Video

Re "no delay": the video is recorded at the launch site but maybe the audio is recorded on Earth so they don't have to carry recording equipment to the moon and back. Therefore the audio and video would be synched later. Can anyone comment on that? As far as tracking-- they didn't use tracking to move the camera. I believe they preprogramed the movement of the camera and v simply set it in motion at the right time. Again, can anyone confirm?

BTW I wonder what kind of battery were they using for the camera and transmission radio back then when the temperature on the moon surface is either extremely hot or extremely cold.

@@haiting1594 "the temperature is either extremely hot or extremely cold" And never temps in the middle? Then how does it go from extremely cold to exttremely hot without passing through room temperature? Your other challenge questing is: what material exactly is "extremely hot"--given that there's no air, it's not the air tempetature.

@@haiting1594 "I wonder what kind of battery were they using" Well of course you could google that. But you don't really want the answer, do you? Why not? JK we all know why not 😉

Ironically, you're backward. The visible rush of gasses as the rocket engine is starting actually represents unburned fuel or oxidizer. Once the burn gets going, you cannot see the flame. Your complaint is that you only saw the flame for a short time as the engine was starting. But, what you saw wasn't flame at all.

​@@rockethead7 He probably thinks the explosive separation is the "little push."

Come to conclusion first. Ask a question second. Then announce that you aren't interested in the answer to your own question. Bravo. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail.

So you're kind of like the Stop the Steal people who believe without knowing anything and don't care to hear any more about it?

Even NASA can't explain how it was done 😂

@@papalegba6796 I've seen you write a lot but never once seen you write anything of substance--you know, where you actually refer to the subject matter being discussed with a contribution.

@@gives_bad_advice that's not true, chatbot 😂

The camera was controlled by Ed Fendell at mission control. He was making predetermined inputs based on a timer to account for signal delay.

The camera was attached to a piece of equipment and was controlled remotely from Earth.

Go look at photos of the rover. You'll see the camera mounted to the front, and a large dish. They point the dish at Earth at each rover stop, which enables the rover-cam to receive control signals from Earth.

The ascent stage didn’t reach escape velocity. It rendezvoused with the command and service module and then was left to crash into the moon. The command and service module achieved lunar escape velocity.

In addition to what AM wrote, I'll point out the obvious--that this video ends before the spacecraft accelerates to its maximum velocity.

@@gives_bad_advice I'm pretty sure our OP doesn't understand the concept of acceleration at all.

@@Tim22222 Temperature... heat. Acceleration... velocity. Why split hairs?

Conclusion first, ask question second, then demonstrate that you're not interested in the answer. Bravo, you've joined the ranks of every denier out there.

"they didn't have tracking technology" The remote camera operator knows when the moment of launch will be by the countdown, and he knows the path the liftoff will take because it is their ship and they know where it's going to go. It's not clear what you find impossible about this. And, by the way, radar was used in WWII in the 1940s, so it's also not clear why you think "tracking" was impossible in 1972 (though they did not use radar to record this launch. Didn't need to. )

If you know the distance between the camera and the thing you’re filming as well as the vertical acceleration, it only takes a bit of math to determine your pan and zoom rate to keep the object in frame. Ed Fendell at mission contol was making predetermined inputs based on a timer to account for signal delay.

@@gives_bad_advice how did the remote camera operator get the signal to the camera? by tracking I mean the camera didn't have any way of tracking the LEM . Its easily researchable that NASA,s excuse for a poor picture was they hijacked the LEMs audio signal (I guess you missed that bit) - tell me how the camera received and transmitted without a receiver or transmitter?

