Apollo 17 Liftoff from Moon - December 14, 1972
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 12. 2009
- Lift-off of Apollo 17 Lunar Module ascent stage is captured by a television camera mounted on the lunar rover which the crew parked about 145 meters east of the spacecraft. The ascent stage ignites and climbs, spacecraft foil and dust fly in all directions. Ed Fendell in Houston had to anticipate the timing of ignition, lift-off, and the rate of climb, to control the camera tilt to follow the ascent. "We're on our way Houston" is the voice of Apollo 17 Commander Eugene Cernan. The clip ends as LM "Challenger" reaches an altitude of 1,500 feet. After docking with the Command Module, the ascent stage was jettisoned and returned to the lunar surface. Its impact was recorded by four geophones deployed by Apollo 17 astronauts, and by each ALSEP at the Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 16 landing sites.
Source: history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/vide...
Credit: Kipp Teague, Lunar Surface Journal
If you're interest in how this footage was obtained, this blog post explains - "Leaving the Moon, Watching at Home": blog.nasm.si.edu/history/leavi...
Legend says he's still vlogging in the moon.
Nope it must have died out
HAHA.
It was just the rover's camera.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
There were no tripods, no radio technology, nothing.
We were literal cavemen 50 years ago who couldn't tell their ass from a hole in the ground. /s
dont worry guys i am ok.
Are you still ALIVE!!??
The first TV broadcast was made in 1928. Wireless video had been a thing for some time.
YOOOOOOOOOO
@@henrikdahl4943 r/whooosh
ok good
I love the confetti that bursted out when the spaceship took off lol
If it’s beyond your intelligence and comprehension it’s always fake right Corky?
When knew that those pop rocks could send the LM out of the moons gravity.
"spaceship"
Oh...the confetti makes it legit!
@@curtiskimble1062 can you even imagine grown ass people believing these fairy tales
Meanwhile on earth, I cant get a wifi signal in my room.
Get better WiFi.
Why on earth would anyone think this is a valid argument? You know we didn't communicate via cell phone - right? 🙄
Does your wifi use a 200 foot diameter parabolic antenna?
@@marksprague1280 the phone used by the president did?
@@neomagik86 Once patched into NASA's system it did, yes.
Astronauts: "Houston we gotta problem, we forgot the camera man, but we can't come back".
Houston: "Don't worry, we'll pick him up with Apollo 18".
Right because cameras can't work without a cameraman.... *rolls eyes*
VHS or beta tape?
@@sludgut Suuuure, 300000 km away and perfectly sincronyzed with the rising of that teapot... 50 years ago. Hey I gotta bridge in Brooklyn that I'm selling, interested?
@@donpettitwedestroyedtheapo6488 You heard that BS too right they said it had an auto timer to move at the exact same time as their 'ship' first of all it looks like a trash can my son coulda paper mached a better looking thing and hes only 8 😂 🤣 😂 second you;re right im a 70s baby and i grew up in the 80s the crap tech they had back then was not even enough to send a man into the depths of our oceans let alone to the moon...But many believe this crap
@@kennyreck Yeah, even now 50 years later sometimes we have communication breakdowns and you can see that even on TV news sometimes they get crappy skype connections and these people want to sell us that in the 60's they remote controlled a camera on the moon without a glitch.
And the video is really laughable too, like all the lunar landings videos, in fact everybody in the comments is mocking this one
someone is still up there growing potatoes in their own fecal matter
"current occupation: moon shit potato farming"
Correct.
czcams.com/video/BABM3EUo990/video.html
.
Yes! That guy that made this video... they left him on the Moon
It's also what they dish up to the public!
The Apollo Witness clap no reason to go back, but they found water and hope to find life in the poop :) Sure continue going to leo ISS.
This is my favourite comedy moment in life ever.
Amazing that the guy controlling the camera had to command it to zoom and pan 6 seconds before the vehicle even lifted off
1.3 seconds. I'm not sure where you're getting the 6 seconds from.
@@rockethead7 6 seconds is about the time it took for signals to get from the LEM, to Earth, to the command module, then back to Earth and then the LEM. The command module and the LEM could only talk directly for small portions of the command module's orbit. All other times the signals had to be relayed via Earth.
@@Crosshair84
Wrong (about the delay time).
Wrong (about how the craft communicated with each other).
@@Crosshair84 I love when moon hoax people make up new facts like that.
@@DeputyNordburgit’s actually really disturbing how many idiots populate the world. These people actually vote too
I was waiting for a guy in a Godzilla suit to come out and knock it out of the sky
LOL 😂 That would have been more realistic than this fake take-off, 1970's television studio lie.
@@scoolzdevries cringe
@@campbellsoup4322 🤷🏾♂️
@@campbellsoup4322 ...If Santa Clause can do it, so can NASA...you can't possibly believe in one and not the other...
That small model sure looks like its falling back down.
How did they get the camera to zoom out as well at the perfect moment?
It didn't zoom, it panned. Big difference.
@@ChrisPBacon777
Actually, hate to be a pain to someone on my side, but, it does zoom out a slight bit at around 0:07 to 0:08 in the video. The camera did have a zoom in/out function.
@@rockethead7 no prob. Thanks for the correction. I couldn't spot that
They didn't think the average person would catch that.
What's more amazing is the nonexistent lag from earth to the moon
@@trendynow1369 good point. I mean literally nobody knows how to count....
Joe Rogan sent me.
Good to see a few others here with curious minds for the same reason
Same
They faked six moon missions
@@vapelordyoda bart is that you?
😂😂😂😂
I can't connect to my 5g router down stairs; yet a camera man from Huston Texas controls a camera on the moon!
Yep. Nothing but empty space between NASA groundstations and the Moon. Why shouldn't they have good comms?
@@eventcone Too good to be true!
@@sheikhakbar2067 Not at all. The same stations communicate wth spacecraft across our solar system. But of course they have a lot of power at their disposal and massive dish antenna. This also makes them extremely sensitive to low power signals coming in from space.
After all, if you can receive UHD TV pictures from satellites about 22,000 miles out with nothing more than an 18 inch antenna, why should it not be possible for 80 foot dishes to communicate with equipment about eleven times further out?
@@sheikhakbar2067 : Says people with zero clue about technology. Just stick to flat earth son. They're you're kind of people.
