[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?

Not really.  Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.

Much, much easier.

Can you tell me how me how they calculated A. The gravity of the moon prior to going there B. The rotational speed of the moon C. How much fuel they would need to reach a horizontal escape velocity and D. how they were so perfectly precise to rendezvous with the orbiter

C: Horizontal escape velocity? Please elaborate. However, calculating delta-V budgets has been possible since the rocket equation was derived in 1903 (and even earlier than that IIRC)

When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. You need to be going roughly 25,000 mph to escape Earth's gravity, the moon being about 1/5 of the Earth's gravity, you'd have to travel 5,000mph horizontally to escape its gravity. That's why when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.

Anyway guys. Carry on with whatever you want to believe. Deny your own senses and all common sense and logic if that is what truly makes you happy.

[andruszkow]

Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?

Not really.  Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.

Much, much easier.

Can you tell me how me how they calculated A. The gravity of the moon prior to going there B. The rotational speed of the moon C. How much fuel they would need to reach a horizontal escape velocity and D. how they were so perfectly precise to rendezvous with the orbiter

C: Horizontal escape velocity? Please elaborate. However, calculating delta-V budgets has been possible since the rocket equation was derived in 1903 (and even earlier than that IIRC)

When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. You need to be going roughly 25,000 mph to escape Earth's gravity, the moon being about 1/5 of the Earth's gravity, you'd have to travel 5,000mph horizontally to escape its gravity. That's why when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.

Anyway guys. Carry on with whatever you want to believe. Deny your own senses and all common sense and logic if that is what truly makes you happy.

You don't need to escape earth's gravity to go to the moon. The moon obviously haven't.

I think you're confusing the rocket trail expected on earth with the rocket trail created when there's no atmosphere. On the moon, you can go straight to near horizontal for horizontal speed from the get-go because your don't have atmospheric drag.

The lander module did not have to reach escape velocity either, it "Only" had to rendezvous with the command module. The lander module were discarded, while the already in lunar orbit command module returned to earth. Reaching escape velocity from orbit is obviously far cheaper than reaching it from the surface

Edit: The lander did a rendezvous with the command module via a direct ascent IIRC. It didn't get into orbit first.

[Luke 22:35-38]

Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?

Not really.  Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.

But rocket propulsion is feasible. You but them every Fourth of July.

True, but that has nothing to do with your original argument.

My original point was if they had this secret technology to doctor pictures then why couldn't they have the same advanced technology to send someone to the moon? Did they spent all of their technology to doctor pictures and not build anti gravity machines?

This doesn't help

Why?

[Rounder]

When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. ... when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.

Seems to me if they were going to fake the whole thing, they would have made it look the way a non rocket scientist would expect it to look, because the entire watching world is very close to 100% NOT rocket scientists.  What possible reason would they have for inventing a new flight profile?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

GUYS SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE. U GUYS JUST LOOK OUT TO SEA AND THE WORLD IS OBVIOUSLY NOT FLAT. UR A BUNCH OF SPETHL PEOPLE. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE SOMTHING SO STUPID! I MEAN FOR GOD SAKE LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD IS LYING? HOW RETARDED CAN U GET?

Such rage and anger. Obviously I wouldn't trust your understanding of the world because you lack the basic reading comprehension to see this is a thread about the Apollo moon hoax and nothing at all to do with the shape of the Earth. If I had to rely on you to explain "all the evidence" I don't think I'd ever understand the shape of the world. 

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. ... when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.

Seems to me if they were going to fake the whole thing, they would have made it look the way a non rocket scientist would expect it to look, because the entire watching world is very close to 100% NOT rocket scientists.  What possible reason would they have for inventing a new flight profile?

Or maybe, just maybe it was beyond their ability to fake? Your logic would dictate that NASA believed they could pull a fast one on the public simply because 99.9999% wouldn't know what it's supposed to look like.

[Rama Set]

When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. ... when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.

Seems to me if they were going to fake the whole thing, they would have made it look the way a non rocket scientist would expect it to look, because the entire watching world is very close to 100% NOT rocket scientists.  What possible reason would they have for inventing a new flight profile?

Or maybe, just maybe it was beyond their ability to fake? Your logic would dictate that NASA believed they could pull a fast one on the public simply because 99.9999% wouldn't know what it's supposed to look like.

If I was protecting a worldwide conspiracy with billions on the line (lol) I would not be lazy like that.  Just me though.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. ... when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.

Seems to me if they were going to fake the whole thing, they would have made it look the way a non rocket scientist would expect it to look, because the entire watching world is very close to 100% NOT rocket scientists.  What possible reason would they have for inventing a new flight profile?

