How were there multiple cameras already on the moon set up at the most perfect angle to capture the landing and the closeups? I need someone to explain that to me.
IMO, there are multiple levels of deception on this topic. Being unable to reconcile sometimes conflicting "facts" with others, and knowing that my government lies about damn near everything, I have rested on the truth that Russia would have outed us with great fanfare if we hadn't gone to the moon. That's the only thing that I can trust.
knowing that my government lies about damn near everything,
I see this brain dead logic in the moon hoax community all the time. It's unreal. It's just a fart in the wind. Oh if my wife cheated on me once, I bet she's slept with every man on the planet! She lied to me, I bet she lied about everything! She's not really at the grocery store she's with some guy
The video repeatedly states on the top of the screen the word "Animation." That was necessary to let the audience know that part of the video is not real footage of the lunar landing. They dubbed the astronaut's audio into a NASA created animation for the audience watching at the time since they had no other way of depicting that event visually for the public to see the actual landing.
I don't understand how people can't deduce this. For the Apollo 11 mission, there was one primary camera attached to the Lunar Module (LM) to capture the historic first steps on the Moon. This camera was mounted to the LM's descent stage and was used to transmit live television images back to Earth as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin descended the ladder and walked on the lunar surface. Additional cameras were carried by the astronauts for still photography and other video recordings, but in terms of cameras attached to the lander itself for the purpose of capturing the landing and first steps, there was one key camera.
Okay, I'm going to ask a really stupid question, but this has bothered me since I first saw the moon landing 55 years ago.
Distance to the moon: 226,000 miles
Speed of light: 186,000 miles per second
Time for audio to transmit from earth to moon: 1.2 seconds
Sometimes when the astronauts communicate back and forth with Mission Control, the responses seem almost instantaneous. Shouldn't there be a delay of almost two and a half seconds between comments between each other, for the signal to transmit, and then return? Or am I missing something? Not looking to get banned. Just never understood this.
You're absolutely right, the physics of the speed of light cannot be circumvented.
Bear in mind that for the conversations between the two astronauts in the cramped Lunar Module, there would be no perceived delay since they were in such close proximity.
Also don't forget that there was Command Module Pilot Michael Collins in lunar orbit. Michael Collins played a crucial role in the lunar activities, even though he wasn't physically on the Moon's surface. He was responsible for maintaining communication between the astronauts on the Moon and Mission Control in Houston, providing vital information and updates to both parties. He also kept track of the Lunar Module's systems, making sure everything was functioning properly.
The delay was only for Earth-Moon communications. When the astronauts are talking to Houston you can hear the transmission delay.
It took me years to understand this and it still kind of boggles my mind how they did it. They didn't break any loss of physics but they broke some laws of perception based on who is on which side of the delay. Obviously, the delay goes both ways. So they had tape recorders on each side of the transmission.
Imagine two tape recorders - one with Houston, one with the astronauts on the moon.
When someone in Houston spoke into their microphone, it recorded on their tape immediately while also transmitting to the moon with a delay.
On the moon, the astronauts heard Houston's voice playing from their tape recorder after the 1.2 second delay of it traveling through space. But their response into their mic recorded instantly on their own tape.
Back in Houston, after another 1.2 second delay, they heard the astronaut's response playing from the recording on the Houston tape.
So each side heard the other's voice with a delay, but their own voices sounded immediate because they were listening to the locally recorded tapes, not the live transmission across space.
This tape recorder trick created the illusion of an instantaneous conversation, when in reality there were those 2.5 second delays between transmissions traveling the quarter million miles to the moon and back.
This is a pretty ingenious system gave the impression of a natural real-time dialogue despite the physical limitations of the signal transit time. NASA's engineers deserved high praise for that clever solution.
As for the skeptics, it's true that some people have used the lack of a noticeable delay in some recordings as "evidence" that the Moon landings were faked. However, it can also be argued that since they were faking the moon landings and that everything was pre-recorded they would have not overlooked this obvious physics detail and they would have edited in the appropriate delays.
So, from 1968 to 1972, men could fly 238,000 miles out into space and back on one tank of fuel. But from 1973 onward, no human being has flown even five hundred miles off the surface of the earth.
1968-1972 all newspapers were in black and white as were half the TV sets in the USA. They showed us grainy training videos and passed them off as the real thing. We never went to the moon.
One tank of fuel? Wow, how are you, um, wow, I can't process this.
There's literally no way to gauge miles per gallon or something on a rocket, that's not how it works
Do you think that the astronauts in the rocket were running the engine the whole time? The lunar lander system that they went to the moon with you know it floats to the moon in zero gravity right? Based on its momentum imparted by the rockets that help it break through and away from the gravity of Earth? Most of the fuel is used in these stages, breaking Earth gravity, then turning around and slowing down backwards when in order to insert themselves into moon orbit, and then leaving moon orbit and going back to earth
Wernher von Braun said in the late fifties that a rocket to the moon would have to be the size of the Empire State Building to contain sufficient fuel for the trip. His scientific opinion apparently changed with the script when the Apollo Mission was abruptly declared in the late sixties.