@@kitcanyon658 It'll be shame if they were lying; but for me if I was a fool it doesn't hurt me; I am but one individual with stupid ideas! But you, all the masses who bought into that; wow, imagine if it was nothing but a lie!
reminds me of a high school film project
But still an amazing achievement, no?
@@ChrisPBacon777 You're right about the no. This & all Apollo moving imagery looks like an 1890s film.
@@johnsergei you may be right, but I can't find any 1890's film to compare it to. Could you direct me to some examples?
@Inconspicuous Name glad you agree 🙂
Chris P. Coff33 a trip to the moon? Or do you mean the space film from 1966 that was inspiration for kubrick’s 2001
Love the gold Tin foil covered shower curtains.
Not tin foil. Not shower curtains.
@@casanovafrankenstein4193 I grew up wash. Dc. I remember the museum's. Also, all space suits can be forensicly examined to prove they haven't been to space.its very difficult for people to allow themselves to believe they've been lied to
@@joshseidman3146 changed topics, typical denier style. Sure the space suits "can" be forensically studied. Have they been? Or are you just pulling nonsense out of your backside?
It was the 70s. The control panel housing inside was avocado green, very trendy at that time.
@@casanovafrankenstein4193 awww is the little sheeple mad that NASA is a fraud money laundering organization?
Great camera work to capture this firecracker liftoff.
Who took the footage though?
@@AM1465 a remote controlled camera
@@cardboard9124😂😂😂 yea right
@@itsover6082 what’s so unbelievable about remote control?
@@cardboard9124 you’ve been brainwashed and lied too, this world is ran by satanic pedophiles who’s goal is to deceive you, open your eyes and wake up bud
this is freaking hilarious XD
Confetti. Yay!
😂
Legend say the cam op is still waiting there...
Too bad we lost the technology to go back there...
you didn't lose anything, you just didn't have anything!
Legend says the camera operator was nice and warm on the ground controlling the camera via remote.
@@ace00007 Punishment for not getting into Apollo 1 (fight at the door of 1 "i'm not going in there."
@@ace00007 Hay, come on now! After bringing back dozzens of film reels in each Apollo mision (& the potential to bring back dozzens more, in each mission, 1 wheelbarrow less of rock) & taking up cameras of all types, even all over the rover, legs & top of the LEMon, even remotly operated cameras, with pivot motors ( cameras were a dime a dozzen on Apollo), we get a few minutes of suss 80 year old imagery (by 1970 standard) of Apollo on the Moon.
Then there is what these Apollo & ISS astro nots or actor nots have to say?.
My god, their verbal crap does it for me.
John Sergei thousands of photos are published from the Apollo missions of you’d only take the time to look
www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/
The local news wouldn’t come in as clear as that back then!
And yet there are d-bags up and down the comments saying the video is so bad it must be fake. You guys could not agree on 2+2! 🤣
Legends say he is still waiting for the lander to take him back to earth.
You don't need a cameraman. A camera is enough.
The precision was too great for a cameraman. Had to be robotic. Way too perfect.
@@TexMex421 No, controlled from Houston
@@PierreBrandominiBrandomini But the utter perfection. I mean that zig zag thing at the end for example. It doesn't even leave frame until the end when it leaves frame...
@@TexMex421 I don't know whether your comment is extreme sarcasm, or you really are a hoax believer. Sometimes they both sound the same.
Of course, "that zig zag thing" shows that it wasn't perfect at all. And yes, it leaves frame long before it should have dwindled to a speck in the distance - in other words the camera operator loses it having got only 30 seconds of the LM in flight.
Actually no, it's obvious to me now - extreme sarcasm it was. 🙂
It's just that sometimes I'm sure it's lost on the hoax nuts.
LOL The camera man stayed behind
It was remotely operated by a controller at mission control.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA lols rofl ya good thing he didnt have a delay like they do when talking to the ISS in 2018 or he coulda missed the shot
HAHAHA!!! That's what I was gon to say: Who is Tilting the Camera? :D :D :D
@@chimpanzeeno1420 There is a delay. The operator started panning up before engine start. You can see them not quite get the timing right on the Apollo 15 and 16 lift offs.
Cherif Ture Ed Fendell INCO controller at mission control
That was awesome all the way to the ceiling of the sound stage!!! That looks like that came from a Japanese Godzilla Movie.
The ceiling that you cannot see. I thought you hoax believers always insisted on seeing something for yourself before you believed in it.
@@eventcone Yet not one star is seen
@butchtropic Sorry I'm waiting for Mothra to attack the toy ship in this video Obvious you are a troll and cannot hold a intelligent conversation to prove your point without insulting . I sure do feel bad that mother nature made you that ugly and height challenged to get laid??? Go away little doggie and take your angry not well endowed miserable self back to the pound.
@@timothyburns2768 No. The camera is set to image the sunlit LM and lunar surface. Not sensitive enough to pick out starlight (if it was even capable whatever the setting).
@@eventcone 50 years to go back? Never did let a monkey or dog go first to the moon. Check radiation from the Van Ellen belts of a monkey or dog.... Moon landscapes similar on different days and trips to different parts.of the Moon. Cross etchings from the camera moon shots behind objects instead in front in photos.
Can’t believe everyone fell for this.
I can't believe people are so naive they believe conspiracy theories and think this is fake..
I don't think you understand what "everyone" means........
No, there's plenty of evidence that the Apollo program was done for realsies. Many non-US government organizations corroborate with NASA that the Apollo landing sites are still there.
The dumbest people are the ones who believe the fake moon landing conspiracy
@@ro887I CAN believe you have NO brain
And the oscar goes to....
Haha.. right. Looks like my kids made that video
The camera-man 😅
Stanley rubbick
😂😂😂 the astronauts “returned” to earth and still seem to think they cameras are rolling
O that is one marvelous feat! First ever remote control with a perfect shot on Take #1.
Actually this was the 3rd attempt at filming the takeoff.
@@ChrisPBacon777 Actually it was the FIRST correct attempt, other 2 were blankshots. Even TAKE 2 is very good in Filmbusiness, 240 000 miles away.
@@narajuna you're right that it was the 1st successful attempt, contrary to what you insinuated in your OP.
Practice makes perfect.
@@ChrisPBacon777 back with your childish nicpicking kid? You probably are the only one enjoying your lip.
