The camera was in the studio where the moon landing was filmed.

The camera was mounted on the side of the space craft before they even left earth.

No it wasn't, that was filmed by the other astronaut.

If you say so buddy.

I think you're spot on. It's like all those reality TV shows where they show Bear Grills or whatever catching a salmon in his teeth. They have to put the TV crew in the wilderness / on the moon, then set up the shot, then the action can happen.

That or maybe there was a camera mounted to the outside of the lander to film this epic moment in human history.

/shrug

The whole thing was just a giant spectacle to demonstrate the "power" of america. Armstrong's famous line is a joke too. It reads just like a script. They almost rub it in our faces to see how stupid people are.

I honestly can't even spend time thinking about all the lies and deception of that pageant anymore. When you realize it was all a lie, and you don't have to look hard, there's no point in spending time and energy trying to looks for more clues. It shames me to think that people are still falling for it, even today.

Armstrong's famous line is a joke too. It reads just like a script.

Uh... the line was written beforehand. Why wouldn't it have been scripted?

Can you explain how it's fake?

This guy raises a few good points. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

TBH, he makes quite a few consistent errors. For example, he often chooses whatever conclusion fits his argument, even if it's not at all supported by the evidence. In regard to the article itself, almost all of it can be summed up with a few simple explanations.

There are a lot of inconsistencies and errors in that page. For example;

but after a full forty years, the Soviets apparently still haven't quite figured out how we did it.

Yeah they did (not sure how they wouldn't), it's just that at that point there wasn't really a reason for them to go, especially considering it was a stupidly expensive undertaking.

So if they could pull it off back then, then just about anyone should be able to do it now.

They can, it's just stupidly expensive to do, which is kinda why they don't do it. They'd either need to find a way to make it way cheaper, or need a really good reason.

Why? Why has no nation ever duplicated, or even attempted to duplicate, this miraculous feat?

Cost, cost, cost. Almost all of his arguments can be explained through this.

Why has no other nation even sent a manned spacecraft to orbit the Moon?

For the record; Japan, China, Russia, the EU, India, and the US have all sent lunar orbiters, and China, the US and Russia all sent landers. We don't send people, because again, it's far more expensive to send people, than to send robots.

Maybe, you say, it’s just too damned expensive. But the 1960s were not a particularly prosperous time in U.S. history and we were engaged in an expensive Cold War throughout the decade

Where does the author think the funding came from aside from said "particularly expensive cold war" which was known for massive budgets?

the furthest that any astronaut from any country has traveled from the surface of the Earth is about 400 miles.

This argument always annoys me. What exactly is there past 400 miles in terms of the space between earth and the moon, that's important to go to, aside from the moon?

As it turns out, however, NASA doesn’t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore.

The tapes thing has been explained repeatedly.

Side note: Here is a list of independent third parties who tracked to landings.

China

faked their space walk video, bubbles can be seen in the video of the astronauts pretending in a deionized water tank.

the Chinese got all huffy when people laughed at their 1995 digital camera technology. so they then stopped releasing any more Moon footage from their 'Rover', then their lander conveniently failed.

the Japanese lunar flyover video is meh, nothing really worth looking at, and nothing that could not be faked by CGI and would look better too.

Space is 90% a scam to justify military rocketry spending, maybe 10% at best is spent on assorted satellites and probes and such, the slow and long term observatory stuff.

the glamor stuff is fakery and CGI to wow the TV audiences with science magic, to continue the funding to do things.

its obvious that NASA has to let their people play, say 75% free time to pursue hobby science and other pursuits (AGW for some), then they have to do 25% work time for the military cause, and of course are on duty if needed for any panic.

so NASA people will defend with a passion their 75% hobby jobs (with good pay) and all the official 'truths', nice work if you can get it. don't want to upset the apple cart now do we.

ditto the other countries science people and their respective 'space' programs, its not hard to bamboozle politicians and the public, most haven't a clue about how things really work.

politicians and officials of various countries were merrily paying out thousands of dollars for those ADE651 'faith based' devices, total scam gadgets, and these are college educated officials, yet they bought them...

if 'educated' people will buy ADE651s they will buy anything.

faked their space walk video, bubbles can be seen in the video of the astronauts pretending in a deionized water tank.