Or maybe, just maybe it was beyond their ability to fake? Your logic would dictate that NASA believed they could pull a fast one on the public simply because 99.9999% wouldn't know what it's supposed to look like.

If I was protecting a worldwide conspiracy with billions on the line (lol) I would not be lazy like that.  Just me though.

Interesting you say that because even to this day they get caught being lazy all the time. They just know that space travel and the globe earth are so etched into people's minds, even so far that people actually take some kind of personal satisfaction and pride in the achievements, of which they had absolutely no part, that it is VERY easy to dismiss any idea counter to that, regardless of evidence, common sense, logic etc. All they have to do is aim the magic wand that relegates holders of dissenting opinions to the tin foil conspiracy theory hat rack. It is very commonplace and it is a result of social engineering and conditioning.

They realized that through strong psychological willingness to accept the truth as we are told as true, that we will actually, through some Stockholm syndromesque function, reject anything that takes that truth away, no matter how much evidence there to support it. And controlling all mainstream media doesn't hurt.

Some smart guy from the past said something to the effect that "it is easier to fool someone then to convince someone that they have been fooled. "

[andruszkow]

When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. ... when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.

Seems to me if they were going to fake the whole thing, they would have made it look the way a non rocket scientist would expect it to look, because the entire watching world is very close to 100% NOT rocket scientists.  What possible reason would they have for inventing a new flight profile?

Or maybe, just maybe it was beyond their ability to fake? Your logic would dictate that NASA believed they could pull a fast one on the public simply because 99.9999% wouldn't know what it's supposed to look like.

If I was protecting a worldwide conspiracy with billions on the line (lol) I would not be lazy like that.  Just me though.

Interesting you say that because even to this day they get caught being lazy all the time. They just know that space travel and the globe earth are so etched into people's minds, even so far that people actually take some kind of personal satisfaction and pride in the achievements, of which they had absolutely no part, that it is VERY easy to dismiss any idea counter to that, regardless of evidence, common sense, logic etc. All they have to do is aim the magic wand that relegates holders of dissenting opinions to the tin foil conspiracy theory hat rack. It is very commonplace and it is a result of social engineering and conditioning.

They realized that through strong psychological willingness to accept the truth as we are told as true, that we will actually, through some Stockholm syndromesque function, reject anything that takes that truth away, no matter how much evidence there to support it. And controlling all mainstream media doesn't hurt.

Some smart guy from the past said something to the effect that "it is easier to fool someone then to convince someone that they have been fooled. "

Since you didn't reply to my post about the Apollo mission, but went on with a reply explaining the effects of so-called social engineering (buzz buzz) and implicitly and effectively ranking yourself smarter than the rest of us, do explain how and when NASA got caught being lazy?

Please explain to me how it is possible for organizations not affiliated with NASA to accomplish some of the feats previously reserved for NASA? Blue Origin, SpaceX (pre-contact), Brazilian, Indian and even North Korean space agencies, and the myriad of smaller private, and even amateur space programs like Copenhagen Suborbitals and Dare who launches solid fuel rockets based on candlelight wax, but none of you ever really talk about these accomplishments and/or how they faked them?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Since you didn't reply to my post about the Apollo mission, but went on with a reply explaining the effects of so-called social engineering (buzz buzz) and implicitly and effectively ranking yourself smarter than the rest of us, do explain how and when NASA got caught being lazy?

Please explain to me how it is possible for organizations not affiliated with NASA to accomplish some of the feats previously reserved for NASA? Blue Origin, SpaceX (pre-contact), Brazilian, Indian and even North Korean space agencies, and the myriad of smaller private, and even amateur space programs like Copenhagen Suborbitals and Dare who launches solid fuel rockets based on candlelight wax, but none of you ever really talk about these accomplishments and/or how they faked them?

I didn't respond to your post because, besides it being poorly written, was little more than gainsaying without any actual evidence to back it up. Basically filling the function of a NASA apologist, which I have no doubt if I showed you 10 videos or photos of how obvious mistakes were made (or purposefully inserted) you would just list them off and find any possible way to defend your position, in the face of logic evidence and common sense.

I won't go down that road. If you care look into yourself. If not, it's no sweat off my back.

And if you feel that I'm smarter than you for whatever reason then that is an indictment on your own ego.

You don't need to escape earth's gravity to go to the moon. The moon obviously haven't.

I think you're confusing the rocket trail expected on earth with the rocket trail created when there's no atmosphere. On the moon, you can go straight to near horizontal for horizontal speed from the get-go because your don't have atmospheric drag.

