Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 5 votes

NASA Edits Proof Of Apollo Moon Hoax!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
547 replies to this topic

#466    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 11 September 2005 - 09:20 AM

QUOTE
You don't see any "herringbone artifacts" in this frame?


?? Your still is very different than mine - I captured the video from the streaming clip from the NASA site. I don't know what sort of capturing software you used, but it seems to have made the arm similar in color to the DVD version. And similar "double-knuckling effect. Are you sure that your still is from the online clip, and not the DVD? Look below for the comparisons of your still, then mine, then the DVD....
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image

Edited by turbonium, 11 September 2005 - 09:21 AM.


#467    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 11 September 2005 - 09:34 AM

QUOTE
Actually, no, it wasn't.

It was described as a color camera. That a color wheel was used to provide the color does not mean otherwise for its general description. From this link is a description of the camera.....Apollo 12
Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP), color TV camera,...
Let's not get too nitpicky.


#468    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 11 September 2005 - 09:38 AM

QUOTE
And note that those are just a few examples from the first minute of Disk 2. It's all over the footage

No doubt frames can be found - I said the footage in its entirety should exhibit the effects from the clip - but the overwhelming majority of the footage does not.


#469    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2005

Posted 11 September 2005 - 09:40 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 11 2005, 05:20 AM)
Your still is very different than mine

Somewhat different, yes.  But the question remains.  Do you see herringbone artifacts in the image?




#470    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 11 September 2005 - 09:44 AM

QUOTE
You mean the one clearly seen moving out of frame in the following sequence, at the same rate as everything else?

Look again at your stills - in the top frame, the black shade does not have its top visible - by the 4th and 5th of your frames, it is visible. The camera has moved slightly upwards over the course of these four frames. That is why the phone-type object moves out of view.

Edited by turbonium, 11 September 2005 - 09:46 AM.


#471    johnl285

johnl285

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2005

Posted 11 September 2005 - 09:44 AM

i'm sorry if i'm wrong and offended others when i used the term "liars." that may have been too strong of a word. perhaps "biased" would have been more appropriate.

turbonium, i've read a lot of your posts. i don't know if i've read them all. but i remember you saying "they take it as the gospel truth" or whatever, which i consider a joke against the real gospels. you also said "for God's sake" when the bible says not to swear by heaven or earth. the title "God" also may have a pagan origin.


#472    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2005

Posted 11 September 2005 - 09:48 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 11 2005, 05:34 AM)
It was described as a color camera.

Yes, it was.  And my point was to explain the color discrepancies in the aluminzed kapton coloration.  The camera is in motion, hence the color channels to not properly register, and areas which border significantly differing values show a color alteration.



#473    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2005

Posted 11 September 2005 - 09:54 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 11 2005, 05:38 AM)
I said the footage in its entirety should exhibit the effects from the clip - but the overwhelming majority of the footage does not.

The footage in its entirety isn't in constant motion, the overwhelming majority of it is largely static images.


#474    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2005

Posted 11 September 2005 - 10:02 AM

QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 11 2005, 05:44 AM)
The camera has moved slightly upwards over the course of these four frames. That is why the phone-type object moves out of view.

Precisely!  The phone-type object which you claimed remained stationary in the frame, when in fact it moves along with everything else in the scene, in the same direction and at the same rate.



#475    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 11 September 2005 - 10:06 AM

QUOTE(johnl285 @ Sep 11 2005, 02:44 AM)
i'm sorry if i'm wrong and offended others when i used the term "liars." that may have been too strong of a word. perhaps "biased" would have been more appropriate.

turbonium, i've read a lot of your posts. i don't know if i've read them all. but i remember you saying "they take it as the gospel truth" or whatever, which i consider a joke against the real gospels. you also said "for God's sake" when the bible says not to swear by heaven or earth. the title "God" also may have a pagan origin.

