Видео

No. Star Trek is not real (and it never looked like this).

I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.

Great. Let's hear it.

Seriously? You think that looks like a film?

🤦‍♂️

*they left the camera on the moon. Do you not think it was possible to remotely control the camera and broadcast the signal?

Oh cute. You found the emoji menu. Just think how much attention you will get when you "go potty" all by yourself.

It’s funny how people use personal incredulity to conclude that the moon landings were faked.

Look up the type of fuel used, and the type of 'exhaust' it generates.

All fires burn. But, not all flames are visible to the human eye (i.e. the lunar module fuel/oxidizer). As an example, "Safespill Systems Alcohol Fire Test Comparison" is a nice example that shows you flames as seen through a thermal camera that you cannot see at all with a regular camera. Only watch it with a full monitor, though. Don't just watch on a phone.

There are two factors leading to the flame being basically clear. First is that the fuel (a hypergolic mix of Aerozine 50 and N2O4) burns nearly clear. Titan II missiles used this same fuel and from pictures and videos of their launches, we can see that the flame is basically clear. The other factor is that there’s no atmosphere. Rocket exhaust is so hot that it makes surrounding air glow. Since there’s no air, there’s nothing to add to the glow of the exhaust.

China Academy of Sciences: Editor: ZHANG Nannan | Feb 07, 2012 China on Monday published a full coverage map of the moon, as well as several high-resolution images of the celestial body, captured by the country's second moon orbiter, the Chang'e-2. The scientists also spotted traces of the previous Apollo mission in the images, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China's lunar exploration project.

Yet, in 2008, Japan used their JAXA/Selene orbiter and mapped out the lunar surface in 2D and 3D in more detail than any other time in history (prior to then). They mapped each of the 6 Apollo landing sites, and specifically showed that the mountains and terrain matched Apollo's photography EXACTLY, to a level of detail nobody could know about (except by being on the lunar surface). What do you know that Japan didn't? Why do you think the mountains shouldn't look the way they look?

What specifically is wrong with the mountains? Remember that the moon doesn’t experience the same geologic processes that the earth does and that there’s no atmosphere to cause any sort of light diffusion.

And what makes you say that?

​@AM-rd9pu I'm pretty sure it is lack of education and critical thinking skills along with some desperation to feel special.

Ed Fendell. ( So much for "do your own research" )

The camera was operated by R. E. Mote, under the able direction of Ed Fendell. Mote is Kilroy's cousin, and like his illustrious cousin, he has been everywhere but never seen by the human eye.

It looks like it was recorded on the moon with early 70s camera and broadcasting technology.

I don't understand it, therefore it's fake.

The first radio controlled boat was in 1898. By the 1940s, the Radioplane company built about 10,000 radio remote controlled airplanes that the US military purchased to use for ground-to-air and air-to-air target practice during WWII, and they built hundreds of thousands more in the following decades. Some of them were actual full-sized planes. Yup, to echo your point, radio remote control was quite an evolved technology by the 1970s when they used it on Apollo to control 3 cameras. The only difference was the distance the radio signal traveled, but, that's no big deal.

genuinely why do you belive it's faked despite the mounting evidence of it being real

So not only ignorant of reality, ignorant of fiction as well. A Twofer. You must be proud. 👏

The mic is in the module.

The sound is being recorded from the ascent stage.

Most of what we are hearing in this comes from the Ascent Stage (the explosion is that of the pyrotechnics used to separate the two stages). The sound is being recorded on Earth.

What evidence led you to conclude that the moon landings were faked?

@@AM-rd9pudid you watch the video? 😂

@@o6uoqYes. It looks exactly as it should given the technology used.

@@AM-rd9pu What propulsion was used to achieve lift-off?

@@pjn2001 A rocket engine powered by a hypergolic fuel mix of Aerozine 50 and N2O4.

You know that they had the technology to remotely control cameras right?

The same guy that had been filming the astronauts on the lunar surface over the preceding three days, and during the previous 2 missions. Ed Fendell.

so the camera man was the first on the moon, before the astronauts?

​@@matthewtate6599The cameraman was born on the moon and grew up there.

@@matthewtate6599 The camera man never left Earth. He controlled the camera from his console at Mission Control, Houston throughout Apollos 15, 16 & 17.

@@matthewtate6599The camera that filmed Neil’s first steps on the moon was mounted to the outside of the lander. That’s why the lander takes up half the frame.

Indeed, to think that this would have been possible is the most outrageous thing you can think.

@@itsamazeofmirrors education failed in your countries....

I know it’s a hard pill for you to swallow that you’ve been lied too🤣🤣🤣 time is ticking, that big day is coming, you better open your eyes before it’s too late

@@itsover6082 There is no pill to swallow. You are like children who have their imaginary vision of the world, without yet knowing how things really work. However, while children will one day understand, through culture, you, on the other hand, will not, you are and will continue to be a perfect case of the Dunning-Kruger effect, being so dull that you cannot even understand that you have a cognitive bias. Sad. My eyes are quite opened. It's obvious that education system failed also in your country. Ciao.

@@TheGianluman these are the same people that lied to you during covid, about the vaccine, and locked you down like animals, restricting your movement. The same ones that lied to you about the jfk assassination, the same ones who were ready to carry out operation north woods (false flag attacks killing citizens and blaming Cuba) just so they could go to war with Cuba, the same ones that’s on your tv smiling in your face while brainwashing you, you’re just a very well programmed sheep who’s brains and mind has been programmed since birth, so everything they tell you, you smile and believe. Anyways be ready for the next “pandemic” that’s coming and make sure to get how many ever vaccines it is that they tell you to get

So this is what you do instead of researching and providing evidence for your claims?

