I dont know I find it hard to find any body with integrity any more, we have no more adults just grown up babies. The Criminals have become heroes. We have millions of automated drones stuck in a rat race which no one wins. Where are the leaders? They can be great? Give me an example.

I am not sure why exactly so many believe the Apollo missions were faked.... I have seen a few documentaries discussing the issue, but most of the evidence against the missions were invalid or inconclusive. "Flag waving and no stars."

I just can't stand the word "government" in these threads anymore. It seriously gives me a headache. And usually no evidence follows after the word "government", mostly the phrase "government coverup" and even more so "government conspiracy." All these words to me simply mean to me that whoever is speaking is taking the incredibly common fear of the government to make a certain claim.

The evidence that goes against the conspiracy theorists that affects me the most is actually the psychological evidence. As in, "why would all these people lie?" It is a simple question but indeed is powerful. I find it hard to believe that many people would go against all morals and strive to make such a huge lie that deceives the entire human race. To me that is simply...evil.

Well, I think we cleared the other aspect...

As to the other two, there was a time long ago when we cleared this too, I thought.

This "first appearance of a hand" that you see at ~1:57 is explainable, and I think I did this before, by listening to the context of what was being done at the time, as described by the astronauts who were doing it. You see about 8 seconds of blurry white material moving all about the field of view, out of focus and completely indiscernable.

The dialogue is as follows:

115:57:43 Conrad: (Laughing heartily) "Look at that; that (antenna) leg doesn't want to...Go on down, leg!" (Laughs)

115:57:49 Bean: "Okay; I'll get that TV down and show everybody."

115:57:52 Conrad: "Wait a minute. (Reading the antenna decal) "Lock inner mast; lock outer mast; extend and lock legs" - we've got. "Align. Remove thermal cover." Okay. (Garbled) one thermal cover. "
This is the moment where you see a "hand". As this piece of stuff gets manhandled about, it suddenly disappears and you hear Pete say: "Good Bye."


Now, in context...what do you actually think that mess of blurry white that moved all over the frame and then disappeared was?
The thermal cover, perhaps?


Then of course we hear Al say "Okay, Houston; I'm going to move the TV camera now."
But we've discussed what's being seen in those few seconds.



Then, you see a "fleshy arm" at ~2:11.

This is part of the manhandling of the camera segment that we've already discussed.. You're showing a single frame of something that appeared for less than a second...just after the camera obviously did an approximately 120 degree roll.

The camera was moved off the MESA, then its lens moved in the direction of the Sun, aft facing in relation to the LM, which is obvious from the film, although you can't make any detail out.

Now, just consider the dialogue that was going on when we saw that "hand" (thermal cover).
Pete was deploying the S-band antenna. He got the cover out of the way, and removed the antenna assembly. Al then moved to the camera, and Pete set the antenna assembly in place.


Know where he set it?


Right where Al pointed the camera at the moment you see a "fleshy arm".
How likely do you think that what is being imaged for that fraction of a second is one of the S-Band antenna supports, glaring in the Sun?


I tell you, it's this thing (that dish thing in the view...the MESA is clearly visible in this shot to the left), which enters the field of view of the camera for a microsecond:


AS12-46-6750




Now, take a cereful look to the right of the antenna.
See that piece of stuff laying on the ground?

I bet you might conclude that's the thermal cover that you saw being whipped off of this antenna assembly by Pete, where you say you saw a hand.
It is....



Now, I know you visualize a hand in that sequence. Another thing I want you to know is that the idea is not that untenable. You've got to realize that there were 4 hands in close proximity to the area at the time, and one may have entered the field of view for a microsecond.

Two of them belonged to Pete, and the other two to Al. I'd bet if an obscure image of a hand appears there...it's one of Pete's, since he was right there removing that thermal cover...(hell, knowing Pete, he might have waved on purpose).

But, it's a wee bit hard to see.

This is not a matter of bashing your contentions with a malicious motive.
It is, as I've said, a matter of knowing what was going on, what was being done, the orientation of the gear, the procedures the fellows were following, and logically concluding what's being seen.


Still, you're talking about seconds of obscure video and concluding that there are concrete things that didn't exist on the surface of the Moon present in them.
What I've explained to you is an analysis of what you're seeing based upon what they were doing and what is there.


Now honestly Turb...can you really maintain a strong argument in the face of these things?

I like it...original, creative, and completely lacking in substantive support.
Just a simplistic conclusion, based upon what....24 years of experience in the world? The "cold war" ended when you were a baby. And Apollo ended a decade prior to your birth.
Do you actually know anything about it whatsoever ?

MID

The white material is what the hand is grabbing at in the video.....



In the second frame above, the hand has come up from the lower right corner, and is tugging at the white material. In the third frame, the hand has let the material go, and is moving out of view.

The hand is not white like the material - it is flesh toned in frame 2 and (even moreso) in frame 3. The movement is clearly that of an arm / hand / fingers clutching and releasing, as it then moves down and away from the white material.

Now, as to the issue of what is being said during the time of that scene....

"Align. Remove thermal cover." Okay. (Garbled) one thermal cover. " This is the moment where you see a "hand".