Weight. Every pound your rocket weighs versus your thrust is a pound that you cannot have in payload. A rocket made in the '50s would weigh so much they would have to add fuel, which is also weight. There's a point where it can become a runaway cycle where the weight and extra fuel don't make the rocket better. In the 50s when he said this he was 100% right. But the innovation and engineering that the American space program did to create the specialized launch vehicle Saturn 5 was amazing. Up until then every single astronaut was sent into space atop an ICBM ballistic missile repurposed for the space program. They developed Saturn 5 and it didn't need to be the size of the space program because it had 7.5 million pounds of thrust
Not even a handful of dust kicked up by the landing rockets. Who was waiting for them to land, with a camera? And kudos to the technician who got this up and running. Well done.
What is the dust hanging around in? There is no atmosphere on the moon and the gravity up there is actually about 1/6th of Earth's gravity. It would be like throwing a handful of sand in a vacuum. It would just keep going until it comes to rest, there would be no air resistance because there is no air.
Nobody climbs Everest with just a couple guys. Climbing Everest is a huge undertaking and requires a large team of people! Back in the '70s and '80s, before the mountain became more commercialized, climbing teams were typically composed of around 10-20 people, including climbers, guides, porters, and support staff.
And, dude, think this through. When filming documentaries about Everest climbs, the film crews are of course extremely skilled and experienced climbers themselves. They typically climb ahead of the main team, set up cameras at various points along the route, and then wait for the climbers to pass by. This way, they can capture footage from multiple angles and heights.
In 1970 your TV was full of vacuum tubes and you fiddled with an antenna to make the fuzzy images broadcast over the air come in better.
Your phone was plugged into the wall and it had a rotary dial on it. All you could do with a phone was talk or listen.
Your car likely had bench seats and no seat belts. You rolled down the window with a crank and you turned on the high beams with a kick button at your left foot.
A portable calculator cost as much as a color TV and a powerful computer filled a large room.
The only area of technology that failed to progress from then to now is space travel. We could fly to the moon and back for five years before the space program curiously reverted back to where it was headed with the Gemini mission - nothing but endless trips around the planet in low earth orbit for the last fifty years.
So the government was super-competent when it came to flying 238,000 miles out into space, landing humans on the moon, then flying back in 1972. But for the next fifty years, all it can do is taxi people up to a manned satellite that orbits three hundred miles above us? Does NASA have less access to modern technology than Sony or Honda?
You would have us believe that we learned all we needed to know about outer space travel by watching astronauts drive dune buggies and hit golf balls on the moon.
We more likely watched astronauts drive dune buggies and hit golf balls somewhere in the desert and the same media that lied to us about JFK, 9/11, Saddam Hussein's WMDs and the 2020 Election told us we were watching footage taken on the moon.
Are you joking? This comment is literally unbelievable .
It continued to progress in low Earth orbit. There's nothing special about going anywhere in space. It's not like our technology reverted or anything, it just started developing in low earth orbit because once we've been to the moon and defeated the Russians have gotten all the propaganda wins, what's the real economic basis to go to the moon? Instead, people on earth were fiddling with their antennas on their vacuum tube TV sets and getting bored with it. The next phase of the space program was communications satellites and reconnaissance and weather satellites and all kinds of improvements on Earth that made a difference to people here. There's no reason to go to the moon now except now they've discovered helium 3 which is a really brilliant fuel for fusion reactors and now there is a space race on for America and China defined the best deposits on the moon
I was only 1 when this took place so I have only seen video. The video presented here says animation across the top. Also, when it shows it landed, that looks like its made of plastic with obvious tires on it. The photos available online of Apollo look nothing like this video. I haven't finished the entire video, but what am I missing?
This is the recording of their broadcast that went out over NBC I believe. The animation is what they showed of the TV show that night, broadcasted live. They also had studio technology already so they were cutting back and forth and several times in the broadcast they broke away to animation in order to explain the landing sequence
How were there multiple cameras already on the moon set up at the most perfect angle to capture the landing and the closeups? I need someone to explain that to me.
IMO, there are multiple levels of deception on this topic. Being unable to reconcile sometimes conflicting "facts" with others, and knowing that my government lies about damn near everything, I have rested on the truth that Russia would have outed us with great fanfare if we hadn't gone to the moon. That's the only thing that I can trust.
I see this brain dead logic in the moon hoax community all the time. It's unreal. It's just a fart in the wind. Oh if my wife cheated on me once, I bet she's slept with every man on the planet! She lied to me, I bet she lied about everything! She's not really at the grocery store she's with some guy
And so it goes. These people are absolute morons
Trust is the hardest thing to earn, and the easiest thing to lose.