The lander module did not have to reach escape velocity either, it "Only" had to rendezvous with the command module. The lander module were discarded, while the already in lunar orbit command module returned to earth. Reaching escape velocity from orbit is obviously far cheaper than reaching it from the surface

Edit: The lander did a rendezvous with the command module via a direct ascent IIRC. It didn't get into orbit first.

[Rama Set]

Since you didn't reply to my post about the Apollo mission, but went on with a reply explaining the effects of so-called social engineering (buzz buzz) and implicitly and effectively ranking yourself smarter than the rest of us, do explain how and when NASA got caught being lazy?

Please explain to me how it is possible for organizations not affiliated with NASA to accomplish some of the feats previously reserved for NASA? Blue Origin, SpaceX (pre-contact), Brazilian, Indian and even North Korean space agencies, and the myriad of smaller private, and even amateur space programs like Copenhagen Suborbitals and Dare who launches solid fuel rockets based on candlelight wax, but none of you ever really talk about these accomplishments and/or how they faked them?

I didn't respond to your post because, besides it being poorly written, was little more than gainsaying without any actual evidence to back it up.

Kind of like saying "controlling all mainstream media" or claiming psychological conditions collectively experienced by the world without any evidence?

Basically filling the function of a NASA apologist, which I have no doubt if I showed you 10 videos or photos of how obvious mistakes were made (or purposefully inserted) you would just list them off and find any possible way to defend your position, in the face of logic evidence and common sense.

I won't go down that road. If you care look into yourself. If not, it's no sweat off my back.

I have looked in to the claims and found them wanting.

And if you feel that I'm smarter than you for whatever reason then that is an indictment on your own ego.

You don't need to escape earth's gravity to go to the moon. The moon obviously haven't.

I think you're confusing the rocket trail expected on earth with the rocket trail created when there's no atmosphere. On the moon, you can go straight to near horizontal for horizontal speed from the get-go because your don't have atmospheric drag.

The lander module did not have to reach escape velocity either, it "Only" had to rendezvous with the command module. The lander module were discarded, while the already in lunar orbit command module returned to earth. Reaching escape velocity from orbit is obviously far cheaper than reaching it from the surface

Edit: The lander did a rendezvous with the command module via a direct ascent IIRC. It didn't get into orbit first.

[/quote]

[andruszkow]

Since you didn't reply to my post about the Apollo mission, but went on with a reply explaining the effects of so-called social engineering (buzz buzz) and implicitly and effectively ranking yourself smarter than the rest of us, do explain how and when NASA got caught being lazy?

Please explain to me how it is possible for organizations not affiliated with NASA to accomplish some of the feats previously reserved for NASA? Blue Origin, SpaceX (pre-contact), Brazilian, Indian and even North Korean space agencies, and the myriad of smaller private, and even amateur space programs like Copenhagen Suborbitals and Dare who launches solid fuel rockets based on candlelight wax, but none of you ever really talk about these accomplishments and/or how they faked them?

I didn't respond to your post because, besides it being poorly written, was little more than gainsaying without any actual evidence to back it up. Basically filling the function of a NASA apologist, which I have no doubt if I showed you 10 videos or photos of how obvious mistakes were made (or purposefully inserted) you would just list them off and find any possible way to defend your position, in the face of logic evidence and common sense.

I won't go down that road. If you care look into yourself. If not, it's no sweat off my back.

And if you feel that I'm smarter than you for whatever reason then that is an indictment on your own ego.

You don't need to escape earth's gravity to go to the moon. The moon obviously haven't.

I think you're confusing the rocket trail expected on earth with the rocket trail created when there's no atmosphere. On the moon, you can go straight to near horizontal for horizontal speed from the get-go because your don't have atmospheric drag.

The lander module did not have to reach escape velocity either, it "Only" had to rendezvous with the command module. The lander module were discarded, while the already in lunar orbit command module returned to earth. Reaching escape velocity from orbit is obviously far cheaper than reaching it from the surface

Edit: The lander did a rendezvous with the command module via a direct ascent IIRC. It didn't get into orbit first.

I'm sorry English isn't my native tongue, but when did you stop replying to poorly written posts all of the sudden? What's hard to understand from what I wrote?

I don't feel that you're smarter than me, I never said that and you know it. It's beginning to feel more like quite the opposite at this level.

You didn't reply because you know you're wrong, simple as that. A seemingly endless list of titles and achievements thrown at me like "NASA apologist" doesn't change a thing. It's juvenile at best.

