First man on the moon

[todd8137]

Hi all if Niel Armstrong was the first man on the moon ,who put the camera on the moon to film him ,comeing down the ladders I just watched it on you tube now ,there's no other boot prints so who put the camera there ,did Armstrong ? I am not trying to say it was fake ect that's not my thing,just curious to no who dd the camera

Pat

[zedds]

I'm sure that a camera was set up on the LEM to capture this event during construction.

[Ant]

It was an external camera on the landing module I think?

Ant

[starnut]

1. 
   Yuri Gagarin
   
2. 
   full film crew in a hanger at area 51
   

[Black Knight]

It was an external camera on the landing module I think?

Ant

There was. It was put there to capture just that historic moment.

Sent from my mobile using Tapatalk, so please excuse the speeling and granma!

[David JM]

Yes, the camera was an external one fixed to the LEM [Lunar Excursion Module] I think it had to be deployed before he went for a walk. The images are quite low quality compared to the stills and some of the other, later film as well.

The picture here: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/ad002.gif shows the TV camera in the descent stage, it appears to be stowed.

[webboid]

I am a massive Apollo missions fan with 100's of hours of footage

Here are the details you are wondering about.

Television from the lunar surface was via a b & w camera. Initially this camera was attached to the modular equipment stowage assembly (MESA), which was lowered to a position off to the side of the ladder. Later the astronauts repositioned it on a tripod. Westinghouse manufactured the camera. It's scan rate was 10 fps at 320 lines. Hence not very good quality. Also 16mm filming was done on the surface which was processed back on earth. Which is stunning to watch BTW.

Here is a picture of the module http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-31575.jpg

[Qualia]

There's by now a small industry on the thesis that "some or all elements of the Apollo program and the associated Moon landings were hoaxes staged by NASA and members of other organizations such as the US administration" (http://en.wikipedia....iracy_theories#).

And here, there appears to be a weak thesis that is possible though extremely unlikely and a strong thesis that is close to inconceivable. The weak thesis is that NASA, for example, knew about the hoax being set up and didn't try to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The evidence for either is, in my opinion, not well supported and in the ultimate analyses appears based on a failure to understand properly what scientific evidence is. In controlled experiments, for example, one can find all sorts of unexplained phenomena going on, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, and so on, and in real world situations, chaos is overwhelming.

My personal opinion is that NASA would have had to be quite mad to try anything like the hoax. It would have had to involve a huge number of people, something would leak, eventually, so everyone involved, not just the pilots and scientists, but also the cleaners, photographers, lighting crew would have to be lined up before firing squads, locked away in dark prisons forever and that would have had to happen whether the plan succeeded or not, right?

One part of the standard story is that the US administration exploited the event for their own purposes (Cold War, Communism versus Neo-liberal Capitalism, US versus Soviet Union etc) which is certainly true, and was and is always-already completely predictable. As Plato and Aristotle noted over 2000 years ago, every power system does that kind of thing, including Washington, as they did. That's an easy prediction.

What often arises is that some folk, certainly not everyone, decide via reading a few internet sites that they can suddenly become a qualified civil and astro engineer or scientist in the space or an hour or so, and try then to prove that some mighty adminstration hoaxed the Moon landings, shot up Kennedy, assassinated Princess Diana or blew up the Twin Towers, etc. And I'm pretty sure that the power elite in Washington, London and Berlin must be rejoicing the fact.

Let people trace whether Kennedy was killed by the mafia, let them investigate the Moon landings and tragedy of 9/11, let them go off on these wild goose chases instead of pursuing real problems or better still, getting politically organized. It wouldn't shock me if fifty years from now we discover in the declassified record that the conspiracy industry was actually being fed by the political administrations themselves. As the Roman Empire's administration understood, if you give sufficent food, a violent-sport-distraction, and a little political intrigue from time to time, the people should behave like well domesticated cattle.

I do apologise if this post came across as a bit strong, a bit too 'political', for that was certainly not my intention. I just think we should be concentrating our energies on other more worth while and pressing pursuits

[sologuitarist61]

I think Qualia is quite correct. We seem to have a habit these days of trying to find other ridiculous reasons for quite normal and rational happenings. Conspiracy theorists have a lot to answer for.

[Steve Ward]

Not to mention the fact that Uncle Ivan would probably called "foul" a long time ago .

[Nillchill]

I think it was taken by Buzz hanging out of the LEM windows taking it with his iphone!!

or it may have been how this guy describes it

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2010/02/24/30207/

[todd8137]

I am not in to conspiracy or this or that I read it was a out board cam on the Len I just wanted. A few others to confirm it

[Nillchill]

in that case Todd sorry for the flippant remark, if you look at the link I provided there are some pages referenced there that explain what was done to achieve it

[badgerchap]

I am a massive Apollo missions fan with 100's of hours of footage

Here are the details you are wondering about.

Television from the lunar surface was via a b & w camera. Initially this camera was attached to the modular equipment stowage assembly (MESA), which was lowered to a position off to the side of the ladder. Later the astronauts repositioned it on a tripod. Westinghouse manufactured the camera. It's scan rate was 10 fps at 320 lines. Hence not very good quality. Also 16mm filming was done on the surface which was processed back on earth. Which is stunning to watch BTW.

Here is a picture of the module http://www.hq.nasa.g...1-S69-31575.jpg

My God, no need to generalise!

[Zakalwe]

If you really want an Apollo hoax hypothesis to be taken seriously, then you have to explain or come up with a solution to some pretty basic things (these are just a few off the top of my head):

How did 380 Kgs of Lunar rocks come to be in our possesion?