We were watching a movie then too...
My first thought as well.
The video repeatedly states on the top of the screen the word "Animation." That was necessary to let the audience know that part of the video is not real footage of the lunar landing. They dubbed the astronaut's audio into a NASA created animation for the audience watching at the time since they had no other way of depicting that event visually for the public to see the actual landing.
I don't understand how people can't deduce this. For the Apollo 11 mission, there was one primary camera attached to the Lunar Module (LM) to capture the historic first steps on the Moon. This camera was mounted to the LM's descent stage and was used to transmit live television images back to Earth as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin descended the ladder and walked on the lunar surface. Additional cameras were carried by the astronauts for still photography and other video recordings, but in terms of cameras attached to the lander itself for the purpose of capturing the landing and first steps, there was one key camera.
Okay, I'm going to ask a really stupid question, but this has bothered me since I first saw the moon landing 55 years ago.
Distance to the moon: 226,000 miles Speed of light: 186,000 miles per second Time for audio to transmit from earth to moon: 1.2 seconds
Sometimes when the astronauts communicate back and forth with Mission Control, the responses seem almost instantaneous. Shouldn't there be a delay of almost two and a half seconds between comments between each other, for the signal to transmit, and then return? Or am I missing something? Not looking to get banned. Just never understood this.
You're absolutely right, the physics of the speed of light cannot be circumvented.
Bear in mind that for the conversations between the two astronauts in the cramped Lunar Module, there would be no perceived delay since they were in such close proximity. Also don't forget that there was Command Module Pilot Michael Collins in lunar orbit. Michael Collins played a crucial role in the lunar activities, even though he wasn't physically on the Moon's surface. He was responsible for maintaining communication between the astronauts on the Moon and Mission Control in Houston, providing vital information and updates to both parties. He also kept track of the Lunar Module's systems, making sure everything was functioning properly.
The delay was only for Earth-Moon communications. When the astronauts are talking to Houston you can hear the transmission delay.
It took me years to understand this and it still kind of boggles my mind how they did it. They didn't break any loss of physics but they broke some laws of perception based on who is on which side of the delay. Obviously, the delay goes both ways. So they had tape recorders on each side of the transmission.
Imagine two tape recorders - one with Houston, one with the astronauts on the moon.
When someone in Houston spoke into their microphone, it recorded on their tape immediately while also transmitting to the moon with a delay.
On the moon, the astronauts heard Houston's voice playing from their tape recorder after the 1.2 second delay of it traveling through space. But their response into their mic recorded instantly on their own tape.
Back in Houston, after another 1.2 second delay, they heard the astronaut's response playing from the recording on the Houston tape.
So each side heard the other's voice with a delay, but their own voices sounded immediate because they were listening to the locally recorded tapes, not the live transmission across space.
This tape recorder trick created the illusion of an instantaneous conversation, when in reality there were those 2.5 second delays between transmissions traveling the quarter million miles to the moon and back.
This is a pretty ingenious system gave the impression of a natural real-time dialogue despite the physical limitations of the signal transit time. NASA's engineers deserved high praise for that clever solution.
As for the skeptics, it's true that some people have used the lack of a noticeable delay in some recordings as "evidence" that the Moon landings were faked. However, it can also be argued that since they were faking the moon landings and that everything was pre-recorded they would have not overlooked this obvious physics detail and they would have edited in the appropriate delays.
I've had the same concerns.
So, from 1968 to 1972, men could fly 238,000 miles out into space and back on one tank of fuel. But from 1973 onward, no human being has flown even five hundred miles off the surface of the earth.
1968-1972 all newspapers were in black and white as were half the TV sets in the USA. They showed us grainy training videos and passed them off as the real thing. We never went to the moon.
One tank of fuel? Wow, how are you, um, wow, I can't process this.
There's literally no way to gauge miles per gallon or something on a rocket, that's not how it works
Do you think that the astronauts in the rocket were running the engine the whole time? The lunar lander system that they went to the moon with you know it floats to the moon in zero gravity right? Based on its momentum imparted by the rockets that help it break through and away from the gravity of Earth? Most of the fuel is used in these stages, breaking Earth gravity, then turning around and slowing down backwards when in order to insert themselves into moon orbit, and then leaving moon orbit and going back to earth
Wernher von Braun said in the late fifties that a rocket to the moon would have to be the size of the Empire State Building to contain sufficient fuel for the trip. His scientific opinion apparently changed with the script when the Apollo Mission was abruptly declared in the late sixties.