[Luke 22:35-38]

GUYS SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE. U GUYS JUST LOOK OUT TO SEA AND THE WORLD IS OBVIOUSLY NOT FLAT. UR A BUNCH OF SPETHL PEOPLE. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE SOMTHING SO STUPID! I MEAN FOR GOD SAKE LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD IS LYING? HOW RETARDED CAN U GET?

Actually that's a misconception. You can't see the curvature at sea level. You can however see the horizon which is a result of the curvature. You can also see ships sink and if you far enough you can see cities sink many stories below the horizon. But you're right, FE is stupid.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

GUYS SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE. U GUYS JUST LOOK OUT TO SEA AND THE WORLD IS OBVIOUSLY NOT FLAT. UR A BUNCH OF SPETHL PEOPLE. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE SOMTHING SO STUPID! I MEAN FOR GOD SAKE LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD IS LYING? HOW RETARDED CAN U GET?

Actually that's a misconception. You can't see the curvature at sea level. You can however see the horizon which is a result of the curvature. You can also see ships sink and if you far enough you can see cities sink many stories below the horizon. But you're right, FE is stupid.

Calling something stupid when you equivocated airbrushing and doctoring a picture to escaping Earth's atmosphere safely on a rocket in terms of level of ease.

[Rama Set]

GUYS SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE. U GUYS JUST LOOK OUT TO SEA AND THE WORLD IS OBVIOUSLY NOT FLAT. UR A BUNCH OF SPETHL PEOPLE. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE SOMTHING SO STUPID! I MEAN FOR GOD SAKE LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD IS LYING? HOW RETARDED CAN U GET?

Actually that's a misconception. You can't see the curvature at sea level. You can however see the horizon which is a result of the curvature. You can also see ships sink and if you far enough you can see cities sink many stories below the horizon. But you're right, FE is stupid.

Calling something stupid when you equivocated airbrushing and doctoring a picture to escaping Earth's atmosphere safely on a rocket in terms of level of ease.

Pro-Tip: You are a couple of words short of a grammatically correct sentence and you misused the word "equivocate". If you want to be righteous, you have to keep your own nose clean.

[rabinoz]

When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. ... when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.

Seems to me if they were going to fake the whole thing, they would have made it look the way a non rocket scientist would expect it to look, because the entire watching world is very close to 100% NOT rocket scientists.  What possible reason would they have for inventing a new flight profile?

Or maybe, just maybe it was beyond their ability to fake? Your logic would dictate that NASA believed they could pull a fast one on the public simply because 99.9999% wouldn't know what it's supposed to look like.

And the all-seeing, all-knowing TheTruthIsOnHere knows what 99.9999% of the general public doesn't know? Now, just where does that put your self assessed IQ? From what I can see you are claiming an IQ of about 171, WOW (and I suppose if your IQ is that high, have the smarts to self-assess it -  or think you have  ). I thought that I was not all that dull at around 140 ( probably lost a bit of grey matter since then  ).

In an earlier post you claimed "That's why when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve" - well, no! The "curving over" after launch is simply because almost all launches we see are going into orbit around a spherical earth, and are not trying to "escape earth's gravity".

I don't know which lunar lander launch you have a problem with. This one of Apollo 17 (1972, I believe) looks OK to my admittedly untrained eyes:

Just remember that it is not trying to escape the moon's gravity, just rendezvous with the command module in a quite low orbit.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

GUYS SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE. U GUYS JUST LOOK OUT TO SEA AND THE WORLD IS OBVIOUSLY NOT FLAT. UR A BUNCH OF SPETHL PEOPLE. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE SOMTHING SO STUPID! I MEAN FOR GOD SAKE LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD IS LYING? HOW RETARDED CAN U GET?

Actually that's a misconception. You can't see the curvature at sea level. You can however see the horizon which is a result of the curvature. You can also see ships sink and if you far enough you can see cities sink many stories below the horizon. But you're right, FE is stupid.

Calling something stupid when you equivocated airbrushing and doctoring a picture to escaping Earth's atmosphere safely on a rocket in terms of level of ease.

Pro-Tip: You are a couple of words short of a grammatically correct sentence and you misused the word "equivocate". If you want to be righteous, you have to keep your own nose clean.

The word didn't sound right when I wrote it, equate is what I was thinking of. Also the sentence is fine if you understood the implied subject which was the ironic Bible quote I was replying to. But is that where we are now, just picking on each other's grammar and arguing semantics?

When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. ... when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.

Seems to me if they were going to fake the whole thing, they would have made it look the way a non rocket scientist would expect it to look, because the entire watching world is very close to 100% NOT rocket scientists.  What possible reason would they have for inventing a new flight profile?