#1 On Apollo 15, the tilt mechanism malfunctioned and the camera never moved upwards, = NO TAKE
#2 And while the attempt on Apollo 16 gave a longer view of the lunar module rising up, the astronauts actually parked the rover too close to it, which threw off the calculations and timing of the tilt upwards so it left view just a few moments into the flight. = PHOTO ZERO VALUE on that sequal (TAKES start at 0 on every movie or sequel)
>>> TAKE ONE on APOLLO #17
I DARE YOU >>>> ONE ( not two) *ONE* evidence of ONE first TAKE on a difficult timing shot in the WHOLE Film business. (waiting...)
Some Reality:
To be done in one take You achieve that by rehearsing it beforehand.
The average feature film shooting ratio from the era of film was around 10:1. Kubrick was said to have an excessive ratio at around 30:1. Apocalypse now is considered a train wreck of a film production, approaching a 100:1 ratio due to re-shoots and actors unable to learn lines.
@@narajuna wow, triggered much?
As I said and you rightly agreed, practice makes perfect.
Take 3 was a success.
if you feels sad about your computer and iphone....just remember moonlanding only take 4kbs ddr ram for communication and record .
DDR was developed in the 90s. We are taking pre-SIMM memory or RAM as we know it. DIP chips were used back then.
And a gang of meth heads to make a treefort.
The computers on board the lunar lander only had 'core memory'. The AGC computer was made with integrated circuits but these chips were not part of the memory system.
It was most certainly not DDR, it was ferrite core storage.
@@s0ta21 It wasn't even that. The Apollo Lunar Module used a computer with ferrite core storage. Tiny little ferrite core rings, each with three wires through them.
There is a saying, if you can't make it then fake it😂
“Pay no attention to what the critics say. A statue has never been erected in honor of a critic.”
- Jean Sibelius
Are you fake too?
Neil de grass tyson: "it's easier to just go to the moon. If you can't fake it then make it"
Imagine that you are a real person coming here every day on video like this, and thousand simmiliar ones, and explaining people why this isn't fake
Imagine thinking you are a spoiled ass kid in some nice country and you haven’t had any actual challenges in your life and bitching on some video about how smart you are and how fake the moon landings were. You’re real bright.
lmaooo anyone with a brain cell who is showed this would instantly know something is wrong. apollo 17 never went to the moon, this is some kind of studio shot for sure.
@@josephpayne9011 Really? Please explain how the more than 800 pounds of lunar soil was brought to the earth. Perhaps in a sleigh, or perhaps the Easter Bunny?
NASA use chatbots for damage control on social media now. They used to employ real humans but the job sent most of them insane.
@@marksprague1280 Perhaps its an earth soil ?
Like dude, it really is not hard to make soil and call it lunar soil, its not like people have anything else to compare it to.
Legend has it the guy they left on the moon is still filming the sky, hoping they will remember our long lost 5th astroNOT ...
Legend has it? In your mind, maybe. To everyone else, TV technology isn't so much of a mystery.
Still a drug addict, I see.... It's been years. Why can't you clean yourself up?
Yer all belive on that shit movie, man in moon got debunked so long.
@@augusonictheracoon5279 It didn't.
We have empirical evidence that we went there.
6 times.
The only reason you say so is because guillible saps like you watch conspiracy videos by basement dwellers
Cameras don't NEED a camera operator dude.
I like how the camera moves up to take a good shot ;-)
This is a point but i think auto rotate camera existed in that time too? That camera has sensor they target on moving object
@@m4k855 they did have remote control pan and tilt abilities, for sure, but this move was done mostly manually. Ed Fendel at Houston had had 2 practice tries before this successful tracking of Apollo 17 liftoff from the moon.
@@m4k855 now your just making stuff up to try and validate your conspiracy theories that the moon landing happened.
controlled via radio from relay all the way from a operator in Houston
@@EzraMerr There's moon landing footage where there are two sources of light casting shadows in two seperate directions. Impossible on the moon because the only light source is the sun.
Also if you look closely as how the moon lander was constructed you will see rediculous bodge job taping, warped panels made of cheap materials.
The whole thing was staged. Do some serious research about it and come to your own conclusions instead of following the mainstream dogma.
How were they 100% sure this was gonna work with no other back up type equipment or anything around besides what they took up there?
They were quite nervous something would go wrong, as you understand! But they tested the system EXTENSIVELY to get to 99%.
Eye opening infos
czcams.com/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/video.html
@@MatteoBiagiotti uh, yeah, sure. Eye opening... Not. Right in the opening statement they begin the lies and inaccurate narration to fool gullible people who will never research anything further than whatever fits the narrative 🤦
Actually the primary spacecraft systems were backed up with secondary or 'backup' systems wherever possible. Sometimes (IIRC) there was a third (tertiary) system.
Of course the engines themselves could not be 'backed up' but they were made to be as simple (and therefore as reliable) as possible. Both the Command and Lunar Module engines used hypergolic propellants (fuel and oxidiser) that ignited spontaneously on contact with each other, so there was no need for a complex ignition system or procedure - it was just a question of opening two valves in the supply lines and they flowed into the engine and off it went.
@@eventcone there was even a last ditch procedure to more or less manually open the valves of the fuel tanks, to get into .... almost whatever semi stable orbit possible and to then have the CM come for them.
There's so much up with this. I know everyone talks about the camera man but the way it jets off looks so fake. The sparks. The voices are completely clean with no background noise and they sound super calm, the Shuttle itself looks like something I could make in my room with some foil and cardboard. And yes, yes the cameraman xD
I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.
Because you are an experienced aerospace engineer - right?
Replace "up with this" with "I don't understand about this".
they're not sparks. they're parts of the landing stage (mostly mylar insulation) getting blown away by the rocket exhaust. and they "sparkle" due to the mechanics of the camera (it only records one colour at a time, so anything moving quickly gets a rainbow effect). and this is rather easy information to come by if you ever cared.
pleae don[t have kids
I like the rainbow sparkly things.
Please see its explanation here (if interested) : czcams.com/video/sj6a0Wrrh1g/video.html
@@veszely some explanation that mind . Pmsl 😭
very disco!!
How are TV signals able to get through solar winds radiation and magnetic fields?
