers and moon landing deniers you're proven to be fools yet again.
Ikr 🤣
The 1990s Tom Hanks hosted miniseries From the Earth to the Moon had a bit depicting the technician starting the cam tilt on Apollo 17. --The entire miniseries is a really good 'dramatized' look at the Apollo program and missions.
Its a fantastic series, the episode about the lunar module development was particularly eye opening
Although I don't recall the bit showing the cam tilt ... Damn, guess I'll just have to go and rewatch them all again 😁
@cjc363636 I loved that series. My favorite episode was Spider, the development of the Lunar Module.
@@DaveMcKeegan lol I wrote my reply about the same episode before I read your reply.
Hahaha you have got to be kidding me. A Hollywood actor. This scam has to end, you people that still believe this garbage really are sick. Americans, or a paid stooge from England, the only ones who still believe this total fraud. Wake yourselves up for heaven's sake.
@@DaveMcKeegan talk with me Dave, please. You wont debate anyone about the moon landings, just put your opinions out there for money, Bart Sibrel debates people. He has QandA sessions, he will address any questions but you won't. Why not ? Im thinking it's because it would derail your gravy train. Why don't you explain to your readers why they haven't been back for 50 years, the real reasons, not your story time tales. Do that at .east.
Well done Dave.
Next thing you will tell us building 7 911 fell down by its self lol
Next thing you'll try to prove one conspiracy theory by naming others! 🤣
So, you haven't actually got anything to say about the content of this video...
Apollo comedy at its best! 😀
Would you like to try again, but this time refute something in the video?
So what has you convinced Apollo did not happen as told?
@@WilliamMann-co8un MY functional brain.
@@simonshack1 "MY functional brain."
Oh, so *you're* the comedian. You know precisely what the question means: why do you think Apollo was fake?
@@maxfan1591 I'm afraid you'll have to find out for yourself that not only Apollo was fake - but that all space travel is.
When arguments run out, insulting beginns.
Well, when explanations have been painstakingly presented, and the only response you get is "Nuh-uh.", the only responses available are insult or silence. These idiot deniers really are best ignored, once they show their hand.
"all these people are frauds and liars and scammers and murderers!!!" - "you're dumb" - "OMG DON'T INSULT!!! THAT'S BAD NOW!!!"
Wow, that camera was way ahead of its time, look at the size, most television cameras in those days were monsters! Amazing they had that tech then and we had to wait until 1983 for the betamovie home video camera, maybe it was the forerunner?
Most studio color TV cameras at the time had three vidicon tubes, one for each primary color. The Westinghouse moon camera only used one tube, with a spinning color filter. Home video cameras had to wait until charge-coupled devices replaced vidicon tubes.
@stephenh5944 Thanks, Stephen. Sorry still very difficult to believe that in the 60's they invented a video camera that could work in a vacuum at 120deg C when the sun was shining with no cooling mechanism for the internals and no real suit apart from a bit of foil around the camera. Those DAC 16mm cameras that were shooting from the inside of the Apollo make sense, not a power and light hungry camera on a heavy gimbal that was triggered 440 000km away. I would love to see them make that system work today in a straight line over 10km
@@ryangaskin2089 There's plenty of info available about the camera.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera
www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a11/a11TVManual.pdf
@@ryangaskin2089 so you got answers, and then you just piled on dumb incredulity. Can you say which part shouldn't work in a vacuum? Also it wasn't 120c. Light was provided by .. the sun. And part of the design cut power requirements to a minimum. Particularly telling how you throw in the distance, as if radio waves care? Modern remore-controlled cameras do this.. and WAY MORE. I mean.. ffs look at how drones are used in Ukraine right now.
@@ryangaskin2089 Have you ever noticed no moon hoax person is bothered by the cameras and equipment on the Surveyor unmanned missions that landed on the moon before Apollo? Whole spacecraft flown by onboard computers and radio control sending back images and data are not a problem. But send some people and boy howdy that's a problem because who controlled the camera?!
Why not do a video on the hammer/feather drop for Apollo 15? (i.e. the shot that proved they filmed it in a vacuum - i.e. the surface of the Moon).