I really don't understand why you think this dialogue supports your argument. That it indicates the white material we see moving around is the thermal cover being removed? Sure. I'll go along with that. But what does that have anything to do with the hand we see come up, quickly tug at the thermal cover, let the thermal cover go, and then move down and away from the thermal cover?

You believe that the hand is part of the white thermal cover - maybe a strap or something. But nothing we see supports your claim. Absolutely nothing.

- a strap would be white, like the rest of the material. This "object" is not white. It is flesh colored.

- a strap would flutter around randomly, like the rest of the loosened material. This "object" does not. It moves in a direct path towards the white material, and then moves in a direct path away from the white material.

- a strap does not have articulating fingers that pinch and release. This "object" does have fingers that pinch and release.

- a strap is not shaped like an arm / hand. This "object" is.

What is there about this "object" that doesn't indicate it is a hand?

Since you don't believe this is a genuine hand, then how would a genuine hand look any different than this does?? It doesn't. The exact same motion can be duplicated by anyone.

You can't convince me that I'm looking at an elephant when it's undoubtedly a monkey. You can't convince me it's a strap when it's undoubtedly a hand.



If it was the hand / arm of an astronaut, it would still look quite different than what we see - but at least it's a much more reasonable suggestion than a strap!

Have you ever seen a live stage play, where something flubs up the scene? Maybe an an actor is playing the part of a King, and suddenly, halfway through his dialogue, the crown slips off his head? In a live play, they can't stop the scene and do a retake - they have to keep the scene going. So then we might see the arm of a stagehand discretely reach out from behind a curtain, pick up the crown, and wait until the King comes close enough to the curtain to re-crown him, all the while staying out of sight.

What we see in the segments with the hand and arm are two prime examples of this. They are the hand and arm of stagehands, discretely helping the actors (astronauts) to keep the scene going, while trying their best to stay out of sight.

Turbonium, you may see hands and arms, but other people do not. MID's explanation in terms of what the astronauts were doing at the time fits well with what I see on the video, so as far as I'm concerned your argument boils down to your word against mine, which is unlikely to be a winning situation for you.

As I said Turb, there are indeed hands manipulating the white material. As I also pointed out, there were several hands there, and maybe you're seeing a momentary shadowy hand appear....It's hard to tell. You isolate a single frame which appears to show something that looks like some fingers...well, maybe. The fingers and the hands were in fact there, so its possible.

What is not hard to tell is that "flesh colored" seems to be your description. It's greyish if anything, and very nondescript otherwise. Again, you're using exceedingly sparse and undefinable "proof" for your contentions. You contend it's flesh colored. It's a little darker than the white thing, but flesh colored is a huge stretch.




That is not a reasonable question.
We know what was there, we know what the guys were doing. I've told you that there were four hands all in close proximity to the camera. You're going to cite a grainy one frame image of something that could possibly look like a hand...in an area where there were four of them, and ask me to prove that this smudge isn't one? Can't do that...any more than I can say it isn't one of those hands. It might be. So?

You're contending that this micro-second proves that it's an unprotected, bare arm and hand!

The point here is to prove that! And, as I've pointed out, knowing what was there, where the camera was, and what they were doing, leads one to rather obvious conclusions.





I do not "believe" anything. I know it can't be a genuine, unprotected human hand. The same motion can be duplicated by an astronauts hand, which that may well have been, but one can't see enough to state that uncategorically...let alone that it's a bare arm!



Again...I don't believe anything. I know what they were doing. It could be a piece of attachment, it could be a part of the cover hitting the light differently, it could be one of Pete or Al's hands...I don't have any idea, because you can't clearly see anything. However, again, context and knowledge tends to determine what's going on rather well.

I know we're looking at the thermal cover being man handled. Maybe we're seeing one of the men handling it for a micro-second. Seems logical, since there was a cover, and there were men there. That's support enough. However, your claim is that there is a bare arm in that fraction of a second of grainy video...so, as you claim, in much the same way as you claimed TV monitors, chairs, curtains, and other sundry stuff that really couldn't be seen in areas that the knowledgable did in fact know what was being seen...

...your asking me to prove the obvious, and telling me I have no support for my claims?
Turb, with all due respect, the support for claims is your burden, and that's a heavy burden.





Turb...
This is very telling, and very distressing.

Of course, I've seen various stage productions where someone flubs up, and a stage hand pops in to discreetly fix things up.

The connection is disturbing. You're contending that your fanciful interpretations of human appendages and such, from fractions of a second of grainy TV are evidence of stage hands discreetly helping actors keep the scene going?

Even if I could entertain such notions...there was no scene going! The camera was stationary, showing nothing at all save random movements. What could stage hands have been fixing? How come we saw none of them on Apollo 11, the first "show"?? You'd think opening night would be the time for flubs to occur, no??

But seriously...these men were on the surface of the Moon, sitting on the Ocean of Storms, about 900 miles west of where Apollo 11 had landed 4 months earlier, in a virtually complete vacuum...the unfiltered Sun glaring at them during early lunar morning.