With difficulty. By the time the high-frequency transmission signals from Apollo reached Earth they were too weak to be detected by common radios and televisions. It took the help of radio astronomers on Earth who make use of large sensitive antenna dishes to be able to capture them. There's an Australian comedy movie with Sam Neil called The Dish which dealt with this in capturing the footage from the first moon landing that you might be interested in. Trailer for it can be seen on CZcams.
@@echelon2k8 Do you know if they made a movie yet about how they recorded some really important stuff on the moon landing tapes ?
That's a movie I'd really like to see.
@@echelon2k8 my friend look up the word rhetorical.
@@patvalle3596 So you think they didn't actually want to know the answer to their question? Too bad, I guess.
@@echelon2k8 maybe they did, I just know for a fact that space is not real. We never went to the moon and Mars is a joke. Check out amateur footage of Mars via a P900, you can't land on light.
Where is the thrust that’s required to take off? That tiny firecracker is all it takes?
I understand that gravity on the moon is 1/6th of earth, but you would think it would still require much more than what’s shown here.
Do you think you can see 'thrust'?
The engine burnt hypergolic propellants with an invisible flame for several minutes, all the way into lunar orbit.
And that "tiny firecracker" is not from the engine. The ascent stage and descent stage were attached. When they lifted off from the moon, those two sections needed to detach, so what you are seeing are the pyros being blown which detaches those two stages.
That's 3,000lbs of thrust right there...according to them.
Camera man mailed the tape to earth. He built a moon base afterwards and has populated to moon with an immigrant martian lady that's very nice.
That time we launched a giant shop vacuum into space. Love the oil slick parts that explode out the bottom.
Giant shopvac??
Looked more like a methhead's treefort.
@@PenitentPenguin Lol
@@PenitentPenguinI smell a bear. But Marigold they are trying to hurt me!!!!
@@TheSaxon25 yep. He's a funny mofo
Votes to bring back the cameraman
I
I
V
It's too expensive and we also destroyed the technology.
It was collateral damage.
We haven't forgotten him. He'll just have to be patient. 😂
The Rover was the camera "man" and it's still sitting there on the surface.
Crazy how you people ignore any evidence provided to you.
We have the blueprints and still know the technology. You people always take this out of context and just blatantly lie about it. Very significant and important technology to our early space crafts aren’t manufactured anymore because they’re incredibly outdated and not useful. NASA doesn’t build everything by hand, they get parts through manufacturing companies, the old blueprints require parts from companies which either don’t exist anymore or don’t make the technology anymore. We’d have to come up with a whole new schematic. Which is what we’re doing right now for Artemis. Budget is the biggest issue.
Stanley Kubrick did a phenomenal job on this footage.
He insisted on the realism of shooting on the moon.
Looks more like Sid & Marty Krofft
Apparently he was a perfectionist, so he insisted they film on location!
@@Emre723haha.. u believe that? How did that lander even fly? There was a small explosion with no rocket propulsion.. maybe electric engine?
@@chief5981 You have no idea what you’re talking about. A little google search on the lunar lander goes a long way.
I had serious doubts when they told me they had landed on the Sun, but then they told me they did that on winter time when it's much cooler, so i guess that makes a very credible story 😑
How did this accelerate to 5,000 MPH, which is the moon's escape velocity? It seems to go up at a constant 10 mph. How does it hit 5,000 MPH?
The Lunar Module had only to climb back into lunar orbit and rendezvous and dock with the Command Module. This orbital velocity was approximately 3,600 mph. It was the job of the big engine on the CSM to accelerate them to "escape velocity" and set them on a return trajectory towards Earth.
The acceleration of a rocket powered launch vehicle with a (typically) constant thrust engine(s) starts off low and then increases as propellant mass (a significant proportion of total launch mass) is expended. In vacuum (as here) the acceleration is inversely proportional to the ever diminishing total mass and so builds at a constant rate until the engine shuts down.
Therefore to finish answering your question - it reaches the orbital velocity of 3,600 mph simply by continuing to burn the engine for as long as is necessary.
@@eventcone I don't see how this lunar capsule has enough stored energy to accelerate to 3600 mph. It's pretty clear that the moon landing was Cold War propaganda.
@@malceum "I don't see how this lunar capsule has enough stored energy to accelerate to 3600 mph".
But what are you basing that assessment on - your 'gut feel'? That's just a guess.
You could run the math and prove it one way or the other - if you knew how.
But there are plenty of people who DO know how - rocket engineers working for the world's various space agencies or universities - only some of whom are american or work for NASA.
These are the people who would be making your claim (that the LM Ascent Stage was incapable of carrying 2 astronauts and a hundred pounds or so of lunar samples back to lunar orbit ). But they don't - because they know otherwise.
"It's pretty clear that the moon landing was Cold War propaganda".
No one ever claimed that it wasn't. Practically everything from Sputnik, through the first men in space, to the moonlanding, was "cold war propaganda". That doesn't mean that none of it was real.
@@malceum
Guesswork, I like it
@@malceum "I don't see how...." seems to be the most common argument for Moon landing hoaxers. Maybe you should do better than that.
It looks like a flying teapot 😂
Close to that, THAT IS A FLYING TOILET, this is the alpha of the game called Garry's mod.
@@augusonictheracoon5279 😂
🤣
Lifted Off seems like a fair term here
Kubrick was a genius.
He talked them into shooting on location.
Lol@@TexMex421
Kubrick? Was he involved in the Apollo program?
@@MegaGronislol yes he directed the whole thing on a set lol the moon landing isn’t real do research brother.
@@MegaGronishe filmed it
When I need a good laughter I come here and watch this, hahahahaha
Why?
@@casanovafrankenstein4193 because he's smarter than you and gets the joke
@@adamfollo5120 what is smart about laughing at this? Can you explain it to me?
@@casanovafrankenstein4193 Something about an explosion having enough force to rendezvous with a craft in lunar orbit... all while keeping the astronauts alive as well.
@@jeffh4581 well duh - that's how rockets work, son.
Love how the heart monitor starts after they about (33) feet in the air.
That isn't a heartbeat monitor.
Freemason 33°
This is the dumbest comment here and that says a lot
Wth are you talking about heart monitor?
33 👏🏻👏🏻
So real. So convincing ❤
You should see what was on the other side of the cameramen’s view after the take off shot was completed !