@@AM-rd9pu Polly wants a cracker?

@@AM-rd9pu he has only limited internet access in his psych ward....

@@redditsucksyoAll of your name calling is hilariously hypocritical.

Hoax Folks make the best jokes.

And what makes you think so? The camera was shifted the whole time in order to keep the object in frame.

What ceiling? Can you see a ceiling? The camera appears eventually to lose track of the LM, probably because of the signal delay, and then spends some time trying to re-acquire it - without success, again because of the signal delay.

I would imagine China had to use a relay satellite for its lander on the far side of the Moon, no? Isn't 'latency' a coding issue in digital transmission systems only - not in analogue systems?

"without even buffering" This is a live analogue broadcast-analogue. There's no digital data to buffer. If you don't understand even this much, you don't understand enough to come to any conclusions.

@@eventcone "Isn't 'latency' a coding issue in digital transmission systems only - not in analogue systems?" The moon debate is interesting to me because it reveals how little many folks understand these digital electronic devices they hold so dear. They really really haven't got a clue. Yet, that doesn't stand in the way of confidently coming to conclusions about how they work. It's this ignorance paired with confidence that is so corrosive to a democracy. Ignorance by itself wouldn't be so bad.

@@gives_bad_advice The potential effects upon a democratic society are indeed frightening.

So you “questioned” the technology and suddenly know better than the actual engineers and scientists who understand how these missions were accomplished?

Made for an audience that barely had technological knowledge.

@@redditsucksyo Except today it is a lack of technical knowledge that Apollo deniers demonstrate, over and over again.

Naive.

"Modern people are broad-minded and experienced; previous films could only deceive the people of that time." I just had an exchange with a modern person who thought analogue transmissions had to buffer like a digital transmission. I think that level of ignorance is pretty representative of the average modern person.

@@gives_bad_advice Well that is a nice straw man and all.

Apollo denial, flat earth and 'creative design' are what harms science.

@@eventconeLa negación del proyecto apolo es un hecho consumado, tarde o temprano la ciencia acabará diciendo lo falso que es. Es sólo cuestión de tiempo, y será por el bien de la Ciencia.

@@user-tg2bc9ri9t Time for you to present a valid technical argument.

​​@@user-tg2bc9ri9tPlenty of denial, but as usual, ZERO evidence of a conspiracy.

@@smeeself Tienes suerte, esta vez no sólo tendrás negaciones, se te presentará lo que evidencia que se trata de una película hecha en la Tierra: 1.-Las imágenes supuestamente hechas en la Luna, están demasiado bien hechas, si fuesen reales (Hechas en la Luna), serían de peor calidad. Vamos, que las hicieron en un estudio de cine. 2.-El primer alunizage con hombres, lo retransmitieron por televisión, dijeron la tontería de que era una retransmisión en directo. No hubo ningún error en la retransmisión, a ningún astronauta se le cayó el micro, ni golpearon los micros con esos trajes. Todos los satélites para traer las imágenes y sonido desde la Luna no fallaron, siquiera un poquito. Esto no puede ser. 3.-En órbita lunar. Cuando se ven las imágenes en las que el módulo lunar se separa del módulo de mando y servicio, se ve descendiendo el módulo lunar desde el módulo de mando y servicio hacia la Luna. En estas imágenes, se ven unos pequeños puntos móviles, moviendose de un lado a otro de la pantalla. Está claro que estos puntos móviles no son extraterrestres, son insectos, posíblemente moscas, que están revoloteando delante de la cámara, cuando estaban haciendo estos efectos especiales en un estudio de cine. 4.-El apolo 15 llevó un coche para conducirlo en la Luna, el rover. ¡Pero cómo van a conducir en la Luna un coche, si no hay carreteras hechas! Encima, los rover son conducidos a toda velocidad. En la realidad, los coches no pueden moverse por piedras que entorpecen el paso, porque el terreno se desmorona al paso del coche, y éste se accidenta; y otros motivos. 5.-La bandera estadounidense que colocan los astronautas en la Luna, hondea. Esto no puede ser, porque se sabe que en la Luna no hay aire; y sin aire, la bandera no hondea. Sin aire, no hay un fluido con el que la bandera friccione, y la bandera no hondea. 6.-En las imágenes que presenta la NASA, no aparecen estrellas. Esto no puede ser, las estrellas tienen que verse aunque estén en la Luna. Hay muchos más motivos para no creer que Estados Unidos pusiera hombres en la Luna de 1.969 a 1.972.

Try to search for this video using youtube search bar.

No. It was sparks and shards of MLI that were shot out from the explosive stage separation. Small charges severed bolts and cables that were connecting the ascent and descent stages. The reason they look rainbow is because of the camera used. It had a spinning color filter. The camera stacks the different color filter images to get a full color picture. If an object is moving fast enough, it will be in a noticeably different position when it is picked up by the next filter. Therefore it is a different color in each frame and looks like it is color changing in the video.

@@AM-rd9pu Weeeellll, sort of. Your explanation is partial. You also have to factor in the slow scan rate of the vidicon. The spinning color wheel alone doesn't explain it fully.