Apollo 11 First Steps, High Quality 16mm DAC

[Finnstudios]

The Happiest Place Orbiting Earth :)



[hughezee]

moon- moon . (Astronaught) Puppet on a string - Sandy Shaw

enjoy

[hughezee]

big mistake.... why isnt he bouncing ..like less gravity and all that and why is his suit lit up when its in the shade?

[FORZION]

@hughezee at 1:50 and 2:30 you see them increase the contrast of the video. Notice how you can no longer make out details of the moon surface but you can see him better? He is in the shadows so they had to make the video brighter to see him better. compare 1:00 to 2:40 and you will see that all they did was increase the contrast.

[AvatarAlphaOmega]

@hughezee An expert on the "bounciness" of astronauts in the moon's gravity are you? And, have you heard of contrast control settings on cameras? Evidently not. Notice how as the contrast is increased the sunlit area becomes washed out? No? You didn't?

The sad truth is, you're a big mistake. An evolutionary mistake. Educate yourself, or kill yourself, one of the two. Preferably the latter.

[TheGimpnVidia]

We (humans) are so good at making bad stuff, that we having trouble beleiving the few good/cool thing we can do and have done,... It's as sad as it's true.

[rxqueen04]

Anyone who thinks this is a hoax needs to get a grip on reality and what humans can actually do....this is mankinds greatest feat and if you don't believe, then you are the weak one and are slowing humanity down.

[moongoonsquad]

First thing you can see the brown soil not the moon. 2:12 lights reflect in the visor. 2:12 Astronaut well lit to be in the shadow. Starting at 4:20 Who is reflection in full suit Buzz? What are the 3 lights that keep showing up in the shadow. Neil says he can't see in the darkness and moves to the light making sure to mention not looking into the sun ( why tell us that detail?) Where is the camera shooting from?

[moongoonsquad]

@moongoonsquad Not 2:12 meant 2:30 Astronaut well lit in the shadow.

[ytmoog]

@moongoonsquad

He would be lit, there is a lot of light coming from that sunlit lunar surface.

[ytmoog]

@moongoonsquad

"Starting at 4:20 Who is reflection in full suit Buzz?"

Yes, it's Aldrin's reflection in the window. The 16mm camera is just inside the LM.

Same for your lights they are inside the LM and reflecting off the window.

[autr727]

nice scenary....

[waketheoblivious]

See any stars in the background? There is no atmosphere to refract sunlight so there is no blue sky on the moon, but what the moon does have is a view of the same stars we see from earth against plenty of dark space. The video and photos all lack the stars but show plenty of black deep space. Total and complete bullshit.

[usafvet100]

For the record, a total of 12 men have walked on the moon from Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. The last flight took place in 1972. The suggestion that it was all a hoax is not only patent nonsense, but also an insult to the memories of Grissom, White, and Chaffee, as well as the scientists, engineers, and Mission Control guys who worked nonstop to make it all possible.

[MrFuntucky]

too bad the moon landings were faked:(

[masterj345]

40+ years since weve been there, and no one seems like theyl be there for decades to come :( what a shame

[lunsford1969]

To say they never went to the Moon or it was all a hoax is a slap in the face to the guys who went there , and put their lives on the line . They didn't know what to expect when they landed on the Moon . It could of been a one way mission , and they knew that . The guys who lost their lives on the launch pad deserve more respect than to say they died for a hoax or just an elaborate plan to fool the Russians into thinking we beat them there first ....

[MrFuntucky]

@lunsford1969 too bad it was faked:(

[ShelbySPB]

Great historical video and much better than the widely seen black and white footage from the MESA camera. Thanks for posting.

[Waldenpunk]

The people who think this was all a hoax are fucking morons.

[cheaphomemademoives]

@Waldenpunk here is a bit of truth, I remmber being told in school in the 1970's that we would have a moon base by the 1980's and be going there by shuttle, that would be bulid for going to the moon and back to earth..NOW here is the truth to this..the shuttle never when to the moon and there is no moon base! and the shuttles are now retired...Iam no calling it a hoax on however..... in thought what real good was the moon mission if we are never going back?

[pmrl75]

This video is awesome!

[bradnerdr]

Hm, what does he say at 6:40? "It's quite dark here in the shadow. And a little hard for me to see". He's clearly visible even to the camera. How can he operate what he's touching if he can't see clearly? Why have your visor down if you're in the shadows and its hard for you to see? It's the equivalent of wearing sunglasses in the dark. He just commented on being able to see his own footsteps and then he says "..see that I have good footing." Talk about going in circles of logic.