It’s all fake
@@lizardbyte
It's all out there. I mean, I've watched all of the Apollo videos many times. But, even I can't watch that one. 27 hours of panning the camera around in circles. I watched for about 40 minutes, and that was enough. Most people probably wouldn't watch for more than about 2 minutes.
But, let me guess, you didn't know any of that, and you wanted to pretend the camera never panned around, right?
@@lauragrace3270nope it's real.
@@LisaAnn777 What is propelling the craft?
I remember this part.... Godzilla & Mothra are fighting just over the horizon. Nice special fx. 🎉
Boy I'd hate to be the camera man there 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Because cameras need a cameraman right?
@@sludgut Everybody is mocking this video, doesn't that give you a hint that you can't convince people that the lunar landings were real?
@@sludgut They claim the camera was operated by remote control from earth. Model aircraft could be operated by remote control at that time.
@Damirius Mason By what medium do they travel? How is the signal transmitted between the earth and moon. Is it by horse and Cart?
@@sludgut how did they develop the film?
I like the 1960s special effects
Special achievements more likely.
“Special effects” pretty sure you’re the only thing “special” here. What’s your highest education?
@@firemonkey1015someones level of education doesnt matter here. Its obvious to anybody that has eyes that this is fake.
@@angiechristensen638 Actually it does matter, if you don’t know basic physics and you’re not qualified to talk about this phenomenon then you’re just guessing and assuming. Purely egotistical ignorance how you think you’re smarter than physicists around the globe.
And even 50 years later we've not been back to the moon since :(
It is very expensive.
@@eventcone After 50 years though surely by now we could've figured out how to do it less expensively and more safely. I mean we got far better computers/communications tech for starters...
@@JohnSmith-zw8vp That's just supposition on your part. And "far better computers/communications tech for starters..." aren't going to provide the order of magnitude reduction in expenses that you think they will.
@@JohnSmith-zw8vp Less expensive ? Wow, where have you found this idea?
It *IS* cheaper now. If you adjust for inflation, Apollo costed about $250 to $300 billion in hard costs, and roughly another $100 to $150 billion in soft costs and international support. (Note: this is a tough adjustment nowadays because inflation is so wildly variable for the past 3 years or so, but, whatever, this is a good enough basic estimate for this purpose.) Artemis is operating on basically a budget of about $35 billion (but, it's presumed that it will inflate eventually to about $90 billion, depending on whether they deploy Gateway or not, and some other factors). So, anyway, you got your wish. It is cheaper today. I'm sorry if you believe Moore's Law applies to rocketry, but, it simply doesn't.
Ascent stage engine separated descent stage LM. Viewing camera from LRV control by Houston from earth to moon.
😂 was there a chicken in that tin foil?
No, something more stupid, Alan Bean & Don Pettit. Actors they are not.
ha ha ha
“Actors”, I love when morons act like they know anything about space and science.
Can anyone tell me was that a flame i seen underneath the module ?
If not then what did they use for a propulsion then compact air.
Not all flames are visible in the spectrum that can be viewed by human eyes. N2O4 and Aerozine50 happens to be a combination that doesn't produce a visible flame when in a vacuum. It's ironic, because you do see a short burst of gasses right as the engine is getting going. But, that's actually not a flame. That's before the flame really gets going, and probably a result of either the oxidizer valves, or fuel valves, opening a hair of a second sooner than the other, thus it's just expanding gas that you see. Once the flame really gets going, you no longer can see it.
The ascent module was separated from the lander by 4 explosions in the bolt cavities. That happens at the instant pf rocket ignition to allow the module get free. That is the explosion you see blowing out shrapnel. The modules rocked was the exact same fuel mix ad the Titan 2 rockets which were used for ICBM and Gemini launches. The exhaust is not invisible irrespective of where it is. The scene was faked. Check Tiran 2 launch videos.
How can you watch this and pretend this thing had any kind of trust out the bottom? The little make believe rocket didn’t come on for first 100 feet, no dust stirring up. This is like worse magic trick I’ve seen.
the past of I see is I saw, not I seen. Seen would be used with to have. I have seen, You should have paid attention in school.
@@treborsaldivar518I was going to comment on his, “I SEEN it”, but you did a better job. 😄👍 He also used THEN when he should have use THAN. I hear that a lot too among the uneducated.
Amazing how 1/2" conduit, Bristol-board panels and scotch tape was all you need to make it safely to the moon and back in the late 60's and early 70's. Almost as if people were easier to fool back then.
Exactly how stupid are you?
Amazing how losers with an IQ in the 50s can actually access the internet.
I love the fact that in order to make their "case" moon-hoax nuts can't just go with the facts, they have to tell the silliest of lies.
@HammerTruth He's not the loudmouth that is so proudly flaunting his ignorance and stupidity, loser.
We went on the moon, for real!
Here's the overwhelming proof:
czcams.com/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/video.html
this feels like a miniature model
Well, none of the 7,000 engineers who designed and built the lunar modules ever thought any of the videos showed a miniature model. So, you're welcome to "feel" that way, but, the video 100% matches with the real landers that were built. Also, the original resolution isn't that great anyway, but, there are copies available that are better than this copy. And, you can see that the debris falling from the lander as it ascends is rapidly blown outward as soon as it falls into the rocket exhaust plume. Pretty difficult to make that happen if it was just a model.
@@rockethead7 So you think that they don't lie? They lie their asses off, man! On everything! Take another covidshot! 🤡
@@Nickel2010 You're either drunk or you go through life in a fog of not understanding.
@@grant1390 Keep believing, keep believing, you are a usefull idiot, the ones they like most! 🐑🐑🐑Beeehh beeeehh sheeple.
@@Nickel2010 Sheep go "Bah" not "Beh"
You actually have IQ lower than 0.
Such a beautiful sky with no stars .
Totally normal.
It was cloudy
It was cloudy that day 😂
@@Bibiisachildkiller are you one of those 'me too' types?
You don't see stars in moon daytime any more than stars in earth daytime. Moon surface way brighter than any stars
Now i know why there is a man on the moon... they left him back ...
*Read.* *The.* *Description.*
*Read More.*
The camera is controlled by Houston
@@wFreNiX hahaa what a turdy movie
Why did Pokémon hologram cards fly out lol
Lmfao
Where is the rockets red glare?