Clearly a lead feather and a rubber hammer with perfectly calibrated masses and air resistance to fall at the same rate.
/s
@@westernbrumby If the moon landings were faked then my Uncle who was working for NASA in Australia during the Moon landings would have been in on it. You haven't met my uncle so you will think he was. I HAVE met my uncle so you will NEVER convince me that they were faked.
@beausaunders974 why wouldn't it be easy to trick people with tho. The last time they went into a vacuum the guy nearly died
@@Chronz You must have been there as well, sans helmet.
The thing many Apollo deniers get wrong when referring to that shot, apart from frequently claiming it would need a camera operator actually on the Moon to work it, is they say the camera 'pans' upwards, when what they mean is the camera 'tilts' upwards. Fun fact regarding this: rotating a camera is called 'panning' because it refers to the word 'panorama', where you rotate a camera to get a view of the surrounding area.
Also interesting is NASA and the USSR landed multiple unmanned space craft on the moon prior to the Apollo missions, and operated them remotely for days or months. Cameras were panned, dirt was dug, temperatures were read, photos and video and data were transmitted… And no conspiracy theorist has ever bothered to question it.
Wow, thank you for blessing us with your elementary level photography vocabulary. You truly are a well of knowledge.
@@vagabondroller Thanks for your pointless reply to my comment. The fact that people use this description incorrectly indicates that it does in fact bear explaining. But you go ahead and continue to post mean-spirited and unnecessary replies to comments if it makes you feel good.
You posted a smug comment about "Apollo deniers" and received the same kind of energy directed back at you. So Apollo believers don't make the same mistake?
@@vagabondroller In my experience, smug is in the eye of the beholder, and your comments have certainly done nothing to alter that observation.
All well and good, but it’s ok to ask questions. Like how come Armstrong said the earth appeared so small that he could hold out his arm and his thumb would cover the earth. The earth is supposed to be about 3.5 times the size of the moon. How did the capsule maintain blunt-end first attitude upon re-entry? How did the parachutes not burn up? How did they eject the spacesuits without an airlock in the landing craft? How come there was petrified wood amongst the “moonrock’s”, following the discovery of which a significantly large proportion of “moonrocks” went missing? How come tens of thousands of photos survived unscathed through the Van Allen radiation belts when the amount of radiation had gone off the scale several times in Van Allen’s investigations, indicating very high levels of radiation?
"All well and good, but it’s ok to ask questions."
Sure is. The issue is whether you're willing to accept the answers. Here goes...
"Like how come Armstrong said the earth appeared so small that he could hold out his arm and his thumb would cover the earth. The earth is supposed to be about 3.5 times the size of the moon."
Yes, the Earth is about 3.5 times the width of the Moon. But it wasn't full during the mission, it was gibbous. Maybe Armstrong didn't hold his arm out at full length...maybe he was being figurative instead of literal...and maybe a bit of the Earth poked out either side of his thumb.
"How did the capsule maintain blunt-end first attitude upon re-entry?"
It was designed to be aerodynamically stable in that configuration. NASA had 10 years of experience in designing spacecraft to do exactly this.
"How did the parachutes not burn up?"
They were housed inside containers at the apex of the command module and not released until it had slowed to terminal velocity.
"How did they eject the spacesuits without an airlock in the landing craft?"
Eject? What do you mean? They didn't eject them, they wore them during ascent to orbit. Or do you mean how did they get out of the lunar module for their moon walks? If so, they simply depressurised the lunar module and opened the hatch.
"How come there was petrified wood amongst the “moonrock’s”,"
Petrified wood was not found among the moonrocks. The Apollo rocks are in the possession of NASA, except when they're lent out to universities for study. The petrified wood you're speaking of was in the Rijksmuseum in the Netherlands. That rock was given by the then US ambassador to the Netherlands, to former Dutch Prime Minister Willem Drees. After his death, his family gave it to the Rijksmuseum. A Rijksmuseum staffer called NASA and asked if NASA had given the Netherlands a moon rock, and NASA correctly replied that they had. The Rijksmuseum staffer didn't think to ask for details, and it appears people assumed that the petrified rock was the gift. In reality the gift is a piece of rock the size of a grain of rice, encased in lucite, and on display in the science museum in Leiden.