[scottron12]

guys the moon landing wasnt a hoax. It would cost more money to fake it than to just send three guys towards a giant rock in the sky.

[tangofish1]

To all u conspiracy nuts, check out the photos from the Lcross satelite. You can see the landing sites along with astronaut tracks, descent module and other bits and pieces that were left behind. Or did they secretly go back and place all this there to cover up the supposed hoax :P

[MrFuntucky]

@tangofish1 no you cant, but I can see your mom

[caboland]

Apparently you don't remember or know about Apollo 1 then. There were deaths back then as well.

[NardTheDog]

It's obvious you are completely uneducated and just spreading ignorance. Anyone that works in the space program can tell you this. Getting to space has nothing to do with the technology difference, the reason there are so few accidents is a combination of thoroughly understanding chemistry and physics. Rockets failed when we were discovering the tech in the early days, we just didn't put people on them until we understood how it works and how to control it, why don't more airplanes crash?Moron

[NardTheDog]

@riazomonero

No, you are stupid. Let's forget the fact that there have been 130 shuttle missions compared to the 12 times we have been to the moon. There have been 2 Apollo accidents, one resulting in fatalities and 2 shuttle accidents. If the shuttle landed in a safer way like the Russian and Apollo capsules, then there would be only 1 shuttle accident.

[Jaciilyn]

Based on some of the comments here, it is apparent that the Photoshop generation is a complete set of morons.

Everything is fake, everything is a conspiracy.

@riazomonero, there was tragedy during Apollo missions. Google Apollo 1, 13.

But, based on your theory, why do cars still have wheels? Why are we still using an internal combustion engine? If you want to make conspiracy theory arguments, be prepared to look at your theory applied to all technology and history.

ps. You are stupid.

[wr3ck]

Fake AND gay!

[slicedoranges]

You conspiracy fags are uneducated cowards.

[bunkrebunkre]

riazomonero, how did the mirror get there we bounce a laser off of today?

[cashwing]

this looks shopped

i can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time

[CousinDupree]

Yeah, it was all fake. The hoax was so great, we even had the Russians in on it. The very nation that we went head-to-head against. They buried all their tracking radar data and acquiesced to the superiority of America. "Yes, Amerikanski land on Moon." *shake angry fist* *bang angry shoe on table*

[riazomonero]

its all bullshit.

How can you believe that in 1969 they could travel to the moon and is hasn't been done since?

[XKS99]

Because the moon landings were the apex of human civilization. We have been regressing ever since then, culminating with your generation and type.

[riazomonero]

No, its absolute bullshit.

At the time the US were obsessed with being the dominant nation in space travel.

Going to the moon would be the culmination of that, and they convinced everybody with the most elaborate hoax in history.

It hasn't been done since 1969!

We are in 2010. You can't ignore that.

The technology did not exist back then to land on the moon, simple as that.

[predatortheme]

it did......... you think they launch rockets in space and astronauts for millions of dollars just to fake it? never..... they was working almost 10 years on the technology for the moon landing.. autopilot... etc you can look vids of gemini mission , when they tested docking. or mercury missions even spacelab and apollo 9 the lm and csm docking.......................­.......................

[komodo003]

@predatortheme Finally, someone who brings more than just speculation to the debate. But still, this is fucking youtube..

[eatwoodman]

It hasn't been done since 1969? You're a fucking idiot. If you're going to spew bullshit, at least try to conceal your stupidity. There were SIX manned moon landings. We HAVE been to the moon since 1969.

[riazomonero]

Alright my bad, we have supposedly been there since, the last time was 1972. 38 years ago?

Thats a long time.

I dont follow the lack of money bullshit, look at all the footage from the first landing, it looks so fake!

No stars in the back?

Shadows from the astronauts are being projected in 3 directions, the only reason being, studio lights.

We don't have 3 suns do we?

Your the fucking idiot, if you believe what the government tells you, your the ultimate idiot.

[eatwoodman]

Lack of money wasn't the only reason. We could save up to land on there again, but what's the point? We didn't land humans on Mars because robots are safer (no humans can die) and are just as efficient as humans plus they are CHEAPER. With these extra funds we can use towards other projects. The only reason we would land on the moon again is for prestige, NOT science. We can learn about the moon from robots. Besides, we landed on the moon once, why would we need to land 5 more times?