The fuel used by the ascent stage engine burns basically clear.
0:13 "Egg Sock"
*Xbox
LMFAO
Lolled
This is what it looks like to get left behind and stranded in the moon
Who got left behind???
@@MrMirage64 Camera-man.
There was no camera man.
Guys who was recording the videos in a very precise manner 😅😅😅😅
I think they left him in the moon.
The precision was amazing, almost like a robot.
It as just a camera that they left on the moon. they had a mechanism that made it point up at the right time
you think wrong
@@belstar1128yes and how did they retrieve the recorded video via wifi? While going away from it?
@@EnricoDiLauro seriously?
What a show that was 🚀
I'm getting nostalgic bc they don't make them like that any more. It was peak performance.
They sure dont transmit them live from the Moon any more. But they will be again in a few years.
Wallace and Gromit filmed a good one.
Thank ted turner
@@truesurrealist Wallace and Gromit were claymation characters. How could they possibly have filmed anything at all?
😂😂 I'm not even a believer that it was faked, but this comment made me laugh. Have a like
Looked like the two 1980’s arcade games Asteroids & Defender had a baby together! 😂
Dude, that game would be freaking wicked!
Hows the Holywood effects on lift off.
The moon landing was real dumbass
@@joebarker6972 if it was real, you wouldn't need to use ad hominem attacks to defend your beliefs.
@@TheHomeloanking I've literally had this argument too many times 🤦♂️🤦♂️ bruv how do you expect it to look? There is blueprint upon blueprint evidence upon evidence which proves that the moon land ing happened. Stop believing everything you read online!
@@joebarker6972 you keep mentioning beliefs, that's all you'll ever have.. you're a religious child, you cannot prove anything. over and out moon boy.
@@TheHomeloanking are you dumb? There are hundreds of ways that the moon landing can be proved as real
when you miss the bus for school:
Don’t you just love Hollywood!!!
This looks like Bollywood
@@davidbaez3756 this looks like Ed Wood
Always wondered how was that possible with the technology back then
Which part?
The whole mission was an outstanding achievement, considering the technology available back then.
They couldn't even steer this thing on earth,....yet, they 'mastered' it on the moon's surface??
@@trueknowledgeispower if you're going to comment on something you know nothing about, at least make an effort to not let it sound like an outright lie.
Chris P. Coff33 I totally question it! How did they land it, and then take off and fly it back to earth? I have to research it more
But think about it - this hasn’t been repeated at all since then? With more moder technology, now we land rovers to look around - that tells you how hard it would be to land a ship and take off Again
@@efthimios do research it, before you jump to an uninformed and paranoid conclusion.
I think 6 times is proof enough that it can be done. The main reason why the NASA moon programs were stopped is because the American public was starting to get unhappy about the amount of money being spent.
Landing rovers is a lot cheaper than landing and recovering humans.
Would the astronauts not feel the takeoff? Be cause on they're voices is sounds like they are chilling comfy.
It's not a very fast takeoff, I doubt it accelerates much harder than an elevator. Also, they're astronauts, sounding calm on the radio is part of the job.
The takeoff is about 0.3G. Similar to takeoff in a small plane, or flooring it in a regular car.
@@catfish552
And one of them is warming his/her water for a relaxing tea. @ 0:20 you can hear the setting the microwave oven
And not a bit of engine noise with the rocket right below them, surely the astroNOTS would be hearing this noise.. but nope NASA faked all this crap.
First time I ever seen this footage but now I can understand why Gen Z’s and alphas think the moon landings were fake
"now I can understand why Gen Z’s and alphas think the moon landings were fake" I don't think that's true. I don't think they are any dumber than anyone else. That's a worthless stereotype.
I’d be inclined to believe that younger generations are more likely to understand that the moon landings actually happened.
Yup. The digital generations. They have seen so much fakery that i think tptb would rather not show footage like this to them at all. Not looking good for the longevity of the hoax.
Love the rainbow particle explosion when the top of the ship ejects into orbit. Wonder what could do that lol
Besides the rocket exhaust blast, at the same instant several explosive devices separated the two halves of the LM producing the debris that is flying around. The color camera was actually a monochrome camera that had three color wheel filters that recorded frames in sequence of the three colors. For very fast movement, the color do not sync up and show as individual colors.
It’s a result of the camera used. It had a spinning color filter wheel. The images from each color filter were stacked to produce a color image. But fast moving objects only get picked up by one color filter while in a certain position. So when you stack the images, you get the object changing color in each frame.
That's what happens with a slow-scan low res TV camera that uses a spinning color wheel. The vidicon's slow scan just can't keep up with objects that move too quickly. It happened throughout the missions, any time an astronaut or camera moved quickly, you see the white suit turn red/green/blue. Yet, you people are so dazzled when it happens to loose debris that's moving really fast?
Damn they just left the camera man on the moon?
No. They left the rover with the camera on the moon.
@@BillybobJoelikestrains a rover they ran for miles, but we are supposed to believe the batterys had the capacity to transmit live tv to earth 240,000 miles away? lol good luck with that
@@xismxist jeez what happened to your braincells
@@name5798 dunno, iknow better now
@@xismxist huh
Apollo 18 was meant to bring the cameraman back; so sad that mission was scrubbed.
Camera man: Ive recorded👍. Now to get back to Earth 🌎.
Same guy who shuts the light off in my fridge when I shut the door.
@@DeputyNordburgyeah, that same guy levelled to the ground the WTC from a grotto in Afghanistan. Keep drinking your Kool Aid, nothing to see here.
@@SunnySicilyTour OMG I forgot how one conspiracy theory proves the others. What do you have for Bigfoot, chemtails, and trolls under bridges?
@@DeputyNordburg "Same guy who shuts the light off in my fridge when I shut the door." lol
R.I.P. Tyrone Shoelaces, you will not be forgotten. ✊🏿
That moment when you realize there's a man on the moon holding a video camera 🤔
If you're going to say dumb sh*t without researching how that camera system worked, then don't use your own silly face as your avatar 🤦🏻
If you were joking then please accept my apology, however your comment smells strongly of knuckle-dragger.
@@mikeg6554 it was joke 😅
@@ejones6647 My apologies then sir.