You're attempting to tell me that it was all an act...based on a few seconds of grainy video that has a singular interpretation...yours, attached to it?
We took over 580 photos of the place on that mission...and none of them show stage hands...or evidence of them...their chairs, their FOOTPRINTS IN THE DUST...their monitors, curtains, a can of coke....nothing


I think you've stretched this argument as far as you can Turb. It doesn't have legs anymore...


As Swanny said...

I think you are the only person who sees these things here.

I just have to do this...

We have seen many contentions about Apollo being faked.
And, claims tend to put forth "evidence" of just plain dumb mistakes made...impossibilities in photo representations, and such things.
NASA totally scewed up this deal and it's obvious to anyone that there was a fake here, right?
They're a bunch of dummies, then.
Can't get this fake by the astute HB.

I present the HB with something, a wee challenge perhaps. Take a look at this picture:

AS14-66-9229


It's a beauty, taken by Ed Mitchell out of the AS-14 LM window on Friday, February 5, 1971. That's Al Shepard, America's first man is space, moments after setting foot on the lunar surface during EVA 1.

I direct the HB's attention to the left arm of Captain Shepard. See that black strap? Well, there's a watch that is clearly visible on that strap. If you go over to ALSJ, you can get a high res of this photo and blow it up really big, and you'll be able to actually see what time that watch says.


Look...


It's actually a little clearer if you simply look at the high res (I'm not putting that here because it'll stretch the page too much)



This is an Omega Speedmaster Professional. It looks like it says 9:00. However, it has a fixed hand that's always straight up through 12:00 unless the chronograph is running. If you look carefully, the hour hand is a hair off of 9:00 and the minute hand is at 0:55. It's 8:55 by this watch.


Now, so what?
Well, this photo was taken at 115:32 GET on the Apollo 14 mission. Apollo 14 launched on January 31, 1971, at 3:03pm CST. Astronaut's watches were always set to Central time (Houston time). If you extend out 115:32 from that launch time, the time this photo was taken was, you guessed it, 8:55am on 2-5-71. Thus, of course, Al's watch concurs with the official record.


Of course, I, being chief NASA Disinformation Specialist, expect it to.

But the point is this:


If NASA were such stooges that they could make so many blatant, stupid errors, which clearly show that they faked the whole thing...why then, would such an insignificant detail as the time a wrist watch indicates be paid attention to, so that the time it showed would be exactly what time the official records said it was when this one picture took place?

We make horrific blunders that geniuses like Sibrel and Kaysing had no problem catching, and yet, we pay attention to something as insignificant as a wrist watch on an astronaut's arm (something that's essentially invisible and unresolvable on TV, and on all but a few Apollo photos that were taken)...on a mission few people were paying any attention to anyway, at a time when few people were actually watching it on TV, a Friday morning in February...kids were in school (save those who skipped it to watch, which were probably few by Apollo 14), people were at work across at least half the country, and in the west, people were just wiping the sleep out of their eyes...


We can't hide the stage lights that are so obvious ( )...yet, we can damn well make sure that a wrist watch is set to the correct time, so as to confirm the official record????

Does the lack of rationality present in this argument have any effect at all?

Short answer: Yes

Good stuff MID!

Similar nice examples of such superhuman attention to detail are:

Venus visible in the lunar sky in Apollo 14 lunar surface photos - only noticed after a hoax believer asked why there were no such images.

Apollo 11 video of earth matching the historical weather records - Sibrel's "smoking gun" shooting him in the foot.

Many thanks, Pinchey...

Oh yes...there are several such little things.

I love finding things like that photo of the watch. I knew there had to be some. Not many, but there's another from Apollo 12 where the chronograph can be read.
And I think someone here pointed out the fact that the Earth as taped from Apollo 11 was corroborated by weather charts and such from the exact time (maybe in the old thread someplace)...I've got some material somewhere in the stacks of junk I have which showed that same sort of concurrence associated with Apollo 17.

Sibrel's "smoking gun" shot him in the foot, indeed! Personally, I think he attempted suicide with that smoking gun of his!


There was always this, which I could do for any Earth picture taken from the surface of the Moon, showing clearly that the small details in the pictures clearly established where they were and when:

AS17-134-20385


This was taken during AS-17 EVA 1 at 118:26 GET. That's 10:59 pm on 12-11-72.




I used the really cool software designed by Dr. Paul Stoddard at Northwestern Univerity to find the precise phase of the Moon, as seen from Earth, at that moment, and pointed out to "Dr. Sibrel" ( ) that the Moon was 39% full at that moment (which is corrorated by the 16 degree sun angle at the Apollo 17 landing site at the time, additionally) in waxing crescent approaching 1st quarter (in other words, just a bit after lunar sunrise at Taurus-Litrow).


That means that the Earth would be ~60% full at that same moment, in waning gibbous, as viewed from the Moon...which it is, exactly, as you see in this picture.

I pointed out to him that such a small detail, being precisely correct in every single Apollo photo that images the Earth, tends to trash his arguments of forgery by such blantant miscues as those which he contended...