​@@davidrowlands3593 "how did the remote camera operator get the signal to the camera?" It's just done by radio waves, like all the signals. Some microwaves frequencies, too, I think. This was a mature technology by 1972 and nothing special. "the camera didn't have any way of tracking the LEM ." Obviously, from the video, it did. It used servos to pan and tilt. The servos were radio controlled. "excuse for a poor picture was they hijacked the LEMs audio signal " I don't know what you mean by "hijacked." Or how that's relevant to the veracity of any claim. And the video quality varied quite a lot over the course of the six missions that landed and depending on whether the recording was being done on film or t.v. transmission. " tell me how the camera received and transmitted without a receiver or transmitter?" I really have no idea what you're talkiing about. They had receivers and transmitters on the moon, obviously. If you mean that you think they needed more wattage than they had, they didn't. The big dish was on Earth and it was capable of picking up the relatively weak signals. And they didn't need a big dish to receive on the moon because they were sending high wattage transmissions from Earth. Look, if there was something physically impossible about these transmissions, do you really think that in 52 years, not one paper would have been published by any engineer over the entire world, including engineers from international competitors? I really think it's a bit delusional on your part to think that you are noticing something wrong about the radio transmissions, without doing any calculations whatsoever, that none of the world's aerospace engineers have bothered to make note of. In 52 years. Does that seem possible to you?

wHo'S FiLmInG iT? lol

Why do you say "without lag"? There's no transmission from earth, everything we hear is coming from the moon. Another denier without an honest case.

What do you mean "without lag"? It takes 1.3 seconds for a signal to travel from the moon to Earth. And the speed of light is never going to change.

It was broadcasted via radio signal and there was a 1.3 second delay each way.

@@Tim22222 Should I say frame lost? high ping? low fps? Look at China's 5G communication in 2024: czcams.com/video/CmMhOhVMwDQ/video.html

Well, that's one way to express that you have zero understanding of digital vs. analog, nor cellular (5G) vs. long range radio.

The camera was remotely controlled.

Ignorant people often laugh at things they don't understand.

Ignorant people often laugh at things they don't understand.

Ed Fendell at mission control was remotely controlling the camera.

Prove it

ha ha 🙄

You fall for any moon landing denial story don’t you? Nothing was lost. Some backup tapes were recorded over. Over 800 pounds of samples were brought back from the moon and have been studied by geologists all over the world. One notable fake that was a personal gift from a US ambassador to the former Dutch prime minister doesn’t mean every moon rock is fake. NASA never forgot how to go to the moon. They just didn’t have the funding. The reason we stopped going in the first place is because Congress didn’t want to pay for it anymore.

"i didn't keep any recording" --A comment on a recording from Apollo 17.

well... u were asking a question which 8 years old shouldn't ask.

Why do you think there's no lag? The signal takes 2.6 seconds round trip and they simply account for it.

Yeah, your high school diploma.

@@gives_bad_advice you believe that's real?!! HAHAHAHA.

@@kha_2428 Yeah, every aerospace engineer on Earth and i do.

@@gives_bad_advice oooh okay smarty pants. I wish I was as intelligent as you.

@@kha_2428So what’s your evidence against the moon landings?

You know that the US, Brits, and Germans all had electrically driven gun mounts in WWII aircraft, right? And the Germans had automatic radar controlled self-laying flak batteries in WWII, right? And that the US had radio-operated drones in WWII, and the Germans had radio-operated glide-bombs. So why is a pan-tilt-zoom camera following a pre-calculated trajectory 24 years after WWII ended blowing your mind, apart from your ignorance of history and technology?

@@williamchamberlain2263 I have a feeling you would give the Same response if our Government claimed making had traveled to Pluto, correct? No one has been to the moon.

​@@hotheadedjoelhahaYour repeating yourself. But do you have any reasons for your belief?

@@gives_bad_advice Without writing a book, I'll simply say this... Every Single Thing you Government tells you is a lie, Everything.

@@hotheadedjoelhahaThat would defeat the purpose of lying if literally everything the government said was a lie. But you know that the moon landings can be verified completely independently of the government right?

No, the cameraman was Trump! He did all these! Vote him for mankind!