"following the discovery of which a significantly large proportion of “moonrocks” went missing?"
What's your evidence for "a significantly large proportion"? Yes, a number of the gift rocks have gone missing. But each of them is, as described, about the size of a grain of rice. Put together, they would total only a few grams, out of a total of ~380 kilograms.
"How come tens of thousands of photos survived unscathed through the Van Allen radiation belts when the amount of radiation had gone off the scale several times in Van Allen’s investigations, indicating very high levels of radiation?"
The command module was shielded against the radiation in the Van Allen Belts; the spacecraft travelled through parts of the belts where the radiation is lower; and the spacecraft travelled through the belts quickly. The belts aren't safe - stay within them for a week or so and you'll receive a fatal dose of radiation - but the astronauts were through them in a couple of hours.
"...in Van Allen's investigations..."
Um, Dr. James Van Allen, for whom the belts are named, was a _consultant_ for the Apollo program. The missions proceeded drawing on his specific expertise.
how come you only have questions based on old debunked lies?
@@maxfan1591 some of that correct, most of it isn't. Not sure where you get your info but no human has been through the Van Allen belt yet so the rest is just rubbish that you believe. Cheers.
@@Agarwaen debunked by who, you? Most of those questions are bloody good ones. If you want to sound clever, start by explaining how the temperatures on the moon wouldn't have destroyed ANY film, there was nothing special about the Apollo film despite NASAs claims, start there. Then add the bit about how humans went through the Van Allen belt. Really .?? There are still this many people believing the impossible happened because someone said so ? Absolutely amazing. Safe and effective to the bloody end, some of you.
All this effort for a shot of the module taking off...
"Neil, place that rover exactly 100 meters away from the module so that we get a good video of takeoff. Oh and grab some moon rocks while you're at it".
this was apollo 17 you idiot. neil was on apollo 11.
Neil didn't have a rover on Apollo 11.
Hollywood is excellent at altering history in order to present a story for reasons other than a faithful reconstruction of events. Maybe you could seek a writer's job there.
And grab some petrified wood samples too, they'll look like moon rocks hahahaha. Such a lie.
@@gunternetzer9621 Niel didnt go to the moon either so what are you trying to say ?
Next video….explain how they got into moon orbit and docked with the shuttle please. Thanks.
not a shuttle.. but rocket engine. that's how they got there.
@@Agarwaen explain please. No one ever shows the science behind meeting back up with the lunar orbiter. Just a simple math equation? Launching from earth is explained. From moon is not.
@@joewallman2664Buzz Aldrin literally wrote the book (or rather, paper) on orbital rendezvous. You can start there.
@@joewallman2664 To properly understand spacecraft rendezvous, it is essential to understand the relation between spacecraft velocity and orbit. A spacecraft in a certain orbit cannot arbitrarily alter its velocity. Each orbit correlates to a certain orbital velocity. If the spacecraft fires thrusters and increases (or decreases) its velocity it will obtain a different orbit, one that correlates to the higher (or lower) velocity. For circular orbits, higher orbits have a lower orbital velocity. Lower orbits have a higher orbital velocity.
For orbital rendezvous to occur, both spacecraft must be in the same orbital plane, and the phase of the orbit (the position of the spacecraft in the orbit) must be matched. For docking, the speed of the two vehicles must also be matched. The "chaser" is placed in a slightly lower orbit than the target. The lower the orbit, the higher the orbital velocity. The difference in orbital velocities of chaser and target is therefore such that the chaser is faster than the target and catches up with it.
Once the two spacecraft are sufficiently close, the chaser's orbit is synchronised with the target's orbit. That is, the chaser will be accelerated. This increase in velocity carries the chaser to a higher orbit. The increase in velocity is chosen such that the chaser approximately assumes the orbit of the target. Stepwise, the chaser closes in on the target, until proximity operations can be started. In the very final phase, the closure rate is reduced.
