Well, I'd like to continue the discussion on the Apollo hoax issue. Let's be sure to stick to the issues and show respect for the opinions of others.

This was my last post about the Apollo 12 video clip that I believe shows some peculiar anomalies. MID's post is followed by my reply...




Hi, MID.

Yep, this is an all too familiar issue we're covering here!

But I think we can go into specific points we haven't covered....

I have taken up on your suggestion, and compared the area of the LM you highlighted to the video stills. The first sequence below is for location reference of the "struts" (as you claim) as the camera is panned to the "chair" (as I claim).



Please note that although the lines may appear to be straight in the last image of the three, they are actually curved or "relaxed" along their length.

Now I've put one of the stills from above beside the image of the LM section that you posted....



Your image shows that the lines of the LM struts are completely straight! The curved lines from the video clip can be seen in several other stills, such as the two below....



So, since the white lines seen in the video clip are definitely curved, IMO they simply cannot be LM struts, which are rigidly straight.

Cheers.

Is the curved line a reflection? I'm not sure what i'm looking at.

Hi Turbs,

I'm pretty sure what Aquatus meant with his last post that he didn't want a generalised thread, he will confirm this I assume but perhaps you should start another one just about this particular topic

Gav

Agreed Gavsto. The new approach is to allow multiple threads which will each be kept to single issues of the hoax. This will (it is hoped) allow each thread to remain on topic and not degenerate as the last one did. For example if someone wants to adress the issue of radiation then photographic anomalies will be considered off topic. This will make it easier for both sides in the debate and (hopefully) easier to moderate.

What this does not mean is that the cut, paste, post and run tactics are to return.

I have altered the title to reflect this. If the title doesn't meet your approval turbonium, give me or one of the other moderators a PM and we'll change it.

Waspie_Dwarf

A simple question turbonium, do you know what sort of lens the video camera was using?

The reason I ask is that a wide angle lens, especially a fish-eye, will make straight lines look curved in exactly the way that your video stills show.

Turbs,

This is a screenshot you posted before of the video, and the lines look straight in this frame:



PS: Is there a possibility you could link to the video again in the first post!

Ta, Gav

It's not a reflection, I don't believe. It appears to be a very real object, or more precisely, part of a larger assembly. What is it? (or what are they?) - it's one of the anomalies I'm putting up for debate here.

First - the thread title is fine, Waspie.

As for the lens - the documentation is here...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/WEC-ColorTV-Manual.pdf

Page 15 has the specs for the mount lens and the zoom lens. The camera is Westinghouse P/N SEB 16101081-701, ans the lens itself is P/N SEB 16101081-703. There is no fish-eye lens included in the Color TV camera accessories, from what I can see in the specs.

Also, there are straight, or linear, objects seen elsewhere in this and other video clips from Apollo 12. And I've not seen any examples of such distortion elsewhere in the clips. So I don't believe distortions such as curvilinear images (or part of an image) would occur.

Sure, Gav. Here's the video clip link...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12v.1155619.rm

And yes, as I had mentioned in my first post here, the third image appears to have straight lines. But that's only because the entire line is not seen - only a small section (the end of the line) is visible in that image. The other images show that the line(s) are actually curved along their full length.

Cheers

I really think that the image curving is an effect caused by the nature of the lens. Zoom lenses, especially early ones are notorious for curvilinear distortion, which has the effect of rendering straight lines as curves. This effect is most pronounced when a zoom lens is at its widest setting.

Evidence of this phemonena can be seen earlier in the video:



This still shows Al Bean walking past the landing leg ladder strut, which has a pronounced curve.

As we can see in this earlier photo of Al descending, the ladder is quite straight:

AS12-46-6728



Note the camera below the flag pointing at the strut.
Turboniun, I think that we can safely say that the curved lines that we see in the video are caused by the same phenomenon, and that they are actually straight.

The photo you've posted indeed shows straight lines appearing to be curved lines - for all the straight lines...