Needless to say, he never responded (I don't think he understood what I was saying anyway)....

Oh god, in one of the drama TV shows here in the UK thats set in the past (Heartbeat) they are spending the night watching the moon landing and they just bought up conspiracies hehe.

I think the term "government coverup" is a pretty unimaginative, media-fed catch-all phrase for when a believer simply can't think of any other way out of an argument.

But yeah, great post, I agree witcha.

Great posts MID, and some stunning photos too....

It never seems to end, does it?

Thank you, Emma!

The pictures are pretty cool, aren't they?!
There's a few thousand more where those came from....(that being, the Moon!)

For all those wondering about the site, I have purchased a .com domain and a .co.uk domain the other day. I'm now onto choosing a design (if anyone has any experience in this area any help would be greatful as design is a low point of mine)

Well, Gav, I don't have any experience in the area you mention...but nonetheless, I look forward to what you put together when the time comes!!!!

It's not a huge stretch, MID. Especially in the right side still below....



There are definite flesh tones to the hand in the second still.

Let's compare Apollo 12 gloves to the hand in the stills. This is a cropped image of an Apollo 12 astronaut....



The Apollo gloves...



The gloves of the astronauts are two-toned. The wrist section is even larger than the hand/fingers section.

But the hand in the stills is not two-toned. And the wrist is smaller than the hand, exactly like a bare arm/wrist/hand looks. The gloved hand of an Apollo 12 astronaut does not have this shape.

Turb, seriously - no one else can see what you're seeing - its almost as if you've convinced yourself its there.

The Apollo 12 footage, which came out recently, was greatly improved in quality over the online clips. Everywhere, that is, except for a few seconds within the hours of footage.

These few seconds of footage were actually much worse quality than the online version - which is really quite an accomplishment.

And where were those few seconds of lousy footage from? By an amazing coincidence, they were the exact same seconds of anomalous footage I've been pointing out.

The DVD stills are on the left, and the online stills are on the right....





The rest of the DVD version is better - not worse - than the online clips, just as one would expect.

Why did they do this?

If I'm just "imagining" all the anomalies, then the DVD version should have helped support your argument. It should have clarified the objects in the footage , improved the quality and accuracy of the colors, etc. just like it improved the rest of the online footage - and proved that they really are the gold foil, the antenna cover, etc.

But it didn't. It supported my argument that they are trying to hide something.

Since the other 99.9% of the footage is improved, then making that 0.1% of footage worse can only have been done deliberately.

So why are they deliberately obscuring these things if I am just "imagining" them?

If anyone has doubts about the DVD version being better quality than the online clips everywhere but this section, check it out for yourselves. See if you can find anywhere else the DVD version is actually worse. I'd really like to see it.

Sunofone sees the exact same things I do. Others have also posted that they can see the arm, hand, people.

But honestly, I really don't care how many people disagree with my argument. Telling me something is gold foil because it should be does not convince me when it's not gold anywhere, while every other video clip of a clearly established LM has gold foil which is gold in color. A flesh colored arm is not an antenna cover.

And deliberately obscuring those few seconds, while making the rest of the footage vastly better in quality, is hardly going to help your argument, or change my mind.

Obtaining a first generation copy of this footage would be really interesting. But that's probably impossible.

I am not saying that what you are seeing is a glove but in direct sunlight they are not two toned. The material they are made out of (Chromel R) almost looks white in direct sunlight.

The DVD stills would have been digitally compressed - thats all you're seeing in those images. The parts of a film that have less detail - for example a vague blur or areas of darkness - are automatically compressed more than the bits that have great clarity and are much lighter for the simple reason that those are the bits people look at. Simply put, the bits you're pointing out are more distorted because they're just not as important as the rest of the film, and the whole point of digital compression and therefore DVDs is to squash as much information as possible into as small a space as possible.

edited fro spellign

Well, to my eye the DVD still of the folded antenna looks both better quality and more like the antenna than the on-line still. Can't see much difference in the LM side view, though. Worth pointing out the familiar overlapping red/blue/green colour effects of moving objects with the Apollo filter-wheel colour system apply equally to static objects and a moving camera.

Turb...

It looks fairly clear to me, looking at it in a frozen moment. The detail is fairly conclusive.
I think the DVD version helped!

I've already told you, that Pete had been involved in getting the S-Band antenna out, removing the cover, and putting it in place right? He carried the thing out to where it's shown in the photos, fully deployed. Within seconds, Al took the camera off of it's moorings and waved it about...in the direction of where Pete had set the S-band antenna (UP-SUN...a non-no!).


Take a look at this:





(WASPIE: Can you shrink this image?!
Forgive me...I haven't been able to work that out yet!!! )


Go to illustration 4...The S-band antenna prior to being fully deployed.
Compare it to the image you see in that microsecond of video that is what, an arm?

You're looking at the S-band antenna, prior to the deployment of the dish...the camera obviously pointed right at it...for a second (it was up-Sun, as is clearly indicated by the photos).
It was about 2 minutes after the TV camera incident that Pete actually deployed the Antenna umbrella.

