231 replies to this topic

[turbonium]

Quote

Looks to me like it moves upward away from the lights, then back down to the left of them.

You can't see how silver in direct sunlight could be bright?  You can even see in AS12-46-6779 that the silver is segmented just like the light in the video.

Yeah, if one's a reflection off an external object, and the other's a reflection off part of the camera, then they wouldn't move together would they?

Upwards away from the lights? To me, it definitely moves upwards to the right side and towards the lights. And then, yes, back down and to the left of them.

Look at the second image below - not in sunlight, yet still shining brightly through in the darkness. That isn't possible with LM silver insulation, they would have to be actual lights.

The stationary light in the upper left is also in darkness as the bank of lights moves. And both lights appear quite solid, which further supports the argument that they are indeed original sources of light, not "foggy", undefined and translucent reflections (as seen with light red reflections in the first image below) into the camera or reflections from external objects.
  

Edited by turbonium, 05 October 2006 - 06:36 AM.

[flyingswan]

Quote

The gold mylar of the LM still remains gold in color throughout the Apollo 17 video clip...

In fact, I could only find one area on the LM where green and blue appear stationary on the LM for an instant, but the gold mylar, as I said, still remains gold in color....

Each frame as we see the video is made up of a set of three frames, one with each colour filter.  It thus gets the correct colour for a stationary object, but three different coloured images of a moving object.

[AtomicDog]

In these two photos, I have shown a feature in the video that cooresponds to a strut in the still photo.

I have shown a feature in the video that cooresponds to a black painted area in the still photo.

I have shown a feature in the video that cooresponds to gold mylar in the still photo.
Remember, if these video stills were not showing the LM I would not be able to even come close to matching the features of the LM.

Turbonium has shown features in the video and he has presented a hypothesis that they are
a chair, a technician, a shade, and an arm. He shows no evidence to support his hypothesis; he just assumes that it is true.

I have shown evidence that the features are features of the LM by posting stills of the video with a matching still, and I show where the features coorespond with features on the LM.

I think it is obvious where the preponderence of the evidence lies.

[straydog]

Quote

As to the transparent exhaust plume, much the same engine is used in the second stage of the Delta II launch vehicle.  Google up a few rocketcam shots of Delta launches and you'll see that it also has a transparent plume.

The coloured specks are blown away bits of the descent stage foil covering.  Remember the TV camera does colour with a rotating colour filter, so something moving fast has the colour of the filter used for the frame it is captured in.  In some of your frames you can see pieces at three points along their trajectories in three different colours.

Could you explain how your "invisible cable wire" lift-off would look different from a rocket launch?  What are the key features that demonstrate this?

Thanks for the explaination about the flying colored specks ... I thought it might have something to do with the video recording of this , but didn't know exactly what .

I see what you're saying about their being a transparent exhaust plume and even no engine noise in a vacuum ( as has been mentioned too ) ... but wouldn't there have been some kind of vibration in the astronaut's voices upon liftoff ?.... or at least a bit of excitment in the fact that it did lift off and they were going to at least make it back into lunar orbit ?

You asked me why I thought it looked as though the LM were jerked up by an invisible cable wire ?  ....You are assuming that this footage was filmed on the moon .... Therefore , no exhaust plume or engine noise would be in a vacuum  .... I am assuming that this footage was faked here on Earth  ... Therefore if there was no engine noise , or exhaust plume or anything else which would appear to be a launch from Earth's gravity in a non vaccum , it would have had to have been faked by pulling the LM up by a cable , as was done in the launch simulations .

[AtomicDog]

You know, I didn't know that there was already a thirty-seven page thread going back over a year on this very subject:

NASA Edits Proof of Apollo moon Hoax!


I had no idea of turbonium's single mindedness on the subject. I'm not, and it's getting tedious.
No one sees an arm but turboniun, and it is obvious that he's not going to budge. I'm not one to beat my head against a brick wall.

Since I've made my case, I'm bailing the thread. Enjoy your arm, turb.

[straydog]

AtomicDig ..... Try not to speak for everyone okay ?  ...  I saw what looks like an arm in two different places on this Apollo 12 clip .... The one turbs mentioned , where it looks as though the arm's closed fist is holding some kind of a stick ....and then another place ( can't remember the running time at the moment ) where the same arm seems to come from behind something and moves in a downwards motion .... It might not be an arm but it sure does look like one , even in it's flesh tone coloring .

We have had this discussion before though on the Apollo 17 photo anomaly thread .... All of this is subjective and different people will see different things according to their belief system ... but as far as either side proving what they are seeing , it is just pure speculation .

turbonium sees an arm , you see part of the LM ...  I see spotlights , you see smears .... It probably just depends on whether you believe the Apollo videos and photos contain anomalies or not .