That's the filming explained. Now, how did it dock with an object travelling at 6,000 KMPH?, being the lowest and most favourable estimate of the satellite's speed?
More like 5760 kph. But this is only it's speed relative to the Moon. At the time that docking occurs, the speed relative to the Command Module is just about zero (obviously).
How did you think spacecraft have been docking with Earth orbiting space stations such as Mir and the ISS at a speed of about 27,000 kph relative to Earth? Spacecraft have been doing this ever since Apollo, using the same techniques for rendezvous as those developed for Apollo.
How do you take a sip of water on a passenger jet when that bottle is traveling 500 mph (pardon my imperial units)?
@@gives_bad_advice Well the telemetry data is all gone now. It got lost, and this 1960's achievement is no longer possible in the 2022' so that's cleared that up. Oh FFS, what a farce.
@@gives_bad_advice OFFS what a pathetic Straw Man argument. You sent a module powered by fireworks to dock with a bullet. But hey, the telemetry data is all gone now, and we can't do 1960's stuff anymore. Liars.
@@simonthomas5113 The telemetry data is still available (or most of it). Why do you think it is so important anyway?
It’s amazing how fake some of the footage of the very real moon landings actually look. Particularly the lunar module take offs. All I can think of is the scene at the end of Willy Wonka. Modern CGI and special effects has warped and conditioned my expectations of what it should look like vs what it actually does look like.
Part of why it looks so bad is the ugly hack they used to build a compact color TV camera. They had a filter wheel in front of the camera, with RGB filters and they took a frame through each filter. That means the green image was a step behind the red image, etc. This doesn't matter for stationary subjects, but when the subject is moving fast, the colors no longer overlap.
Those sparks from take off looks like some shit from cinderella when the pumpkin turn into carriage, what a joke!
@@TheSkylark16 Just like people expect cars to immediately explode with a fiery gasoline explosion after the slightest crash. Special fx have shaped how people expect things to look. Especially things people won't commonly experience themselves.
Really, the take off of Apollo 17 from "the Moon" is so goofy
@@donpettitwedestroyedtheapo6488 Which means....
Are these cameras pressurized?
Why would they be?
@@TexMex421 Magic Film?
@@l.s.451 Magic film would make them pressurized? Video cameras full of magic film?
@@TexMex421 Everyone else seals the film up to protect it from the vacuum of space right?
@@l.s.451 Video cameras do not use film at all. Kodak makes film for use in partial or complete vacuum. KODAK AEROCOLOR IV Negative Film 2460.
RIP Tyrone Shoelaces
He will be missed.
Stanley Kubrick had a great sound stage team.
Insisting on filming the fake on the Moon helped...
/s
sound stage?... .. seriously?
I'll tell you what was impressive - the fact that he managed to be in two places at one throughout all of the six Apollo moon landings. Great sound stage team? I'd say it was a pretty impressive props department that managed to fashion a third of a ton of fake moonrock consistent which each of the six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology in the process.
@MRA plenty of places could have been used as the backdrop. Devon Island,PTA Base on the volcano in Hawaii ( where the astronauts trained)
@@timburns1499 except.. you know. neither of those places has 1/6th earth gravity and all of them have earth atmosphere, nor do they have an entirely dark sky in the middle of the day.
did I miss something here, your "explanation" is after many "trips" so how did they do the 1st one ?
The bit of kit he is talking about was designed in 1972
The GTCA was built for 1971 and used on Apollo 15 (as per the company that built it)
This is also completely unrelated to the Apollo missions before 15 because the missions prior didn't have their takeoffs filmed
@@DaveMcKeegan did niel not land and take off in 69?
That footage is the one im talking about.
I care not for any after on this point, thanks.
@@jemlittle1787 Yes he did, but there was no footage shot of that takeoff from outside, the only footage of the takeoff was shot from inside the LM looking out of the window
NASA landed unmanned spacecraft on the moon for years prior to the Apollo missions. Cameras were panned and tilted, soil was dug, temperatures were measured. Images were transmitted. And no moon hoax person has ever questioned those. But NASA sends men and suddenly you guys want to know who was holding the camera, where is the blast crater, and how could they possibly take a BM. It's pretty funny.