The various sources of tracking information that are independant of the US, including data from Jodrell bank.

The thousands of images available at the Lnar Surface Journal. Note I am talking about the original scans, note some stuff sourced from YouTube.

The tens of thousands of freely available engineering documents that explain in minute detail every aspect of the program. These are available at the NASA technical resource server.

What exactly were the Apollo launches for? Remember a Saturn 5 launch was visibile from over 500 miles away, and the seismic noise was recorded around the world. The Apollo 11 launch was viewed by over a million people at the Cape.

The images of Earth taken from the various missions have had the cloud cover matched against records of weather patterns that are recorded at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

If Apollo was hoaxed because we cannot travel trhough the Van Allen belts (we can), then Gemini missions also have to be hoaxed. Explain this please.

How parts of the Surveyor lander were returned to Earth.

And finally, how not a single piece of the Apollo archive has ever been shown to be incorrect.

If you maange to explain these things, in detail and with proper sources and calculations that can be verified, then you are in with a shout. Once you can do this, then you will get a hugely attentive audience for your hypothesis.

Good luck.

[badgerchap]

Would just like to add to this wonderful list the recent imagery from the LRO which actually shows the tracks from the moon buggies and various bits and pieces of old spacecraft:

[David JM]

I agree that the USSR would have sent up an orbiter to photograph the landing sites if they had any doubt. I apply Occams Razor-is it easier to go to the moon or to fake it and keep EVERYONE quiet for 50 years?

Now, this is how the lunar nuts answer things:

How did 380 Kgs of Lunar rocks come to be in our possesion?

Prove they came from the moon!

The various sources of tracking information that are independant of the US, including data from Jodrell bank.

All NASA fakes, Jodrell bank is in the UK and not independant.

The thousands of images available at the Lnar Surface Journal. Note I am talking about the original scans, note some stuff sourced from YouTube.

All NASA fakes.

The tens of thousands of freely available engineering documents that explain in minute detail every aspect of the program. These are available at the NASA technical resource server.

See-all NASA servers-all fake-I saw Capricorn One and that is how they faked it.

What exactly were the Apollo launches for? Remember a Saturn 5 launch was visibile from over 500 miles away, and the seismic noise was recorded around the world. The Apollo 11 launch was viewed by over a million people at the Cape.

Just because you launched it doesn't mean it got there-see North Korea

The images of Earth taken from the various missions have had the cloud cover matched against records of weather patterns that are recorded at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

All faked after the event. The footage wasn't 'live'.

If you maange to explain these things, in detail and with proper sources and calculations that can be verified, then you are in with a shout. Once you can do this, then you will get a hugely attentive audience for your hypothesis.

My sources are The National Enquirer, YouTube and the Internet, from NASA and Government sources that cannot have their identity revealed and from other sources.

That is the mindset you are up against. I have only heard one statement that has made me say 'true enough' and that is that NASA saw the landing the same way everyone else did-on TV.

You could take a conspiracy nut to the Moon, show him [or less often, her] the footprints and they would say that a robot made them and that they were in an Arizona film studio and not on the Moon. Well, they would right up until you opened their helmet!

[badgerchap]

Ummm...surely Jodrell Bank being in the UK not the US might actually lend weight to the pro-landing evidence?

[David JM]

No, it's all fake! Here is my proof:

http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

[Zakalwe]

I agree that the USSR would have sent up an orbiter to photograph the landing sites if they had any doubt. I apply Occams Razor-is it easier to go to the moon or to fake it and keep EVERYONE quiet for 50 years?

Now, this is how the lunar nuts answer things:

Prove they came from the moon!

You could take a conspiracy nut to the Moon, show him [or less often, her] the footprints and they would say that a robot made them and that they were in an Arizona film studio and not on the Moon. Well, they would right up until you opened their helmet!

The burden of proof is with the originator of the hypothesis. It is not for anyone to prove that the rocks came from the Moon...it is for the originator to prove that they did not. This is where the vast majority of Lunar hoax believers fail, they cannot provide any credible rationale to support their hypothesis. This is why they are not taken in any way seriously.

I have seen maybe one or two hoax believers that really thought about what they were proposing. The vast majority just regurgitate stuff that has been debunked countless times over. One such hoax believer was Fattydash/Dr. Tea/Patrick on Bad Astronomy and Apollohoax.net. He had carried out some analysis of the voice transcripts and also of the laser reflector data. However his various hypotheses were also easily debunked, plus he lost all credibility by trying to assert that he was a variously a medical doctor, a consultant and a physicist (yet his knowledge of the subjescts were shown to be paper thin). He fell into the habit of trying to use sock-puppet accounts on the various fora which cost him any shred of credibility that he might have left.

[badgerchap]

Well that's clinched it! I am now officially a Lunar Hoax Conspiracy theorist, or LHCt. No wait - don't tell me CERN are in on this too???!!

[todd8137]

This is not going the way I planned I was just reading a book about he lending and it gave no details on that a google turned up a cam,on the lem ,I am not in to conspiracy theories or ufos or any thing like hat

Pat

[badgerchap]

The burden of proof is with the originator of the hypothesis.

Try telling that to a Christian

[badgerchap]

This is not going the way I planned I was just reading a book about he lending and it gave no details on that a google turned up a cam,on the lem ,I am not in to conspiracy theories or ufos or any thing like hat

Pat

You have to be careful todd, opening a can of worm like that

[todd8137]

To be fair ,everybody as a point a view and I like the wide range of answer s,, am sure a lot of people a thought of this

Pat