[aquatus1]

Quote

We have had this discussion before though on the Apollo 17 photo anomaly thread .... All of this is subjective and different people will see different things according to their belief system ... but as far as either side proving what they are seeing , it is just pure speculation .

turbonium sees an arm , you see part of the LM ...  I see spotlights , you see smears .... It probably just depends on whether you believe the Apollo videos and photos contain anomalies or not .

Well, it's not quite the same thing.  After all, he isn't just seeing parts of the LM; he's also correlating them to existing footage of the LM.  Regardless of whether you believe there are anomalies in the footage or not, it is pretty hard to dismiss something like a correllation, as it does not really lend itself to a great deal of subjective interpretation.  Whether or not you believe slide 13 is anomalous or not, it cannot be denied that it ties into two seperate points in a static picture of the LM.  Whether or not you feel slide 12 is anomalous, it cannot be denied that it depicts a bright flared spot on the left, just as the bright struts appear in the original, and two extending straight blurs to the right, just as the two other struts go of to the right in the original.

In short, the main difference here is that saying it is a hand is speculation, until such time as it is correlated to some sort of picture depicting how it could have occured.  In this case, these pictures have been corralated to the LM picture.  In the case of your previous thread, with the shadow, it was corralated through the use of models and lights to a replication of the existing scenario.  This means that it is not only a lcaim, it is a claim that is supported with evidence that it could have occurred in the way it is claimed.  It isn't merely a claim that might have happened based solely on the notion that it might have happened.  Whether it is correct or not is a different matter, but make no mistake, this is a claim with meat to it, as opposed to mere speculation based on subjective interpretation.

[DogsHead]

Quote

turbonium sees an arm , you see part of the LM ... I see spotlights , you see smears .... It probably just depends on whether you believe the Apollo videos and photos contain anomalies or not .

My bold
I would have thought that the salient issue here is, whether an anomaly in a few frames of low quality video, is sufficient reason to conclude that the landings were hoaxed.

[Pericynthion]

Quote

You've offered an interesting interpretation.. I do have a few problems with it, however.

First, the camera appears to move from the lunar surface upwards to these lights.

Second, I can't see any way how silver insulation can create the appearance of such very bright lights.

And last, I posted a clip earlier that shows this bank of lights moving while another light remains stationary. As with the "Sun reflections" alternative explanation given by MID, this phenomenon would also mean that it cannot be LM landing gear.

Cheers

Hello again, turbonium.  It's a beautiful night here, so I thought I'd set up a little experiment to test your second objection to my interpretation of these Apollo 12 video captures:



Your claim is that the bright areas in the image are studio lights.  My claim is that this is sunlight reflecting off of the silver insulation on the LM +Y primary landing gear strut (see my earlier post for a shot of the LM showing the gold and silver strut insulation).

I thought I'd run a test to find out for myself just how bright reflections off of silver Mylar can be.  I started with a cardboard tube I had lying around which is 5 inches in diameter and 5 feet long.  By pure coincidence, the lower half of the LM primary landing gear strut is a tube 5.5 inches in diameter before addition of the thermal insulation.  The total strut length is about 10 feet, so my tube is a pretty good representation of the bottom half of a full-size LM landing gear strut.  

I wrapped the tube in a few towels to give it a bit of padding to represent the insulation blankets and then wrapped the whole thing in a gold Mylar space blanket.  Finally, I cut out an extra strip of Mylar blanket and taped it silver-side-out on the tube to represent the silver portion of the insulation.  Here's what I ended up with:



The finished strut mockup is 5 feet long and 6.5 inches in diameter  (the ruler in the photo is 2 feet long).  I brought this assembly outside after sunset and propped it up at an angle in my driveway.  I then lit the scene from behind with a single automobile headlight on low beam from about 25 feet away.  I covered the second headlight on my car with a blanket so I'd only have a single light source to represent the sun.  

When this was ready, I stood in about the same position I think the video was shot from and took a couple photos with a digital camera.  I locked the camera's light meter on the gray asphalt of my driveway just at the base of my mockup.  This should be a decent approximation to the color of lunar soil.

Here's what I got:



Still think reflections can't be that bright??

(Author's note:  the use of a garbage dumpster to represent the LM descent stage is in no way a commentary on the fine products of the Grumman Aerospace Corporation)

[turbonium]

Quote

In these two photos, I have shown a feature in the video that cooresponds to a strut in the still photo.

No, not even close when compared to several images - such as this one....