Link? I can't see any form of bubbles.

the Japanese lunar flyover video is meh, nothing really worth looking at, and nothing that could not be faked by CGI and would look better too.

It's not about how special it looks, it's just about it actually having been done.

Space is 90% a scam to justify military rocketry spending, maybe 10% at best is spent on assorted satellites and probes and such, the slow and long term observatory stuff.

Can you give some examples of this?

its obvious that NASA has to let their people play, say 75% free time to pursue hobby science and other pursuits (AGW for some), then they have to do 25% work time for the military cause, and of course are on duty if needed for any panic.

What military projects would NASA be involved in? Short of maybe the use of spy satellites, I can't think of anything.

What exactly is there past 400 miles in terms of the space between earth and the moon, that's important to go to, aside from the moon?

that is very true, above the 300-400 mile ceiling, there is nasty dangerous space and all the nasty dangerous radiation and cosmic particles.

You overestimate how dangerous the Van Allen belts actually are.

It amazes me how you appear to be an expert on just about every subject ever discussed in this subreddit.

That's because I usually only comment on certain topics, and I tend to have at least a decent understanding of said topics.

Everything from Egyptology to the effect of radiation in space. You must be well read.

I do have a pretty good understanding of ancient history (I find it extremely interesting), and also of space. In fact, most of the things I focus on are either history or science.

It's pretty definitive that Neil was the first man on the Moon. NOW, the first person in space is a whole other conspiracy....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuwyY2DzO2I

Let's not forget the infamous shot where the camera follows the lunar module as it takes off from the moon. They must have left the cameraman behind on the moon.....

It's a good thing remote controlled cameras exist.

Yeah, I've read the government's explanation for this perceived anomaly. It seems extremely odd that they would go to the trouble of adding the additional weight load of a robotic camera system capable of being controlled from the earth, spend the money on this system, and add it to the astronaut's itinerary of tasks to complete while on a limited time frame (due to having a limited amount of oxygen), all just to take this one shot of the lunar module taking off from the moon.

It makes a lot more sense this was an oversight in the film production, and the story about how the shot came into being was made to fix this little mistake.

Edit: Aside from this, there are much larger questions about the supposed live broadcast from the moon, I don't see how they were able to generate the electrical power necessary to produce this video and transmit it back to the earth, when it has been stated they only had battery power on the moon.

You do realise that they did a lot of shit just for the sake of doing it on the moon?

Like dropping a feather and a hammer to see what drops fastest - Despite already knowing the result.

Lots of time spent hopping around to see how easy it is to move.

Selfies.

Flag planting.

If moon photography was purely a waste of time, why take any photos at all?

A remote controlled motor is very light, too. So it's not like they had to choose between a small motor and a few extra hours of oxygen.

Besides, they took a goddamn rover on Apollo 15, 16 and 17. I guess you didn't bother to consider that?

yet they forgot to take any pictures of the stars from the Moon.

an oversight (repeated by EVERY Apollo landing team) that all the world's astronomers grieved over.

all they had to do was swing the camera up to point into the sky, and press a button.

yet they forgot to take any pictures of the stars from the Moon.

The term you're looking for that explains that quite simply is 'overexposure'.

If you took a photo of the moon surface and wanted the stars in the background to be illuminated, the moon surface would appear overexposed resulting in a bad photo.

Also, there aren't any photos of the stars you can take on the moon that can't be taken either from Earth, or from Hubble. Put simply, you don't go to the moon to take photos of the stars.

that all the world's astronomers grieved over

No they don't.