@@DeputyNordburg Because NASA lies.
Thank you for your explanation. Do you know in which format the video was sent from moon to mission control? It appeared to be a live connection. But I believe we only had Super 8 camera's in the 1970's.
Super 8 is Film. This was video. "TV From the Moon - Apollo's Live TV cameras" is a great video on the topic from the channel Curious Droid.
@@texmex9721 Apollo 11 used a Slow Scan Video (SSV) for the Lunar EVA that had to be converted on the fly to NTSC. The rest of the Apollo missions all used NTSC colour cameras. Although the cameras on 15, 16 and 17 were better cameras yet again
There's no original film, only tampered video that is so low resolution so you can't spot the lies. The CIA edited every single second. Check, it's true. No one has been to the moon, wakey wakey.
@@williammann9176 rubbish, its been proven that the temperatures on the moon would have destroyed any film, it wasn't special film, that's been proven also. Research instead of holding blind faith in something that's just not possible yet. Van Allen belt won't have humans going through it. NASA thinks everyone is stupid, thankfully, I'm not.
@@deanhall6045
Every time you post your *DRIVEL* here, you boost THIS channel's engagement stats, so keep it up, princess :) .
Oh so basically the camera filming the pod leaving was remote controled 250,000 miles away by a signal..
Thats incredible..
First time ive ever seen this explained..
You sir are way ahead of the curve and everyone on earth 😂😂😂😂
Man this still sounds like bullshit
Yea, they sent dozens of unmanned remote control missions to the moon, Mars & Venus about the same time, but no way they could use radio control on the manned missions! Right? I mean it wasn't even invented until 1898.
@@Smallhathater Why? RC wasn't exactly something new. I had fllown RC-models for several years, it was just a matter of increasing the range.
You seem to be another flatearther scared by big numbers. Yes, they remotely controlled it from 250,000 miles away. But do you know what? There is nothing, absolutely and literally nothing, in the way.
Today I have a lot of times terrible quality when using my cellular phone, but back then they could do this at such distance? Just give me a break 😜😂🤣
Love the dog 🐕 cooool 👍 ❤️
It's easier to say it was faked in Hollywood. Lol great video. You break everything down so well. And I learn something new everytime. Love it
It's actually far easier to believe everything you're indoctrined/programmed to believe since a little kid... Right or wrong ?
@chrismoltasanti yeah to some degree that is true. If people were introduced to religion in their adult years, would we have the religious population that we have? I highly doubt it. Most people just accept it and keep going with it because they were taught it during a time when they weren't old enough to figure out its all bullshit. So yes, you're right to some extent.
Like he said
Anyone that thinks this is fake needs to have their head examined. Kubrick himself could not have created a more realistic lunar lift off.
54 years later and NASA tells us that they are attempting to develop a plan to land men on the moon. If you believe they did it 54 years ago and now with great advancements in technology, they can't do it now, you might want to have your head examined.
There used to be a 60s TV puppet series for kids, "Thunderbirds are go". All their take offs looked like that.
Kubrick would have wanted at least thirty takes for the grand exit. NASA did it in three.
I love when flerfs come out in the comments. Makes me feel like a genius in comparison
I haven't seen any flat earthers in the comments so far. Just people that have questions about the authenticity of this.
@softcolly8753 if you think this is fake, i have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you
@@jacksontrump8932no u don't. If nasal couldn't trick us, what makes u think u can lol. Ur lies are as easy to see thru as the nazis who tricked u
Is the dish on the lunar rover actually an upside-down ubrella? Lol 3:52
ask yourself. why are umbrellas designed the way they are? ah right, to be able to be stored in a compact form. now, when you need a dish to focus radio waves, and it needs to be light and compact.. how would you design it? you know.. maybe take a cue from a device with similar requirements? just replace the cloth or plastic with a thin metal mesh and invert the mechanism, and you get a compact, light and easily deployable directional antenna.