You're looking at a brief moment of S-band antenna umbrella stowed in it's wrapped up position...

Turb...you're clinging to this idea that a few fractions of a second of video are proving that Apollo was faked.

You've said it yourself; there were stage hands on scene sticking their hands in the frame to correct a scene gone bad.


I have asked, WHAT SCENE?
We got no clear video on Apollo 12.
Just grainy images.


You want to illustrate to me the Apollo glove assembly, as if I don't know what they looked like!

The fact is, that TV camera, out of focus, in shadow,may have imaged a momentary gloved hand, and it would be distorted, unclear, and
obviously brief.

Maybe it was a gloved hand....but there's absolutely no
substantive evidence therein that shows an ungloved human hand.

You're contending obvious flesh tones...where what is obvious is that no concrete tones that can be discerned are visible.
We've got greys and whites...

You're seeing concrete objects that no human can actually discern with any reasonable certainty.

Youy're looking at freeze frames of a few seconds of Apollo 12 video, and contending they show
evidence of fakery...when the entire body of the remaining dozens of hours of Apollo video are sitting there,
uncontestably verifying what happened on the surface of the Moon.



As I said before...

Ah, I see you've seen that as well, Swanny!
To my eye too...it looks very much like the folded s-band prior to the umbrella spread....

For what it's worth, you can add me to the list. I think the DVD still shows more actual detail than the still from the online version of the video, too. The basic shape is just as shown in MID's diagram: a cylinder with a tapered midsection and a pole sticking out the top.

Hey, turbonium, this is a bit of a nitpick, but those aren't actual Apollo EV gloves. They're costume replicas (see here, for example). They're pretty close to the right shape and color, so it's not a terribly big error. Still, though, if you want to compare something to the Apollo gloves you really ought to use an image of the real thing, like this:

Hi turbonium,

Sorry for the delay in replying, but I've been unexpectedly busy at work. I'm afraid that bowl of popcorn I suggested you make is probably pretty stale by now.

I haven't been able to post anything in detail lately, so I took the opportunity to go back and review the last few threads where you've mentioned this video. We've been going around in circles on this for a couple years now and haven't made any progress. I've come to the conclusion that there are a couple major issues that need to be sorted out before it's worth spending any time on the smaller details.

The first is color:




You seem to be assuming that the Apollo 12 video, as found on the web and on the DVD, is perfectly color-balanced and showing true, natural colors. I don't think this is even close to being a good assumption. As AtomicDog pointed out in an earlier post, most of this video appears to have a pretty strong cyan cast. Things that should be gray, for example, appear bluish-green.

In an earlier post, I showed you the following frame grab from a YouTube video of the STS-26 launch:


It obviously has a horrible greenish cast and isn't anywhere close to showing natural colors. Yet, using Photoshop, I can easily remove the green cast, resulting in a much more accurate color image.

I'm sure you're very familiar with this process.

Now, I'm going to borrow another one of AtomicDog's good ideas and apply some of my own color corrections to the Apollo 12 video. I've started with the six-frame sequence you posted above. In that image, I've selected the area just underneath the number "4" and have shifted the color balance of the entire image so this area appears as a neutral gray. I've then slightly increased the color saturation by about 15% to enhance the washed-out colors. Here is my result:


And here is what I get if I do the same thing to my version of the video collage:


Compare that to this cropped portion of AS12-46-6728 which has also been color-corrected in the same manner:


Can you see the gold-colored insulation now? If not, I really think you ought to try looking at these images on another monitor because yours may not be working properly. Keep in mind that both AtomicDog and I were independently able to restore the appearance of the gold insulation, the gray/black insulation, and the white/aluminum struts with just a few simple corrections to the entire image. We haven't repainted portions of the image or done anything else "artistic" to force the colors. Just a few basic image restoration techniques.

Since this is getting long, I'll continue in a separate post ...

Continuing from previous post ...

The biggest issue I have with your arguments is that you're literally not looking at the big picture here. Take a look at this post from last year in which you describe the "chair," "monitor," and "people pulling down a shade."




Yes, I can see the frame with the "chair" and I can see the frame with the "people pulling the shade," but you make no attempt to fit these individual frames together into a cohesive picture. The "chair" is nearly centered in image 1 of your sequence, but it's also still visible at the right-hand edge of images 2 & 3, as the "window shade" and "people" come into view. The chair seems to be above and to the right of the window shade, yet we're looking down into the chair. And just what is the shade attached to?. We should be seeing the top of it in image 1. This studio seems to have been designed by M.C. Escher. The perspectives and scales just don't match up.

Here's the video segment taken from your post here):


The frames making up this video are sequential and contain overlapping data. You should be able to reconstruct an image of the studio by connecting together the overlapping portions of the sequential images. Both AtomicDog and I have attempted this, and our final collages both look remarkably like a portion of the Apollo 12 LM:

AS12-46-6728 Cropped


AS12 Video Collage


LM Mockup from position near MESA

Photo by brionv at flickr.com. Used in accordance with posted Creative Commons rights.