But the only curved lines below are the top white lines - not the bottom edge of the black material....



If the curve in the two images above was a distortion effect, it would make all the straight lines appear to curve. Note how this discrepancy is very apparent in image two. Also, note the bright whitish exactly vertical straight line at the end of the material in image one. It's directly perpendicular to the straight bottom edge of the black material.

Distortion effects such as this are not particular or selective as to what objects or lines they appear to "bend" - of which your photo is a prime example. They won't leave some lines remaining to appear straight, while curving others. Which is why I believe we can firmly conclude that camera/lens distortion is not the reason for the curved lines in my images.

Curvilinear distortion most certainly does leave some lines straight:

Article on curvilinear distortion



Notice that the lines going through the center are straight.

Besides, when you look at the video you see that the curvature of the lines changes as the camera moves. This is because the distortion changes as the lines get near the edges of the lens, where the effect is more pronounced.

Curvilinear distortion accounts for all of the curves you see in the video, and allows some lines to be straight.

Besides, the ladder is straight, and in the video it is curved. My explanation accounts for that. How does yours?

turbonium .... I have watched the video clip that you are discussing here several times now , and I found what looks like a flesh colored arm in a black t-shirt moving about , earlier in the clip ... I can't remember exactly at what point this strange looking anomaly appears , but I think it shows up between 1:17 to 1:29 into it ..... Have you ever noticed this before ?

Your link describes the grids posted above as follows: the left grid is undistorted, the middle grid is barrel distortion, and the right grid is pincushion distortion. As you said, the distortion effect increases from the center area of the image to the outer areas of the image.

Look at the image sequence below. The degree of curving visible does not correlate to the position of the lines in the images. We can see that from images 2 through 6, as the upper white lines become positioned towards the center of the image, they do not appear to get "straighter" - in fact, they appear to increase in curvature. The reason for that is because more of the entire length of the lines comes into view, which shows the lines are indeed curved when they are seen along their entire length!

Now compare image 11 to image 10. Only a small section of a white line is visible at the top of image 11 - and it is quite straight. In image 10, the white lines are much closer to the image center than the line in image 11. If curvilinear distortion was present, it would make the lines appear to be at least as straight, and likely even straighter, compared to the line in image 11. But they definitely have greater curvature. I think the case for curvilinear distortion can be permanently closed.







One thing I should add: my main assertion is that the white line seen closest in front - from images 5 through 13 - is attached to the top of a black shade that is moved up and down by two people below it. As the shade is pulled up and down, I think this may also play a part in whether the white line on top appears to have greater or lesser curvature.

Here is the image sequence from above - animated....



As for your ladder in photos and video, I already agreed that this was a prime example of curvilinear distortion. Despite the fact that my images do not, I would certainly like to have some stills for comparison. But unfortunately, I don't think any stills of this area are readily available - I have this funny feeling that if NASA actually does have any in its possession, they won't be publishing them anytime soon!

the apollo hoax has endured far too long and is an ominous testament to the level of mind control the elite have over their cattle-- i commend you turbo for continuing the struggle to wake the intellectuals to the reality of their nievity-- the clip turbo has been analyzing for some time now is imo concrete evidence of the hoax-- as the camera is knocked from its stand it falls and in the struggle to correct the blunder a black curtain can be seen to be accidentally raised exposing at least two individuals hiding behind it trying to pull it back down-- watch the jumble in slow mo and it is there in plain site --keep up your awesome relentless onslaught in the infowar

Yep, I actually first brought it up here about 1 or 2 years ago. There are actually three separate segments which show what looks to me like a bare arm, and these are two animated examples: The first one happens very quickly, at about 1:55-1:56....



Then (the one I like best), happens at about 2:11-2:12.....



The single best image from the video is this one....



The basic pro-Apollo claim for the image above is that this is the cover for the S-band antenna, shown below...



The DVD edition of Apollo 12 came out last year, and after a little "magic" in the editing room, the arm came out looking like this....