View Post



"The gospel truth" is not meant as a joke, it's a common saying, which I inferred in my post as meaning impeccable or undeniable truth.  

"For God's sake" is not meant as a blespheme. It's another common saying, not meant in any way as anti-Christian, or as a denigration of God. "Thank God" is also used in that same general fashion. And if you are a devout Christian, you may also interpret that as wrong.

But that is also personal interpretation of the Bible. It's not meant as anything other than as I described. I was raised Catholic, but do not personally interpret these sayings as any sort of denigration. It is intent of what is spoken, more than the words themselves, that is most important. My usage of these phrases was not done with any such anti-Christian intent.


#476    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 11 September 2005 - 10:09 AM

QUOTE(DataCable @ Sep 11 2005, 03:02 AM)
QUOTE(turbonium @ Sep 11 2005, 05:44 AM)
The camera has moved slightly upwards over the course of these four frames. That is why the phone-type object moves out of view.

Precisely!  The phone-type object which you claimed remained stationary in the frame, when in fact it moves along with everything else in the scene, in the same direction and at the same rate.

View Post


AH - OK, misunderstanding here. I meant the phone object remained stationary on the surface where it is placed. The object itself does not move. The people do move around,

Edited by turbonium, 11 September 2005 - 10:09 AM.


#477    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 11 September 2005 - 05:11 PM

The discussion is rather interesting, I'll grant you that!   The technical ideas coming through regarding the processing of these Apollo 12 images are pretty neat.   It's alot of discussion regarding a couple seconds of footage, which means someone's really doing some thinking!

However, alot of points have come up regarding focus and other things, and I'd like to add as concise a summary of what is appearing in this video segment (the camera death segment, as I like to call it) as I can.  This of course is based upon my knowedge of the sequence of events, as they're currently documented, as as I remember them.  Call this the "official story line", if you like original.gif

Refer to that great picture of the LM taken by Pete Conrad as Al Bean is egressing, which shows the MESA very clearly and the camera mounted to it.


This particular video sequence picks up after Pete has inverted the camera and Al is on the surface with him.  You're seeing the +Z strut here (the one with the ladder on it...the front of the LM).  An astronaut is standing immediately along side the camera, facing the MESA array, and some thermal covering is being removed.   You see about 8 seconds of activity as this covering is taken away and tossed.   The images of the covering are of course out of focus due to the proximity of the object to the lens of the camera.

After that is finished, Al Bean removes the camera. The camera lens moves into a dark area, and then what is observable is various random panning movements.  Nothing is in focus very well--which is as it should be, because:  

The Apollo 12 lunar surface color camera was fitted with what was called the Lunar Day lens.   It had a 30 degree field of view and focused from approximately 11 feet to infinity, with peak focus being at 23 feet from the lens.  In other words, the Apollo cameras were fixed focus.  No adjustments were necessary (nor were adjustments even possible) in the four lenses supplied with the cameras.  You merely installed a lens based upon what you were intending to show, and turned the camera on.

That having been said, the next sequence in this somewhat random camera movement shows the camera panning past the MESA area itself.  The gold foil at the top of the MESA, and the darker area above the gold foil is apparent in this perhaps 2 seconds of movement.  The images are well out of focus and show nothing clearly, because the camera was only about 2-4 feet from the structures being picked up by the lens, inside the range of focus for the lens.  

None of the 4 lenses could actually focus inside of 11 feet with the exception of the "Wide Angle" lens, which had an 80 degree field of view and could focus from 20 inches to infinity.  However, that lens was not used on the surface.  It was for interior spacecraft use only).

The camera then picks up some of the support structures of the plume deflectors for the RCS pods located between the +Z and -Y struts (to the left of the hatch) and the +Z and +Y struts (to the right of the hatch), and moves rapidly to the aft of the LM (up sun side), where you see the camera rolled around (over), some lunar surface comes into view for a couple seconds, the camera is manhandled a bit more, and finally, the sun hits the lens.   Camera death occurs seconds later, and the Apollo 12 show is over...as far as TV coverage is concerned on the lunar surface.