Quote

I have shown a feature in the video that cooresponds to a black painted area in the still photo.

No, their shapes are completely different. The LM black material is rectangular. In absolutely no images from the clip is the black material rectangular.....

Quote

I have shown a feature in the video that cooresponds to gold mylar in the still photo.

Nobody can make that claim seriously. The gold mylar is absolutely, without a doubt, 100%, not even close to matching up with the stills...

Quote

Remember, if these video stills were not showing the LM I would not be able to even come close to matching the features of the LM.

I agree. The features in the video stills do not come close to matching the features of the LM. Therefore, the video stills do not show the LM.

Quote

Turbonium has shown features in the video and he has presented a hypothesis that they are a chair, a technician, a shade, and an arm. He shows no evidence to support his hypothesis; he just assumes that it is true.

That's ridiculous. The evidence is presented throughout the video clip itself.  I certainly don't "just assume" these things are true. I first began studying this video clip, and the stills from it, about 2 years ago, and presented them to pro-Apollo forums to garner opposing views. The fact is that their explanations do not provide acceptable alternative possibilities. The bare right arm cannot be anything but a bare right arm - in no way can it be the S-band antenna cover. The chair cannot be anything but a chair - in no way can it be gold mylar. When one uses basic common sense comparisons, one has to come to the same conclusions.

I have shown evidence that the features are features of the LM by posting stills of the video with a matching still, and I show where the features coorespond with features on the LM.

Your "evidence" simply does not hold up to scrutiny. You are trying to make everything seen in the video clip match up to the strut area of the LM. But nothing matches up.  

LM Struts

1. The LM struts are clearly separate from the black material in the photos - only 2 or 3 of
    the strut ends touch the black material. The lower left strut isn't even touching near the
    black material - it's actually over the gold mylar....



     The white in the video is attached to the black material entirely, as one joined
     piece....



2. As I pointed out earlier, the white in the video clip isn't necessarily even a line! The
    video still below clearly proves, 100%, that this white material is not a strut...



Black material

1. The black material of the LM is rectangular in shape, while the black material in the
    video stills clearly shows the black material is angular....

2. Same as point 2 above - in the video, the black material is attached to the white
    material all along the top. The LM black material is not attached to the struts.

Gold Mylar

This assertion is what proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what we see in the video clip is not the LM. Sorry, but there's not a snowball's chance in hell that these things are gold mylar. And if one comes to terms with that fact, using only basic common sense, then one can come to the realization that this is not video from the Moon.

I think it is obvious where the preponderence of the evidence lies.

I agree. Absolutely.

[flyingswan]

Quote

I see what you're saying about their being a transparent exhaust plume and even no engine noise in a vacuum ( as has been mentioned too ) ... but wouldn't there have been some kind of vibration in the astronaut's voices upon liftoff ?.... or at least a bit of excitment in the fact that it did lift off and they were going to at least make it back into lunar orbit ?

It's a test pilot thing.  Read "The Right Stuff".

[flyingswan]

Quote

No, not even close when compared to several images - such as this one....

Strange thing is, wherever you write "No match" on a picture, I can see the match right there.  Once AtomicDog identified the area on the LM that the TV camera was pointing at, I can pick out the corresponding features in every pair of pictures.

Edited by flyingswan, 06 October 2006 - 07:56 AM.

[flyingswan]

Quote

No, their shapes are completely different. The LM black material is rectangular. In absolutely no images from the clip is the black material rectangular.....

Er, in the right picture you draw the top line along the strut, in the left picture along the edge of the black foil.  The match comes when you draw the line along the strut in both pictures.

Given the slightly different viewing angles and fields of view of the two cameras, and the movement of the TV camera which introduces multi-colour effects, the match is excellent, and I don't understand why you can't see it.

[straydog]

ONE SINGLE LIGHT SOURCE CREATES ONE LONG LIGHT REFLECTION .



THESE LIGHTS APPEAR TO BE SEPERATED INTO DIFFERENT SECTIONS , AS IN MULTIPLE LIGHTS .



NO MATCH

Edited by straydog, 06 October 2006 - 05:42 PM.

[straydog]

Quote

It's a test pilot thing.  Read "The Right Stuff".

I have the movie and have watched it many times ... It's one of my favorites ....  So they all imitated Chuck Yeager then . ... Brave men don't show emotion or excitement , even when it's possibly a question of life and death ? .... Okay , this may explain why the lack of enthusiam in their voices , but why no vibration in their voices upon launch ?  The rocket engine which should have vibrated the entire small craft , was located directly below where they were standing .

Edited by straydog, 06 October 2006 - 06:04 PM.