Or maybe, just maybe it was beyond their ability to fake? Your logic would dictate that NASA believed they could pull a fast one on the public simply because 99.9999% wouldn't know what it's supposed to look like.

And the all-seeing, all-knowing TheTruthIsOnHere knows what 99.9999% of the general public doesn't know? Now, just where does that put your self assessed IQ? From what I can see you are claiming an IQ of about 171, WOW (and I suppose if your IQ is that high, have the smarts to self-assess it -  or think you have  ). I thought that I was not all that dull at around 140 ( probably lost a bit of grey matter since then  ).

In an earlier post you claimed "That's why when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve" - well, no! The "curving over" after launch is simply because almost all launches we see are going into orbit around a spherical earth, and are not trying to "escape earth's gravity".

I don't know which lunar lander launch you have a problem with. This one of Apollo 17 (1972, I believe) looks OK to my admittedly untrained eyes:

Just remember that it is not trying to escape the moon's gravity, just rendezvous with the command module in a quite low orbit.

And you... obviously didn't follow the conversation. That was in response to someone saying near 100% of people aren't rocket scientists. And wouldn't NASA fake it a particular way that they are used to seeing.

So let's get this. The lunar lander thing jerks straight up, with all the power of 11 bottle tickets some firecrackers, at just the exact right time to precisely lock into the thing in orbit. Not only that, but for some reason, it seems like a disaster waiting to happen when you have an object traveling nearly vertical trying to link with an object traveling nearly 3000mph. Unless of course, the orbiter wasn't exactly orbiting. Maybe it was just floating there with its advanced anti gravity drive.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Oh yeah, then they somehow escaped the moon's gravity and let Earth's gravity pull them back? Not to mention the sun's gravity being

[TotesNotReptilian]

When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. You need to be going roughly 25,000 mph to escape Earth's gravity, the moon being about 1/5 of the Earth's gravity, you'd have to travel 5,000mph horizontally to escape its gravity. That's why when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.

Anyway guys. Carry on with whatever you want to believe. Deny your own senses and all common sense and logic if that is what truly makes you happy.

I just wanted to clear up a bunch of misconceptions in this post.

1. You are confusing escape velocity with orbital velocity. They are completely different concepts. You do NOT need to reach escape velocity (or orbital velocity) to escape a planet's gravity, at least not in the way you imagine it.
2. The moon's gravity is about 1/6 that of earth at its surface. (1.6 m/s²)
3. Rockets generally don't travel along a parabolic curve, precisely because they often are trying to reach orbital velocity.

I'm not sure which video you were talking about, but on average, the ascent stage of the lunar module took off at only 1.8 m/s². As it reached orbit, it could reach accelerations of about 3.4m/s². At this rate, it takes about 15 minutes to reach the required 5000 mph rendezvous speed. I'm not sure how any of this contradicts any videos. There is less "ignition blast" because the lunar module's ascent engine was much weaker (16,000 N) than the Saturn V's engines (33,400,000 N).

So let's get this. The lunar lander thing jerks straight up, with all the power of 11 bottle tickets some firecrackers, at just the exact right time to precisely lock into the thing in orbit. Not only that, but for some reason, it seems like a disaster waiting to happen when you have an object traveling nearly vertical trying to link with an object traveling nearly 3000mph. Unless of course, the orbiter wasn't exactly orbiting. Maybe it was just floating there with its advanced anti gravity drive.

(see above for comments on the relatively weak lunar module engines)

Just because you don't understand how they did it doesn't mean it is impossible. No offense, but the people at NASA are way smarter than you.

1. It wasn't travelling vertically when they linked. By the time it reached the rendezvous point, it was travelling at almost the exact same speed and direction as the command module. They came together slowly. Both modules were able to make course corrections mid flight.
2. Yes, please enlighten us about this "advanced anti gravity drive".

Oh yeah, then they somehow escaped the moon's gravity and let Earth's gravity pull them back? Not to mention the sun's gravity being

Yes. By moving away from the moon and towards the earth. Why is this hard to understand? What does the sun's gravity have to do with anything? They stayed in roughly the same orbit around the sun the entire time.

Asking questions is fine and good, but claiming to know enough about this subject to proclaim it "impossible and fake" when you barely know anything about orbital mechanics and rockets is just embarrassing to watch.

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

Oh yeah, then they somehow escaped the moon's gravity and let Earth's gravity pull them back? Not to mention the sun's gravity being

Don't forget the Moon orbits the Earth, which is inside of Earth's Hill sphere. The Hill sphere of the Moon (relative to Earth) extends up to 63,000 km which is always inside the Hill sphere of Earth (relative to Sun) that extends up to 1.5 million km.