In the above images, I've marked in red the matching portions of the RCS plume deflector assembly and have marked in blue the matching portions of the black insulation on the descent stage (note that the mockup doesn't have this insulation). To help understand why some objects appear in the collage, but not in the Hasselblad photo, please take a look at the areas I've outlined in green on the Apollo 12 photo and on the LM mockup photo. That's the same portion of the ascent stage in each image. Notice how it appears to shift position due to parallax. The photo of the mockup was taken from a spot much closer to the LM than was the Apollo 12 Hasselblad photo. That white box-like structure tucked under this portion of ascent stage as seen in the Hasselblad photo would be completely out of sight on the mockup. Since the video was shot from a similar vantage point (but even closer to the LM), that box wouldn't be visible on the video, either. Other portions of the LM might be, though.

So, turbonium (and you, too, sunofone), before I spend any more time on this topic I'd really like to see you show us just how these individual video frames fit together to form a studio instead of an Apollo lunar module. Please show us a diagram of the studio layout and show how it correlates with the total video pan. And lastly, please explain just how it is possible to take a short sequence of images of a movie studio and put them together to form an image which so closely matches multiple major features of an Apollo lunar module. Until I can see the "big picture" from your perspective, I don't see any point in digging into any smaller details.

Regards,

Pericynthion

Perhaps we should look for any LM gold mylar which can be actually established as such in the earlier Apollo 12 video clips. The only LM gold mylar I could find in the clips is seen in the still below....



Link to the video clip

http://www.history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12v.1155057.rm

The orientation of the camera, ladder, etc is seen here....



So, it's very evident that the LM gold mylar does indeed have a very reflective gold color when filmed by the Apollo 12 camera.

The explanation(s) for a complete lack of gold color in the other video clip - camera problems, video compression, etc. - would also be applicable to the other video clips from Apollo 12, such as the one I've linked above.

The LM gold mylar - even if we can only see a small section of it near the ladder - is obviously very bright, reflective, and gold in color.

If such a small section of gold mylar is that noticeably bright gold in color, then we would most definitely have seen it in the other video - and even much moreso.

But we don't. It's not at all bright and reflective - it's dull. And it's not the least bit gold in color.

You are picking at straws now Turbo. It has quite blatantly been shown that what you are seeing is the RCS plume deflector assembly. Are you now trying to suggest that the lack of gold colour is evidence of conspiracy? Let's look at the logic behind that:

From your perspective it is either a) The real LM or b) a model

Now as you believe it is a model in some studio, or similar, what you are effectively suggesting is what is recorded here is not the LM which doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Why would they make the gold a dull colour on the model when it's been photographed from every position and it is shown the gold colour as, well, gold. If you were correct, then they would have had to have changed the foil on the LM, shoot the few seconds of video, and then put the foil back which makes absolutely no sense. What does make sense however is that what you are seeing is the gold foil but it's colour has been dulled by the mechanisms described in detail by Pericynthion.

Innit!

There's no way you can come back from evidence like that Turbo. Why can't you just admit that someone's actually put together a conclusive, definative body of evidence against your idea that holds up completely?

Let it go.

Top posts by the way Pericynthion - nicely done.

Like I said before, Turbo - for someone who has demonstrated themselves to be intelligent and reasonably knowledgeable, and previously given lucid and well-thought out arguments, this is an all time low. You might as well be saying "why aren't there any stars in the photos, huh!?".

Turb:


Sunafone agreed with you, because he is of the ilk to come here and state things about Apollo without any substantiation whatsoever; never answers a question put to him, and gets very close to the edge of propriety in his obstinance. He agrees with you because he sees someone who holds onto something that supports his view, and who does so with what has been, up to this point, a certain resonableness in presentation. He neither understands it nor cares if it's accurate or not. Of course he agrees with you--despite the fact that he's probably never looked at these things in the detail you have.

Now, back to your position...





No one is telling you something is gold foil because it should be there. It was there, obviously.

Pericynthion has gone to incredible pains to accurately and incontrovertibly establish precisely what is being imaged in those few seconds of smeary, out of focus video. He has taken what I've told you previously and analyzed the death out of it so as to make it absolutely clear (much more careful analysis than should be required, frankly. Anyone who knows anything about the LM structure could see what was being imaged when this video was originally broadcast).

It is completely untenable that you do not see this.

You hold to this notion that the gold color of the foil is not gold anywhere, when it obviously is.
Further, you keep holding onto this notion of a "flesh-colored arm", which is no way flesh colored (it's more white than anything else), despite the fact that the camera was obviously pointing at the uncovered, but not yet deployed s-band antenna, which has a shape incredibly close to that of the "flesh-colored arm". This too has now become untenable.

Then there is the hand, which is about all you have to hold onto.


But that too is a micro-second of out-of-focus video in which you prefer to see an un-protected human hand. And, you've contended that this obscurity is evidence of a stage hand fixing a goof in a scene---when there was no goof, you can't really see anything, and there was nothing to fix, since the average man watching...if there were any at that time, had no idea what they were looking at!





All of the gold colored insulation has actually been established. Again, it's simply a matter of knowing what you're seeing.





We do see it.





Yes, it is gold in color....