@Agarwaen Or its a movie prop. How vaxxed and boosted are you?
@@beastley4318 ah right, you couldn't hide how it wasn't an honest question anymore. but atleast you managed to tell everyone you're all the way into nutbag echo chambers.
@@Agarwaen that's a bingo, we got vaccinated cattle here. You all made the choice to trust the 'experts' no matter how stupid and obvious the lie.
@@beastley4318btw, you can go online and buy commercially available foldable/collapsible radio antennas. are all of those "props" too?
Where is engine exaust or is on batterys
This particular combination of hypergolic fuels (Aerozine 50 and Nitrogen Tetroxide) produces a nearly invisible flame, especially in a vacuum, where the exhaust gases expand rapidly.
The same "evidence" that proves man has never been to the moon can be used to prove man has never been to Earth. Non-parallel shadows? Yea, we have those here. Grumpy people at press conferences? Check, we have that here.
Flat earthers will still say it's all fake.
@@RocketPipeTV
*GROW UP!*
@@CNCmachiningisfun I did, now it’s you turn. Explain to me how they got through the van Allen radiation belts 50 years ago and why are they unable to figure it out today. That’s it, explain that to me and I’ll reconsider.
@@RocketPipeTV _you know it’s real, cause it looks so fake._
Yes. It's not a film, in which every scene is set up to look _pretty._ This is the reality. It's the difference between wedding photos taken by your uncle on his cell phone and ones taken by a professional photographer.
_Explain to me how they got through the van Allen radiation belts 50 years ago_
They flew around the high radiation regions.
_and why are they unable to figure it out today._
They _are_ able to figure it out today, and they did. 7 years ago.
@@Jan_Strzelecki some magical space craft they must have had to fly around the belts that are supposed to encompass your Spinn ball.
I must have missed the manned mission 7 years ago.
You are so funny!
@@RocketPipeTV _some magical space craft they must have had to fly around the belts_
That's not what I said. Re-read it, this time with comprehension.
_I must have missed the manned mission 7 years ago._
That's not what I said either.
Who filmed Armstrong coming down the ladder?
NASA. They were involved with the whole thing.
Great fucking question. It was filmed in a studio. They never could get past the Van Allen radiation belt
@@Daron1133 Why do you believe the government about the Van Allen Belt?
The lunar module drops the camera before landing. NASA planned for months on getting the camera dropped in the perfect spot and the right angle to film Armstrong coming down the ladder 👈 This is how you create a lie.
@@Daron1133 After landing as Armstrong descended the ladder, he opened a panel on the descent stage of the lunar module to the left of the foot of the ladder, by pulling a cord. As the flap came down like a drawbridge, it revealed a tv camera which took the footage. After about half an hour the camera was removed from the landing leg and placed on a tripod further away for the television transmission to Earth.
The Van Allen belts are very narrow, occupying a fraction of the path between the Earth and the Moon. Due to its trajectory and speed, the Saturn V rocket went through the outer portions of the belts in less than 2 hours, so the dose of radiation was within safety limits. Each mission flew a slightly different course in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was inclined to the Earth’s equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.
Low energy electrons were the main ionising particles that the astronauts had to navigate through and not electromagnetic waves e.g. ultraviolet, infrared, gamma etc. Electrons can pass through living tissue without creating much damage as they are very small.
The command module’s outer hull was made of stainless steel and the (upper) heat shield from epoxy resin, which along with the fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls was a very effective form of shielding against protonic radiation.
Very capable people, yet they didn't get it right the first time. Remember that the next time you stumble and fall. It's only a failure if you stay down.
true
I nearly pissed my pants laughing at this 😂😂😂
Why?
Tell the truth, Your pants were wet when you started.
@@DeputyNordburghe wears diapers
LOL at all the *DOPEY* little flerfs here :) .
Wouldn't the lunar module make a massive blast to take off?
It did, all of the rainbow particles that you see flying away is the Kapton foil from the decent stage being blasted away.