Why are there multiple light sources in some of the moon photos?

studio fakery, they had so many photos to fake, they made mistakes, mistakes that not many noticed years ago, but with the internet and the mass availibility of the 'Moon' photos digitally, many more people have had a good look at them.

NASA had to redo and touch up and revise some of their photos in the 90s and 00s, some of their errors were too obvious, so theres some quite amusing discrepancies with the same NASA photos from different decades.

You're either referring to shadows appearing to be unparallel. Which they can do - Perspective can cause this. or uneven ground.

If there were multiple light sources, we would see multiple shadows of the same object. Why don't we see multiple shadows?

Or maybe you're referring to how objects facing away from the sun were illuminated - The light bounces off of the moon surface to illuminate parts not directly illuminated by the sun.

try harder, and maybe learn some physics and optics first.

maybe you should actually learn to use a film camera and how they work. read a few books on photography, maybe go do a course on photography.

put down your cell phone camera, try a real camera.

What have I said that is incorrect? And what is the correct answer to my mistakes?

The term you're looking for that explains that quite simply is 'overexposure'.

do you really know anything about photography !?

theres no such thing as overexposure when you have a camera pointed UP into the sky with no ground in the field of view, THE MOON HAS NO ATMOSPHERE, ditto Mars (nothing worth talking about anyway).

Also, there aren't any photos of the stars you can take on the moon that can't be taken either from Earth, or from Hubble. Put simply, you don't go to the moon to take photos of the stars.

we are talking 1969 to 1974 or so, there was no such thing as Hubble back then. taking star-field pictures from the ground with the atmosphere distorting the view and ground light pollution etc.

even today, the Moon is a platform that is many magnitudes more stable and predictable then an artificial satellite.

go ask any astronomer about star photographs and what could be achieved from a Moon based camera and/or telescope, they would sell their sisters for such a device.

heres no such thing as overexposure when you have a camera pointed UP into the sky with no ground in the field of view...

Yes there is. You can over and under expose the nights sky just like you can with photography of the surface.

taking star-field pictures from the ground with the atmosphere distorting the view and ground light pollution etc.

Atmospheric refraction isn't an issue if you're just using a basic camera without a telescope to look through.

Light pollution isn't an issue if you take your photos away from civilisation, like many astrophotographers do.

The photos taken of the stars from the moon would have the same clarity and quality as if they were taken from Earth.

go ask any astronomer about star photographs and what could be achieved from a Moon based camera and/or telescope

Astronomers would take their photographs through a telescope, not through the kind of cameras the Astronaut carried.

The astronauts didn't take a telescope with them to the moon, so there's nothing to be gained from such photos.

Have you ever attempted astrophotography through a telescope?

The astronauts didn't take a telescope with them to the moon, so there's nothing to be gained from such photos.

starfield photographs, these ARE important.

try harder.

You didn't address my other points so I will assume you have conceded defeat.

assume whatever you whatever, you are still very wrong about the importance of starfield photographs.

its just beggars belief that NASA who is stuffed to the gills with space and astronomy types, forgot to take a starfield camera with them to the Moon, on every trip.

theres only one reason you would forget to take a camera five times, and thats if you never went at all.

Just keep defending nasa, you totally don't seem like a shill or an idiot with no ability for critical thinking.

Got any points to raise?

Probably nothing you will be open to entertain. Just keep down voting maybe no one else will second guess the bullshit they're being fed.

'kay, just stick to the ad-hominems then.

questions about the supposed live broadcast from the moon

three ground stations, one was the Australian one, that one had the best quality feed... so that one was used.

prob total coincidence that the British space center at Woomera (Australia) prob had some nice big buildings, maybe some nice lunar style landscape nearby...

Woomera airfield/airbase used to have three full size military runways, now just one very very long single one, and another one that seems to be mothballed but semi ready, the airbase itself is still quite impressive for someplace obscure and in the middle of nowhere, lots of very expensive big buildings there, all for a remote airfield with nothing nearby to support such an airbase.

If you say so buddy.