@@mikeg6554 its not that serious 🤔
@@mikeg6554 - give us more details of how it worked, unless you are a dumb sh*t
Truly amazing 😂
Amazing howo many fell for this foolishness
Amazing how many ignorant fools can’t understand basic concepts. “I can’t comprehend how this works so therefore it’s fake”. Personal incredulity and making assumptions based on questions which you have no intention of seeing the answer to.
Meanwhile, I still can't get my 2012 Dodge Caravan to start and they were able to do this 20 years before Kurt Cobain even wrote Smells Like Teen Spirit?
Dont ask 'Who has filmed this video 🙏🏻🤣
It will provoke them All😇
Even Ed Fendell will get pissed.
It's not who. It's what. You know that a camera can film stuff by itself right?
@@HyperMODX i know that, but the question is there any camera with that kind of technology which can automatically change its angale at that time? If so, pleas give me the name of the camera and explanation from NASA how does that worked
@@anwarozr82 for filming the return they probably used the camera on the lunar rover then took with them to drive around. That had a camera which could be controlled. Just search for the rover on Google and you should be able to see the camera
@@anwarozr82 and think about it. NASA, even if they would have faked it, why would they move the camera if they didn't have the tech? They are not fools. If I didn't have a capable camera to show the feat, I wouldn't show anything like this.
Well done; you can't even see the strings!
It's pretty normal to not see things that aren't there, unless you're tripping...
another stupid comment, as expected
if you’re wondering how they were able to control the camera remotely in the late 60s, here is what Ed Fendell, the person who controlled the camera has to say about it: “Now, the way that worked was this. Harley Weyer, who worked for me, sat down and figured what the trajectory would be and where the lunar rover would be each second as it moved out, and what your settings would go to. That picture you see was taken without looking at it [the liftoff] at all. There was no watching it and doing anything with that picture. As the crew counted down, that's a [Apollo] 17 picture you see, as [Eugene] Cernan counted down and he knew he had to park in the right place because I was going to kill him, he didn't - and Gene and I are good friends, he'll tell you that - I actually sent the first command at liftoff minus three seconds. And each command was scripted, and all I was doing was looking at a clock, sending commands. I was not looking at the television. I really didn't see it until it was over with and played back. Those were just pre-set commands that were just punched out via time. That's the way it was followed.”
Shoot the LEM leaving the Moon using strings.LOL
😂👍
it is like taking a fart and you will lift off from mon. it was said " Space is a vacuum with no atmospheric particles for sound to vibrate and travel through as a medium. The particles in space don't constitute an environment conducive to be used as a medium for sound waves to travel. The supposed particle count in space is 5 particles per square centimeter. So we shouldn't hear that module lifting off. The metal on metal contact, combustion and oxidation of boosters".
There is vision, where is the plume?
The sound was from inside the lander, not a microphone on the moon.
@@interstellarconundrum4774 Here is a burn in space. Flame is visible. czcams.com/video/Q9vzCTLWaEg/video.html
@@interstellarconundrum4774 his argument still stands. The lunar module is in a vacuum. It's not star trek you know.
@@etmdwats The astronauts were not in a vacuum once inside the pressurized module. The recording was from what they heard from the inside as the rocket was fired. There was no microphone on the moon. If you were outside the module at the time of the firing, standing on the moon, unconnected to the module, you would not hear anything. Watch the movie gravity. Try to think this through. It's not rocket science.
Who’s here after the JRE interview?
He leído en los comentarios que la cámara fue controlada de manera remota desde la Tierra usando ondas de radio. Una especie de control remoto como el que uso para mi TV, pero de 400.000 km. ¿La cámara tenía una antena para recibir esa orden? ¿De qué dimensiones debería ser?
Es que el camarógrafo se quedó en la luna a comenzar una vía nueva.
El camarógrafo remoto fue Ed Fendell. La antena es claramente visible en cualquier video del vehículo lunar. Por favor, considere investigar un poco.
Ha hecho un 'zoom out' y 'pan up' en el momento perfecto... Jajaja.... Es bastante claro que ese video, como todos, es mas falso que judas. Otra pregunta.... Como han conseguido el vídeo, como lo han transmitido para grabarlo? Y con esa calidad? Mira las conexiones con satélite de las noticias en los años 80 y 90.. pero en los años 70 y desde la luna.... Jajajaja
Yo si creo que fuimos a la luna pero este video si que es fake
They cleaned up the moon pretty damn good before the take off . Almost no dust at all .Otherwise the dust would have had ruined the video completely.
Well done cleaning team .
I wonder if they got left behind with the cameraman
As you can see, you're 100% wrong. The dust posed no problem at all to the clarity of the shot.
And no-one got left behind, you numpties! Only the camera and the rover stayed behind.
@trmk12 Your "contradictory bits of information" are not contradictory at all.
Neither Hubble nor any Earth based telescope has the resolving power to image Apollo artifacts on the Moon.
Hubble may well image objects billions of light years distant - but said objects are somewhat larger than an Apollo lunar module.
@BarelyLewd - The moon is a dirty place. Apollo astronauts reported returning to their lander covered in dust that smelled of spent gunpowder - astronaut Alan Bean even worried that dust floating around the cabin was making it too difficult to breathe as they lifted off. The dust coated spacesuits, instruments, visors and skin. It occasionally caused serious problems. One astronaut, Harrison Schmitt, reported a mild allergic reaction, similar to hay fever, after a moon walk, and some scientists worry the fine particles could wreak havoc on our lungs.
A seismometer deployed by Apollo 11 - the first instrument placed on the moon - failed soon thereafter when dust caused it to overheat. China’s Yutu rover died in 2014, and moon dust was a top suspect. Aside from issues with overheating, the grit can cause parts to wear out quickly, clog up seals, obscure vision, degrade traction and result in false instrument readings. It’s a real problem.
The dust comes from meteorite impacts, which throw up and briefly melt lunar rock. The droplets condense into a kind of vapor, which settles back to the ground as dust. Billions of years of such impacts have made for a lunar surface that’s very dusty indeed.
The dust is so frustrating, in part, because its so small. Lunar dust measures in at just 70 micrometers, or 0.07 millimeters, in diameter on average. That’s around the size of the very finest grains of sand, or silt. To add to the annoyance, lunar dust carries a slight electric charge, a result of solar radiation stripping electrons away, and that property serves to make the dust even stickier. Its structure doesn’t help, either. Due to the lack of wind-swept erosion, the grains are barbed and jagged, which helps them stick to everything.