In the low moon gravity and ultralight weight spacecraft yes! They needed a HUGE blast! Because... Reasons!
A big spring was used,not rockets.
@@jimestrem6010 Hypergolic fuel.
The last time they also managed to follow the module for a longer time than shown here, how was that managed?
Radio control.
@@TexMex421 sure, but with the delay from earth...did they just get lucky?
@@paulsandin1539 No, they practiced.
@@paulsandin1539 Delay was 1 second, not too difficult to adjust.
@@betaorionis2164 1 second delay in operating a remote controlled thing is not that easy
Dave, this is your most hilarious podcast by far. What a gem of a podcast. The Cult must be beside yourself for releasing it. The old spacecraft model on a wire trick? Is this where Lucas got his idea for the Star Wars models in space, Death Star et al? You boys are smoking some strong stuff. Kind Regards Hugh
What's your evidence for "old spacecraft model on a wire trick"?
thanks for sharing, high quality information here! I never got why this was even an argument for the hoaxers..
I’m genuinely depressed that I’ll never go to the moon. Hell I just want to see the things they left there.
Wait til u find out its all bs
@@Chronz Why wait when all we need to do is ask you, the font of all wisdom.
But.... the Chinese, who actually did get a machine on the moon said there is nothing anyone left behind......nothing.... this is recently.... sorry mate. So cheer up a bit, you missed nothing. Absolutely nothing.
@@deanhall6045
No they didn't, stop consuming and regurgitating dumb online conspiracy theory. China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2 acknowledged the presence of a Apollo descent stage. Meanwhile, the landing sites have been photographed not only by the LRO but the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe has also imaged the sites which have also been confirmed by India's Chadrayaan spacecraft.
@@deanhall6045 this is entirely a lie.
nobody went to the moon
*Abu*
Seems one of those clips of the 360° view showing all of the surroundings would put to rest of a fake landing when it clearly shows it wasn't filmed in a studio with men behind cameras without spacesuits on. I wish NASA could round up the top conspiracy theorists and launch them into space show the flatearthers look and see the earth being round, and then fly to the moon and show them the tire tracks from them having fun in that buggy, show them the footprints, the take of spot, camera, and the American flag if it's still there haven't been bleached and then rotted away from the UV light radiation, just to come back to earth and tell their followers that they were wrong. Then again the followers are so closed minded and hard headed that they would probably say NASA bribed them to say that paying them alot of money.
Moon hoax is not about the moon landings.
You got all that correct except for the bit about bringing the dickheads back to Earth.
If NASA did send them to the moon they still wouldn't believe it. They'd say they were drugged, hypnotised or the view they saw from their helmets was CGI. You can't convince the insane about anything.
Lmfaolol. They're waiting for the cgi to get good enough to pull that trick off.
Can you explain why you can't see the rockets firing the craft from the moon?
the propellent mixture used on the lem has an invisible exhaust.
Look at a space shuttle liftoff. The 2 solid rocket boosters glow bright and leave smoke. The shuttle's 3 engines are almost invisible. This is just a great example of how different rockets can look very different.
Most rocket exhaust is much harder to see in vacuum. Hypergolic fuels like those used in the LEM are hard to see even in atmosphere. And the LEM engine is very small. And the video lacks any detail. It all adds up to being invisible. You can however see the inside of the engine glow when the rocket gets farther away and points toward the camera.
As @bradleyrex2968 stated, the hypergolic fuel and oxidizer (Aerozine50/dinitrogen tetroxide) used on the LEM burned with a clear flame. These fuels were also used on the Gemini launch vehicles, and you can see the flame is barely visible even when constrained by the atmosphere.
th-cam.com/video/xXJUMMjja2M/w-d-xo.html
@@bradleyrex2968 thanks for the explanation
@@rwells3325 I saw something that makes sense: If the fire makes smoke it glows. It's the smoke particles that are glowing. No smoke = invisible.
And of course ambient light effects how visible it is. Any Apollo video is shot in sunlight brighter than we get on Earth, but the black sky seems like night. Seeing the flame here means seeing in broad sunlight.