[eatwoodman]

Don't you think NASA would only do it once because doing it several times would only increase the chances of screwing something up and exposing themselves to the world? There are no stars in the sky because stars are faint. AGAIN, you prove to be ignorant and completely uneducated on all your moronic claims. You need a camera with a long exposure to see the stars, a video film taking in 15 frames per second is not going to be sufficient. Ugh, the shadows. Ignorant, foolish remark once again.

[eatwoodman]

Check the picture in your channel comments. The shadows, especially the person at the body appear to be facing different directions. They're not. The angle of the light and the camera create an illusion within the picture. You've shown many times you are ignorant of what you claim. I suggest you to do REAL research instead of reading bogus conspiracies. No shit conspiracies will not show the contradicting evidence, then they wouldn't fool morons like you. You just eat up everything they say.

[riK987]

A) there are stars but the sun outshines them, just like daytime here. If were 2 see them u would have to increase the exposer on da cameras nd u wouldn't be able 2 see anything else.

B) the astronauts dont have 3 shadows, the surface of the moon is highly reflective, thus reflective light makes it seem they have more than 1 shadow.

check out myth busters, they tried to disprove it, but they winded up just solidifying that it happened. If it was fake the Russians would have jumped on it!

[joachimmelin]

There are only one shadow in all of the videos of the moon landing. You need to check your facts before sputing insane conspiracy theories.

[EntropyMonster]

Successful Troll is successful. :)

[entropyfu]

This has all been debunked. You are a fool.

[riazomonero]

Even 4 decades ago, just getting out of Earth's orbit must have been an incredibly hard thing to do, but we are meant to believe that they went to another world?

Without killing anybody?

The space shuttle has killed 14 people, going on routine upper earth missions, and people just believe in 1969 -1972 nobody got killed going to the moon, that is complete bullshit.

How do you bust that fact?

[Mescalitospoke]

Sooo they have been sending people up in shuttles (some to their deaths, for forty years)  just for sake of keeping up the appearance that man can travel into space. What is your contention, that we couldn't get to the moon then but we can now, that we can't now? Sometimes the best answer is the simplest one. I used to think the evidence was compelling, then I watched mythbusters. You aren't one of those people that believe the world is 6000 years old right?

[riazomonero]

That myth busters episode covered about 5 per cent of the conspiracy theory, there are so many other things to mull over.

But mainly, it's implausible that there have been more deaths recently, in space shuttle missions seemingly less dangerous than the Moon landings.

My contention is simple, think about it, has our technology gone backwards? More deaths have occured more recently, in simpler missions. How the hell, in 1969 -1972 did we go to the moon 6 times without anybody being harmed?

[MrFuntucky]

@eatwoodman We havent sent a single HUMAN back to the moon since 1969 you fucking idiot. Your mom should have swallowed!!

[eatwoodman]

@MrFuntucky

Lrn2history

[TheJomogogo]

@MrFuntucky

The intellectual fuckery of hoax advocates always amuses me.

[krisdevalle]

Last manned moon landing was in 1972.

If this is about the level of your knowledge, then it's no suprise you think it's been faked.

What technology that 'didn't exist' do you think they needed for a moon landing?

[ForkyStick]

Back then the funds existed, now they don't.

[eatwoodman]

You're expecting people to believe that you, who did not even know there were other moon landings other than Apollo 11, absolutely knows that the technology didn't exist back then. Kid, I learned about the several moon landings when I was 12. You're not as educated as you think.

[Jaciilyn]

@riazomonero

Are you really that ignorant? Have you gone to see the landers in something called a museum? I am guessing apparently not.

Honestly I am shocked you even believe that cars were invented. Oh even worse, aircraft carriers.

[Neonmindset]

Shoot yourself in the head. PLEASE.

[riazomonero]

What the fuck, because I am stating an opinion?

Who gives you the right to tell me to do something like that.

[errnestoo]

Hasn't been done since!? LOOOOOOOL

[canman888]

The massive stupidity you're showing is beyond incredible!

[canman888]

You are incredible stupid!

[riazomonero]

I am not stupid.

You believe that in 1969-1972 Nasa sent men to the moon without killing anybody?

The space shuttle has killed 14 people, if anything, accidents would have occurred back in the 60's and 70's, when technology wasn't as advanced, but no, the most recent tragedy was the columbia in 2003.