There are surprisingly few solutions to such a seemingly simple problem. Astronauts on some Apollo missions carried a special brush with them to help clean off spacesuits before re-entering the lander. A vacuum was included on some missions, which worked, but made for tedious work. Because the dust is magnetic, one researcher has proposed simply using magnets in a filter to collect it, though it hasn’t been tried on the moon yet. Keeping dust off of external equipment is a more daunting task, and one that’s likely to continue to be a problem.
It's not all the info you can get but it's a start....
@BarelyLewd The "key word" may be *"thin layer"* if you ask me . Do you not remember the firs moon footprint ? That layer of dust was actually after the landing , after the engine blew away most of the dust.
I'm not debating the validity of your arguments , I don't have any new and exciting ones and the old ones were debated for far too long . You believe there's no dust on the moon or that they picked a dust free spot for landing , I don't. There are many who agree with you and a few who see it in a different way . It's called life.
I have no interest whatsoever in converting anyone to anything or to prove anyone's opinion wrong. There will always be people who are willing to swallow everything that's being shoved down their throats without question .
Who left the cameraman behind???
Nobody. The camera was remotely controlled.
@trmk12 shows even more how little you know.
@@ChrisPBacon777 from the earth?! lololol We can barely get signal in the moutains in 2020...
@@ChrisPBacon777 It was mounted on the rover nasa claims, but do you seriously believe the rover had the battery capacity to transmit live tv 240,000 miles to earth? they had run it for miles before this....
If people are trying to imply it's fake in these replies you need to know that it would literally be more expensive to fake than to just do it
The cameraman stayed with moon angels and enjoyed rest of his life!!
And today his children have jobs turning the light off in the fridge when you shut the door.
he's the same little guy inside your phone that calls you up
@@JimLovell-np4pvjesus
Meanwhile, in 2024, I can barely get PBS to come in with a clothes hanger.
so the cameraman who got left behind built the Lunar Max
Which part does Godzilla come out ?
Can’t wait for us to be there later this decade
Yeah. Then we can listen to a whole new round of the morons screaming, "FAKE!".
@@marksprague1280 will never happen
there are still many scientists on the board who have declared it is impossible to reach the moon
Up down up down up down. My boys playing space invaders as they leave the moon
Absolutely. It's not the camera that moving (wink, wink)
Is that the rainbow sparkle takeoff!
It's the inherent effect of the technical limitations of the "colour" video camera used to film it.
@@Jan_Strzeleckilololol
In this version the "wobble" of the craft has been somewhat corrected.
WHY?
What ARE you talking about?
@Linda Niemkiewicz fat shaming isn't cool anymore...🍌
@@trueknowledgeispower oh wow, so you found something that looks like something else by manipulating the footage.
Genius work, Sherlock.
Well that's @Mowac done & dusted 🤪😂🤭
On landing Apollo 15's lunar module Falcon came to rest with its rear footpad on the rim of a 20-foot-wide crater that Dave Scott couldn’t see. This caused one of the lunar module's footpads to be off the surface entirely and placed the spacecraft at an 11 degree tilt. This was only 4 degrees inside the maximum tilt allowed for a safe lift off and the highest tilt of any landing. The wobble is due to the slight unstable lift off.
How weak is that propulsion, baked beans must have been taken off the menu that day
How could you possibly know how much thrust the engine was producing, without looking it up?
That said, the vehicle weighs only 1/6th of what it does on Earth. Less weight = less thrust required at lift-off.
The ascent engine produced 3500 pounds of thrust.
The ascent module, in the moon's weak gravity, weighed about 1700 pounds.
@@eventcone I'm aware of the simplistic equation, seemingly more so than you are of jokes
@@Tim22222 I'm aware, the thrust seems to only activate for a couple of seconds though which is what I find confusing. Either that isn't true or that amount of force in a small amount of time is enough to propel the craft beyond the Moon's gravitational pull of 15k miles, which without being a propulsion expert, mathematician or engineer I find hard to wrap my head around.
@@dannybradley8391 Sorry if I read your comment wrong. That kind of humour tends to get lost amongst the comments from the moonhoax nuts on any video about Apollo.
Believe this, you'll believe in anything.
Yep!
exactly
This was a lost technology the you'll never seen again in your lifetime 😂
@@mustaqimalfarabi8082😂😂
So they had the tech to control a camera 240,000 miles away AND account for any interference or the delay. Ummm hmm
Also,....the radio communication can travel that far and it is so unmolested and in real time with no delays??
Yep,.......sounds like they were on their way alright, just not to Houston.
@@ralphhenderson7270 agreed, to the funny farm maybe. same as all the people who see this as legitimate.
@@ralphhenderson7270
Yep
I mean they literally planned all of this so they know the delay and also know how to count so the guy controlling the camera from earth would only have to do everything 5 seconds early. Seems easy to me
They left the cameraman behind!!!!
Almost right - they left the camera behind. The only man still there is the man in the moon...
@@ChrisPBacon777 Stanley K?
@@WilliamWoodchuck what - still on the moon? Are you trying to say Stanley K was left behind and is the man in the moon?
I guess it is possible he filmed this, but being the perfectionist he was, it would've been on location, on the moon.
The weirdest thing is that no other countries space programme has tried it, would have expected Russia at the time to have tried but nope...
Huh? What ARE you talking about? The Soviets had an aggressive moon program. They built and flew four lunar landers in space on test missions. They attempted to launch their N1 moon rocket four times (basically the same size as a Saturn V), even including just a couple of weeks before Apollo 11. But, the main problem was that their aggressive schedule and loose safety standards caused them to kill a bunch of rocket engineers in preventable accidents. Between that, and a poor design from the start, they never got the N1 to fly, and every single one of them blew up. It was a matter of going back to the drawing board, or scrapping their moon efforts in favor of space stations and Venus probes. They already lost the race to the moon, so, they shifted focus to the latter. But, for you to sit there and say they didn't even try....?? Where's that nonsense coming from?
russia also retrieved samples from the moon using unmanned probes.
Good camera work. He will be missed. 🙏
He lives in the trunk of my car and turns the camera on when i back up. His kids turn the light on and off in my fridge.
As far as I can tell, Ed Fendell is still alive.