What you are not realizing here is that when the camera is moved, it is out of focus and only images snippets of the LM structure. And you're even stretching what is obviously gold foil into areas that are well...inconceivable, by declaring no gold color and flesh tones...neither of which can be shown to be true.



The camera was not focused during these movements.

The camera was being man-handled with some relatively swift motions.

It imaged, in understandably smeared fashion only what it pointed at, which was the LM ascent descent stage interface, and struts, insulation , the RCS plume deflector, and the undeployed s-band antenna, sitting there right where it was shown to be, and precisely in the configuration it was in at that moment.

The camera was then pointed directly into the Sun, and it died.

That is all that is seen there.

One can imagine anything they like in fractions of a second of grainy, unintelligible video feed. That proves nothing.


Now, you're holding onto this fragmentary mess like a finger super-glued to a piece of metal (i.e., it's rather difficult to release oneself from such a dilemna). And you contend that through these moments of video, you've got proof of a hoax...of stagehands...of chairs and curtains and TV monitors...

With all due respect, I think the argument has been worn down, much more than it should've needed to be.

The fact is, you are the only person holding onto this shallow "evidence".

And really, you've got to ask yourself, if this program was indeed a hoax:

1) Why would they have produced a scene in which hardly anything could be seen. Why not make sure everything was taped clearly?

2) Why would there be anything like a camera failure portrayed, when what they were trying to do was perpetrate a hoax? Why wouldn't they have made sure that everything was perfect?

3) Why would this have been done at 6:30 in the morning EST on a Wednesday morning in November of 1969, when most of America was just waking up, or would be asleep for some time yet?

4) Why the interminable delays in Apollo 16's landing on the Moon?

5) Why the delay that saw Apollo 17 launch after midnight EST in December of 1972?

6) Why was Apollo 11's EVA broadcast at 11:00pm EDT on July 20, 1969? Why West Coast prime time, when the maximum audience could be obtained by broadcasting it at 8 or 9 pm EDT?

7) Why did Apollo 12 land on the moon just before 2:00 AM EST on November 19, 1969....when everyone in America was sleeping, or darn near it?!?


8) Why Apollo 13...at all? Especially after nothing but a few moments of blurry Apollo 12 video were broadcast before most Americans were awake on Apollo 12?

You need to think about these things....everything pointed out above is absolutely inconsistent with perpetrating a hoaxed lunar landing program. Why?

Not only because they make no sense from a broadcast TV perspective, but...

Because these odd times were governed by celestial mechanics, not prime time TV schedules. The problems occurred because they did, in real flights to the Moon, where highly complex man-made machines balked, as they are inclined to do from time to time. or, where some one screwed up...as men are wont to do on occassion.

Turb, the idea of a hoaxed Apollo program is way out there...with reptilian aliens and the like. It did not happen. What you're seeing defies any reasonable argument.

Now, you of course are welcome to hold onto to illusions based upon a few seconds of out-of-focus video. That is your right...but if you're going to declare such things as you've declared by virtue of this flimsy "evidence", I think you're going to find that your positions are simply going to be ignored...especially in the face of the resonability and knowledge of the subject matter which has been illustrated so clearly here by folks like Pericynthion.


You've admitted it yourself....you don't care what anyone else says.




Even if they actually know something? You do realize that you have declared yourself with this statement, unreachable?

Go MID Go!

Jody

Isis...I just noticed this post, buried amidst recent "discussion".


Did you know that we had already beaten the Soviet Union to the Moon 7 months prior to the Apollo 11 landing?
Did you also know that the Soviet large booster capability (the essential ingredient to their lunar landing program) had basically been destroyed about a week prior to the launch of Apollo 11, and that as of that moment, they were finished in the space race (they had been behind the U.S. for about 4 years already, and pressed mercilessly, and frankly, in an unsafe and almost desperate manner to catch up)?

In July 1969, we had to execute the landing, which is what we planned. We had no competition in the space race as of that time, and if Apollo 11 was not successful, Apollo 12 was ready 4 months later...and there was no way the Soviets could attempt it.


There was no political reason to fake it. The race was already over when we did it.

The DVD still is obviously going to look more like the antenna cover than the online still does - that's the reason they manipulated the DVD images - to make them look more like Apollo objects.

But better quality? Not a chance. You might think it is better quality because it looks more like the object you believe it is - the antenna cover. To anyone comparing the two stills from a purely impartial position - ie: without knowing what or where the object is or is not supposed to be - the online still is considered better quality, hands down. I've posted the stills (without any information about them) on other forums and everyone who replied said the online still was better quality.

Below are the online (left) and DVD (center) stills with an image of the antenna cover (right)...



Even the DVD still has a bent elbow, with the upper arm extending into view from the lower left. The antenna cover does not have an elbow, nor does it have a section that extends out at the bottom.

The antenna cover has very visible "ribbing" (lines) from top to bottom, while the object in the stills does not. The stills have knuckles at the top of the hand, and a smooth elbow at the bottom, while the antenna cover is bundled, giving it a "bump-like" appearance at both ends.