In looking at the photo I mentioned, you have to visualize someone standing immediately in front of the camera, facing the MESA and LM.  The couple seconds of video that's being discussed is the camera lens panning accross the LM, pretty much along the line separating the gold-foil covered descent stage and the darker area above it (the base area of the ascent stage).   The whitish colored strut type assemblies (RCS deflector supports)  are the bright objects passing through the camera field of view during this brief period of movement.

I think that summarizes the event sequence you're actually seeing here.  The particular segment of video you fellows are studying is all out of focus, because the camera lens couldn't focus at that distance (again, all being less than 11 feet from the camera at the time of this movement).

Of course, I realize Turb that you're investigating every possible aspect to determine whether there are in fact hands in these frames.   I encourage you to critically examine it further.  My contention is of course that there was no room for hands in the area where your seeing them...this being based upon the structural nature of what is clearly visible in the photo I mentioned, and of course based on my contention that they were in fact on the moon.

Now, if this were all shot in a sound studio somewhere on earth, all that gets thrown out the window.  However, I'd like to insert one more point regarding the latter.

If Apollo was hoaxed for some reason, and if these pictures were actually made on earth in a controlled environment so as to carefully fabricate a hoax, one would think that the perpetrators would want complete TV documentation of the events to support that hoax.

Thus, I can see no point in 1) leaving pictures with even a hint of human hands in the video, and 2) not simply cutting the scene, replacing the camera, and continuing on.  Live, or taped, the camera, if indeed on earth, could've, and by all rights should've been replaced.  All that was necessary would've been to cut it off, have a bunch of talk between mission control and the crew regarding the problem while they put a new camera in and turned it on, and then declaring the problem fixed in inimitable NASA fashion.

"OK! That looks like it worked just fine Pete.  We've got a picture now and it looks pretty good!"

"Whoop dee doo!   OK, let's get this sucker out on the tripod and move on."


Just a few more cents from this end.

Regards.


#478    DataCable

DataCable

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 61 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2005

Posted 11 September 2005 - 11:10 PM

QUOTE(MID @ Sep 11 2005, 01:11 PM)
The Apollo 12 lunar surface color camera was fitted with what was called the Lunar Day lens.

Actually, it's pretty clear that the zoom lens was affixed at the time.  I dind't even notice it myself until the discussion turned to FOV angles earlier, but when Pete rolled the camera into the nearly-upside-down orientation in which it remained until removed from the MESA, he actuated the zoom ring on the lens (probably by accident), as can be seen in this RealVideo clip, beginning about 1:35 in.  So the FOV from then on is roughly half of what it was when Pete dsceneded the ladder.


QUOTE
In other words, the Apollo cameras were fixed focus.

All the information I've seen of the zoom lens indicates a focus ring.  For example:

QUOTE
That having been said, the next sequence in this somewhat random camera movement shows the camera panning past the MESA area itself.

We've been fixating so much on this particular section that it might be helpful to look at what preceeded the visible section of alumunized kapton we've been scrutinizing.  Here is a gallery of the entire sequence during which the LM is visible after Beano removed the camera from the MESA.

QUOTE
...the camera was only about 2-4 feet from the structures being picked up by the lens

As verification of the camera's position, I refer to frame 17 from the above gallery:

user posted image

Here we see the steerable S-Band antenna in the background, with the lower end of the RCS Plume Deflector in the foreground, the left end of which is directly in front of the antenna's rotation hub, and almost dead center in the frame.  This gives us a camera sight line reference for the following photo, indicated by the red line, with the green dots marking the two landmarks I described:

user posted image
(click for full-size image)

Clearly the camera hadn't moved very far at all from it's mounted position on the MESA when this frame was captured.  Throughout the sequence, the camera moves slightly farther away from the LM.