Just getting out of Earths orbit is a massive task.

You believe that over 4 decades ago Nasa sent men to the moon without killing anybody.

Come on, it's so ridiculously implausible.

[takinter]

@riazomonero

Do you believe that Magellan was able to circumnavigate the globe 500 years ago?

He had to use wind to power his boat, how was that possble when we use engines to do it now? NASA landed men on the moon back then, no matter how unlikely it seems now to you, Pinko. (just jealous your commie 'comrades' did not do it first?)

[predatortheme]

dude, the space shuttle is a re-used vehicle that launches and re entryes over and over, Apollo 11 launched only once and re entried only once..... thats the fact

1986 challenger disaster. the shuttle exploded because of a solid rocket booster that cannot work properly cuz of the weather and became a leak and burned a hole into the fuel tank and exploded so the shuttle didnt explode by itself, the fuel tank explosion draged it in pieces. and columbia wasnt exploded. it broke in 2 parts

[lifeandwater]

It has been done since. 11 December 1972 was the last time it happened. 12 men have been on the moon.

[yatpaysarchives]

It's not a matter of not being able to do it, it's a matter of cost. The missions were expensive and Congress decided that the science didn't justify the cost.

Also, the last landing was in 1972.

[entropyfu]

because it's expensive and dangerous? not a very convincing argument

[Lincoln755]

At 4:29 why do you have the Astronuat fully seen in light, when their in really dark shadow

[ytmoog]

He is lit because of reflected light from the ground around.

That would scatter light upwards.

[krisdevalle]

I've watched this stuff over and over again and continue to be thrilled by not only the cool composure of these guys; who were mainly test pilots for the Air Force and Navy, and of course the thousands of scientists and engineers who worked together to make the amazing machines.

[Rob260259]

Watch 4:18 ... glove of Buzz Aldrin...!

[virgogreg]

i know i was funny , they did actually set it half spped playback

[virgogreg]

this 16 mm is diffrent from other film the astronaught has normal speed movements they forgot to slow it down half speed (the illusion of 1/6 gravity)

[sivvybee]

Your Funny :).

[MudRat02]

Haha. If they slowed it down half speed, then why would it appear to be one-sixth gravity? There is no indication in this video that they aren't in the moon's gravity - what did you expect?

[bengals101]

you are a moron.keep your idiotic comments to yourself and do ome research before posting

[sivvybee]

Makes you proud to be an American.

[gmalivuk]

To ringsofall's question about seeing Armstrong with no additional lighting: he's wearing a bright white space suit! Regolith is pretty dark, so it's understandable it'd be dark in the shadow. But Armstrong's suit is lit up by the reflection of the sun off of the surrounding regolith, and that's why we can see him so well.

[dopje31857]

Wonderful footage! This is real history.

[Gregster138]

This is film of the actual EVA, not a simulation. You can hear Buzz asking Houston what the setting for shooting in shadows for the DAC camera (f2@1/60 sec is the reply). That is why there is good detail in the shadow. Also, if you listen, you can hear Neil say that the decent engine did not leave a crater. It would not have. Below the 6-8 inches of powder the surface is packed hard. I remember watching the news coverage of this live. I was so fortunate to be old enough to witness history!

[ringsofall]

From what I can tell this video is being shot through a window because I can see someone's reflection in the glass of the window. My question is why can I see the astronaut so well in the shadow of the lunar lander with no additional lighting, I can even see his face and he is lit up all the way to his shoes. Is this a simulation or real. I also see that he note the lack of a crater from landing and that the ship is 1-2 feet from the surface. Not a doubter but this one has to be a simulation.

[smythej]

Do you NOT see how bright the surface of moon is around him? Here at earth, the surface of full moon is bright enough to light the night scenery! How come not one man one meter away from it??

[DirkieD]

because maybe the sun is behind the shuttle, even though the sun would reflect off of the ground, not all rays would reflect on the person. Thanks to the craters, they do more then maybe expected.

[XII0XII]

I cant figure out anything to say but, brilliant!

[tagjim]

Holy. Living. Fuck.

[medumbcat]

Yes, very impressive. Now I have to find the hoax angle to this too? SHEEEZ

[DrBuzz0]

Or you can just accept reality for waht it is...

[yourmajezty]

@medumbcat HAHAHAHA. EXACTLY

[mkarnerfors]

Way to go Steve! Never seen this before. Very exciting and you just made me waste work time. Shame on you. ;)