And the antenna cover is colored dark yellowish, unlike the arm in the stills, which is very clearly flesh colored (especially in the online still).

Below are the DVD (left) and online (center) stills with an image of a bare arm (right)...



The bare arm matches on all features with the object seen in the online still - distinct flesh color, smooth texture, end of upper arm coming into view from the lower left, with a bent elbow, forearm extending upward, thinning into a wrist, widening into a clenched hand, with knuckles at the top. A 100% match to the bare arm.

Your argument that it is the antenna cover first assumes as a given fact that they are on the Moon, so therefore it must be the antenna cover, and cannot be a bare arm. And that the dialogue of the astronauts "matches up" with the antenna being moved about, so that means it is the antenna we are seeing.

You can't take the Apollo dialogue as a previously established fact, to corroborate that the rest of the material is genuine. Same with the LM argument - the struts are the only thing remotely similar to the whitish lines, so you argue that "they must be the struts". The gold mylar must be the non-gold areas, and so on.

To me the DVD still is a clearer image than the online still. Given I've followed plenty of Moon Hoax threads I decided I wasn't 'impartial' enough so I asked one of my colleagues at work to compare the two. I covered all the text, all I showed was the two pictures (I didn't tell her what the shot was meant to be of, I didn't even say what the context of the picture was) and asked which was the clearer. She said the DVD shot, easily.

I then expanded the screen to show your picture of an arm and said that what the poster was saying what was being shown and she immediately said it looked nothing like an arm.

This is someone who's not reading through arguments on a forum (so is not partial to the argument either way) and was not even aware of the context of the images giving a truly impartial view that disagrees with you.


You're happy to suggest MID et al have made up their mind - because they think Apollo was real therefore it has to be an antenna. But you're stating that an out of focus, off colour, millisecond frame of film is a 100% match to an arm. Have you considered that maybe you have made up your mind that Apollo is false therefore you're willing to see 'proof' in something that in reality is just an unrecognisable blur?

Turbonium...you are just too, too funny. You've become a caricature of yourself. You've made up your mind that the landings were faked, and NOTHING will ever change that "mindset", not even when the evidence against you is PAINFULLY obvious.

Truthfully no one cares what you think because you have demonstrated time and again that you don't have a CLUE what you are talking about. I mean seriously...how do you debate someone who is so blindly willing to deny evidence???

You are a JOKE, and you are the only one who doesn't "get" that you are a joke...

the_UNKNOWN_DEAD, that post of yours is not an attack on Turbonium's ideas but a personal attack on Turbonium himself, which is going too far. Please attack the ideas not the person.

For what it is worth, whilst I disagree with Turbonium on almost every thing he has to say about the Moon landings, he is one of the few hoax believers that is prepared to concede a point of fact (although clearly not where this silly arm issue is involved). He is also polite, never resorting to the trolling we have seen from many on the hoax side (and quite a few on the sceptics side too).

This may be true, however:




This is not true.
I, for one, do care what everyyone thinks on this thread. And , there is a point to that.
People think in certain ways, because they are geared to do so. In many cases, the things presented by HBs are based upon a lack of knowledge, and THAT is what I, and many others here, attempt to impart, so as to hopefully influence people to research, think critically and rationally, and derive knowledge on their own.



Now, we have had several people who have gone "over-the-edge" here, folks from the hoax side of the fence...who have trolled, who have been abusive, and who, as a result, aren't here any more.
Turbonium, despite the fact that I think his positions are completely untenable, is not one of these people, and has never been one of them.

Thus




When somneone who obviously seems to be on the Apollo side of the fence decides to attack a person on the other...and this is an attack on Turbonium, I believe it is encumbent upon reasonable people to stifle that.

So, let's listen to Waspie here, and can it. Lots of knowledgable people are presenting arguments. We're not attacking Turb...we're assaulting his ideas. That's as far as it goes from this side of the fence.

If you'd like to work over the ideas, be our guest, but let's not work over the person expressing them.

I have to agree with others here.

Although I disagree with Turbo regarding.. well, lots... he /she has always expressed themselves well and I can respect them as an opponent. UNKNOWN, you probably don't know Turbo well so were treating them with a little bit of lack of consideration. Easy mistake to make, but there is a lesson in there for all of us.

Thanks for the words, MID and Waspie. Two sides can entirely disagree on an issue, but still respect those holding an entirely opposite view. It's a sign of class and maturity.

I'm working on a couple of new points, such as how much (ie: distance) the camera really pans around in the clip, relative to the size of the objects we see. I'll post something on it soon....

Cheers

Happy July 20th people. As I'm sure you're all aware, today at 20:17 UTC, Apollo 11's LM Eagle, landed at tranquility base - the first time men had ever landed on the moon. It was at 02:56 UTC July 21st that Armstrong made his first steps on the Moon and spoke his famous words "That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind".

I suggest everyone takes a couple of minutes to remember and think about this achievement, and the men who put their lifes on the line for the future and betterment of man kind. May I also suggest we remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice, so others could reach the stars.

Ad Astra Per Aspera. RIP guys, and may the rest of you carry on living a long, prosperous life