Weight. Every pound your rocket weighs versus your thrust is a pound that you cannot have in payload. A rocket made in the '50s would weigh so much they would have to add fuel, which is also weight. There's a point where it can become a runaway cycle where the weight and extra fuel don't make the rocket better. In the 50s when he said this he was 100% right. But the innovation and engineering that the American space program did to create the specialized launch vehicle Saturn 5 was amazing. Up until then every single astronaut was sent into space atop an ICBM ballistic missile repurposed for the space program. They developed Saturn 5 and it didn't need to be the size of the space program because it had 7.5 million pounds of thrust
Not even a handful of dust kicked up by the landing rockets. Who was waiting for them to land, with a camera? And kudos to the technician who got this up and running. Well done.
What is the dust hanging around in? There is no atmosphere on the moon and the gravity up there is actually about 1/6th of Earth's gravity. It would be like throwing a handful of sand in a vacuum. It would just keep going until it comes to rest, there would be no air resistance because there is no air.
Just like Everest documentaries...the camera crew for there first to set up...
Nobody climbs Everest with just a couple guys. Climbing Everest is a huge undertaking and requires a large team of people! Back in the '70s and '80s, before the mountain became more commercialized, climbing teams were typically composed of around 10-20 people, including climbers, guides, porters, and support staff.
And, dude, think this through. When filming documentaries about Everest climbs, the film crews are of course extremely skilled and experienced climbers themselves. They typically climb ahead of the main team, set up cameras at various points along the route, and then wait for the climbers to pass by. This way, they can capture footage from multiple angles and heights.
https://greatawakening.win/p/17shvvw5yq/x/c/4ZA068XZv7f
In 1970 your TV was full of vacuum tubes and you fiddled with an antenna to make the fuzzy images broadcast over the air come in better.
Your phone was plugged into the wall and it had a rotary dial on it. All you could do with a phone was talk or listen.
Your car likely had bench seats and no seat belts. You rolled down the window with a crank and you turned on the high beams with a kick button at your left foot.
A portable calculator cost as much as a color TV and a powerful computer filled a large room.
The only area of technology that failed to progress from then to now is space travel. We could fly to the moon and back for five years before the space program curiously reverted back to where it was headed with the Gemini mission - nothing but endless trips around the planet in low earth orbit for the last fifty years.
TV: Private sector
Phone: Private sector
Car: Private sector
Calculator: Private sector
NASA: Government
mic drop
So the government was super-competent when it came to flying 238,000 miles out into space, landing humans on the moon, then flying back in 1972. But for the next fifty years, all it can do is taxi people up to a manned satellite that orbits three hundred miles above us? Does NASA have less access to modern technology than Sony or Honda?
What's the point of going there again?
There's nothing important there.
It's a waste of money.
You would have us believe that we learned all we needed to know about outer space travel by watching astronauts drive dune buggies and hit golf balls on the moon.
We more likely watched astronauts drive dune buggies and hit golf balls somewhere in the desert and the same media that lied to us about JFK, 9/11, Saddam Hussein's WMDs and the 2020 Election told us we were watching footage taken on the moon.
This user has been permanently invited to find another place to live.
Sidebar. GAW is an elite research board, not a digital daycare for low effort midwits.
If they lied about this, what else is a lie? Flat earth?
I had to throw that out there.
I'm with you there, pal.
The earth is round. Flat Earth is a fraud and a tool used to discredit those who question the Apollo mission.
How can you prove it is round? I mean we’d have to land on the moon to see it, right?
You could simply fly around it in low earth orbit as many manned US spacecraft have done since the Mercury Project.
We've landed on the moon six times in the last six months, you better be joking
Are you joking? This comment is literally unbelievable .
It continued to progress in low Earth orbit. There's nothing special about going anywhere in space. It's not like our technology reverted or anything, it just started developing in low earth orbit because once we've been to the moon and defeated the Russians have gotten all the propaganda wins, what's the real economic basis to go to the moon? Instead, people on earth were fiddling with their antennas on their vacuum tube TV sets and getting bored with it. The next phase of the space program was communications satellites and reconnaissance and weather satellites and all kinds of improvements on Earth that made a difference to people here. There's no reason to go to the moon now except now they've discovered helium 3 which is a really brilliant fuel for fusion reactors and now there is a space race on for America and China defined the best deposits on the moon
This should be stickies cause I’m dying to find the asshole that will still believe what the tv said after seeing this load of shit!
Explain this?
I was only 1 when this took place so I have only seen video. The video presented here says animation across the top. Also, when it shows it landed, that looks like its made of plastic with obvious tires on it. The photos available online of Apollo look nothing like this video. I haven't finished the entire video, but what am I missing?
This is the recording of their broadcast that went out over NBC I believe. The animation is what they showed of the TV show that night, broadcasted live. They also had studio technology already so they were cutting back and forth and several times in the broadcast they broke away to animation in order to explain the landing sequence
Thank you :)
https://www.tiktok.com/@keeping_it_real23/video/7303592149537410347?lang=en