QUOTE
None of the 4 lenses could actually focus inside of 11 feet...

According to p.18 the 2nd PDF linked above, focus range of the zoom lens was from 4ft. to infinity.




#479    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 12 September 2005 - 10:13 PM

QUOTE(DataCable @ Sep 11 2005, 07:10 PM)
QUOTE(MID @ Sep 11 2005, 01:11 PM)
The Apollo 12 lunar surface color camera was fitted with what was called the Lunar Day lens.

Actually, it's pretty clear that the zoom lens was affixed at the time.  I dind't even notice it myself until the discussion turned to FOV angles earlier, but when Pete rolled the camera into the nearly-upside-down orientation in which it remained until removed from the MESA, he actuated the zoom ring on the lens (probably by accident), as can be seen in this RealVideo clip, beginning about 1:35 in.  So the FOV from then on is roughly half of what it was when Pete dsceneded the ladder.


QUOTE
In other words, the Apollo cameras were fixed focus.

All the information I've seen of the zoom lens indicates a focus ring.  For example:

QUOTE
That having been said, the next sequence in this somewhat random camera movement shows the camera panning past the MESA area itself.

We've been fixating so much on this particular section that it might be helpful to look at what preceeded the visible section of alumunized kapton we've been scrutinizing.  Here is a gallery of the entire sequence during which the LM is visible after Beano removed the camera from the MESA.

QUOTE
...the camera was only about 2-4 feet from the structures being picked up by the lens

As verification of the camera's position, I refer to frame 17 from the above gallery:

user posted image

Here we see the steerable S-Band antenna in the background, with the lower end of the RCS Plume Deflector in the foreground, the left end of which is directly in front of the antenna's rotation hub, and almost dead center in the frame.  This gives us a camera sight line reference for the following photo, indicated by the red line, with the green dots marking the two landmarks I described:

user posted image
(click for full-size image)

Clearly the camera hadn't moved very far at all from it's mounted position on the MESA when this frame was captured.  Throughout the sequence, the camera moves slightly farther away from the LM.


QUOTE
None of the 4 lenses could actually focus inside of 11 feet...

According to p.18 the 2nd PDF linked above, focus range of the zoom lens was from 4ft. to infinity.

View Post




Hi Turb:

You know, you seem to be correct.  That sure looks like a zoom feature being used.  

The two sources you cited are more current than the 1968 Westinghouse OPS manual I've read.  

That's a cool sequence of the shots.  I think, however, that my basic scenario is essentially the same, zoom or not.  It doesn't appear that focus would've been much better at the distance that the camera was from the objects passing through the field of view...I don't believe there was autofocus.  

Again, I certainly was not a camera expert (neither were Conrtad and Bean!  original.gif ), and apparently, my manual is pre-Apollo 11.  All the TV camera meant to me was..."lemme see what you're doin there boys."

You guys have really torn this thing apart, though, I'll have to admit.  It's pretty interesting stuff.  I just figured I'd try to concisely describe what I'm seeing, based upon my experience of what was actually happening....the counterpoint, as-it-were.  Focus or not, it doesn't materially change what I'm seeing.

So, I'll let you guys continue on, and enjoy from a distance!

Regards.


#480    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 13 September 2005 - 01:19 AM

DataCable - as I posted, you interpreted the "stationary object" as being stationary within the image view. Now you know I meant that the object remained stationary "as placed on its surface". My point was that there are objects that do not remain stationary in relation to the phone-type object. The black shade and people (as I see them) are in different places from frame to frame. The stills we have been discussing show, again in my opinion, a distinct difference for the shade - varying from close to all the way down to the surface the phone object is placed on, to up to where the lighter area is much more in view, with the phone object still in the same spot on the surface it is placed on. I also see a man on our left standing and sitting in different frames, in conjunction with how high or low the shade is, and again with the phone object not moving from its place on the surface.

Edited by turbonium, 13 September 2005 - 01:20 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users