Well I have several issues with this.
The first is that the camera is supposed to be controlled by Houston. With a 4 second round trip for the speed of light, how does the camera operator manually anticipate the lift off perfectly and get a centered shot, and focus as the craft rises? He anticipates it all? 4 seconds ahead of time? He then loses the shot much later when they want a break away from the take off (hoisted object to top of crane) in a situation where the anticipation is negligible as the lander isn't moving out of frame so fast.
Firstly, the radio delay to the moon is 1.3 seconds...so 2.6 round-trip...not '4'...please check your facts! The round-trip delay may have been a LITTLE longer than 2.6 seconds because it may have had to be relayed via some distant radio repeater...but certainly no more than 2.8 seconds.
Anyway - there is an interesting story to that. The guy who controlled the camera on the Moon Buggy gave an interview once about how he pulled it off. He said that he did some back-of-envelope arithmetic on how fast he'd have to move the joystick back in Houston space center to keep the LEM in-shot given the launch speed and accelerations. He practiced a bit with their simulator to get the right joystick speed - and then listened to the countdown from the LEM - when it reached '3' he moved the joystick in the way he'd practiced, and by pure luck got a really nicely centered shot. The LEM does eventually go out of frame - but he did really well all things considered.
Why are there no hills behind the moon hills? The ones in the foreground are the only ones you see, even at horizon level.
Well, the moon (like the Earth) IS NOT FLAT. The moon's horizon curves away much more rapidly than it does on Earth - so mountains disappear below the horizon much more quickly than our "gut feel" suggests. Also, those hills that you do see are much further away than your gut feel suggests because without an atmosphere, you don't see the tell-tale shifts in color that you see on Earth to help you understand how far away something is. There were many occasions when the Astronauts thought they were very close to a small object, when in fact they were farther away from a large one - or even closer to a small one. Our millions of years of eyesight evolution has not prepared us for the Moon.
Also, the moon landings were not going to expected to touch down at exactly the planned spot - since they didn't want the LEM to land on an steep slopes, they picked areas of the moon that are flat for long distances...hence they did not pick anywhere that was near any large hills or mountains.
Having played Kerbal Space program with a plant 1/10th the size of earth, I can tell you, you can see more than half a mile. How small does NASA want us to think the moon is? 5 mile walk right round?
These kinds of comment always make me giggle! I've worked in the video games industry for decades...trust me when I tell you not to trust what you see as an accurate representation of reality.
As for the flight of the lander, just no. It looks exactly like it is being hoisted up on a crane. It is supposed to weigh 15,000kg. Now even 1/8th weight makes it 2 tons on the moon. This does not look like 2 tons lifting off. It looks like a lightweight prop on a crane.
Again, we humans are not used to the 'feel' of 1/6th gravity. Yes, it looks weird - and that's how you know it's right. If it looked like your "gut feel" says - then you'd KNOW it was faked. If they'd have faked it, they'd have made it look "gut feel" correct and not physically reasonable.
The sparks are ridiculous. Very Stanley Kubric.
Well, again, you're used to Earthly sparks which (a) fall to the ground much faster because of much bigger gravity and (b) cool off very quickly in the air, and rapidly stop glowing.
On the moon, those sparks stayed aloft much longer than you'd expect - and they glowed continuously because they had nothing but vacuum around them.
Again - the fact that it doesn't match your very human expectations is proof that it wasn't faked.
What powers the camera? You know, being as the temperature on the light side of the moon is 123 degrees centigrade? Even today, batteries do not operate well in extremes of hot or extremes of cold.
Batteries have a narrow operating range ... especially batteries in the in 1960s. How do they keep this battery in a 20 degree band on the moon? Its all nonsense.
What powers the camera is indeed batteries...the same big bank of them that powered the moon rover. (The camera used for this shot was the one mounted onto the rover).
The lunar rover had two 36-volt "silver-zinc potassium hydroxide" non-rechargeable batteries with a capacity of 121 Amp hours each.
Do you have "silver-zinc potassium hydroxide" non-rechargeable batteries in any devices at home? No? Didn't think so.
Are you a battery chemistry expert? No? Didn't think so.
Typically of Moon-landing deniers - you're guessing - and guessing very badly - and without even looking at the technology that was used. You think your pathetic knowledge of $2 AAA batteries makes you enough of an expert to decree that it's impossible to make batteries costing tens of thousands of dollars that can withstand some temperature changes? With zero knowledge about the subject - and without even bothering to check what technology was used - you start babbling on as though you know what you're saying. That's not a very smart thing to blather on about is it? Stop saying this crap - it doesn't convince anyone with half a brain in their head - and it really doesn't make you look very smart does it?
Also, it's a myth that it's always cold on the moon - in prolonged full sunlight, the surface can get hot enough to melt lead - and in prolonged full shadow, cold enough to liquify nitrogen. The moon gets 15 days of continuous daylight and 15 of continuous night. The moon missions were planned for the "lunar twilight" so that the average surface temperatures would be acceptable...but still, anything that didn't move around had to have reflective mylar sheeting over it to reflect sunlight and/or retain internal heat. Things like electronics, batteries and spacesuits tended to be actively heated and/or cooled as necessary.
Nobody said the moon landings were easy. A MOUNTAIN of clever engineering went into the design of every last nut and bolt. The assumptions you make are that this was done on a shoe-string budget - but it wasn't. I read somewhere that every single nut, bolt and rivet that went into the LEM was examined individually under a microscope to ensure there were no cracks in them. It cost BILLIONS of dollars and had some of the best engineering minds on the planet working on it. Keeping a battery from freezing up would be one of the simpler things to do - but it would still have occupied the minds of a number of experts for many months.
Your super-naive answers are ill-informed and ridiculous...just like those of the other lunar landing deniers. There isn't ONE thing they say that isn't trivially disprovable...not a single one.