YUCK!

Anyway, to make a long story even longer, the pro-Apollo crowd has since insisted and that the DVD version of this segment is much sharper, clearer, and basically vastly superior in every way!....Let's just say I beg to differ.

Well, I do have to admit that the DVD "arm" is at least closer in resemblance to the S-band antenna cover. I honestly believe they deliberately did a number on this section of the video - that they effectively smudged the knuckles together, washed out the warm and authentic flesh tones, added a "herringbone"-type of pixelization that obscured the elbow details, and gave it an overall blur for a nice finishing touch. Anyway....

This image is, IMO, most definitely shows someone's bare right arm. The flesh tones, the knuckles, etc. are quite evident.....


And - a very critical point - the first image below shows the relative size of the arm, which then (in the second image) comes up..up..just high enough to show the entire distal section (forearm) from the top of the knuckles down to and beyond the end of the bent elbow joint. The proximal section (biceps) of the arm is seen going off to the left and out of view.

That, to me, is the clincher that shows this is not the antenna cover. The cover, aside from being huge in comparison, the wrong color, etc., does not have this physical characteristic.

To me, it looks like a clockwise pan of this area:




from this photo:



Taken when the astronauts were removing the camera from the MESA.





The so-called shade is the bottom of the black painted area, and your "technicians" is the gold mylar underneath.

Curved or not, everything in your animation matches my cropped section underneath.

Hey, Sun

Thanks for the support. I won't disparage the pro-Apollo people here, however - several of whom make well thought out, reasonable arguments. It's a lot more refreshing than a reply that doesn't address the actual issues, but often goes something like "We went to the Moon, so why don't you stop insulting the astronauts? "

The "angry face" usually accompanies this type of post

Cheers

interesting i have never seen this particular frame-- imo this frame shows not only the right arm of an individual working rope like a yatchsman but the left hand can be seen as well --
on the moon

Wait a minute - "Curved or not"? Is that "sort of" an admission that the curves are not due to curvilinear distortion and actually are curved? If so, they cannot be the LM struts.

Do the images from the video clip really match the LM struts (except for being curved)?

I see many more white lines going off in many more directions in the video image than the LM struts...



And there is no gold color underneath the shade - blue-green, white and flesh tones, yes - but where is the gold if it's really gold mylar?

Sun and Turbo.

You guys are like the Laurel and Hardy of the conspiracy "movies".

Seriously though, I have never seen that "Curved or not" arguement before, good one,however I think they are straight lines just appearing to be curved.

Hi Turbs,

What exactly are you suggesting we are seeing here then? Originally it was arms and a head, what are you suggesting now? Do you believe it's coincidence that what you believe to be the arms and head etc look more or less exactly like the bits that have been pointed out? It just feels we're arguing about why there is a dimple on an orange when the entire fruit bowl is all apples!

Possible photgraphic explanations for straight elements looking curved:

distortion due to wide-angle lens

movement of either object or camera during exposure

My apologies. By saying "Curved or not" I meant that I admit to the fact that the lines in your images are curved. I would be a fool to deny it; the image is right there in front of me.

What I am contending is that the video and the stills from it is a representation of the reality of the scene, just like the the photograph and the portion I have cut from it is also representative of the reality of the scene, and as a matter of fact they are of the same scene.

You have previously admitted to the fact that the Apollo camera produces curvilinear distortion, so we have established that such distortion is a factor in what we see. Now we can go on to explain the other curved lines.

They are an artifact of the nature of the video camera. The Apollo 12 color camera is a slow scan camera, and one of its effects is to render straight lines as curved whenever there is movement. The camera takes a picture of each scene three times, through a red, blue and green filter and combines these scenes into a full color frame. This procedure causes the effect of breaking up objects photographed whenever there is movement of the camera or subject, as can be seen here: (last frame on right)



and here:



Unless you are also contending that the lines are actually rainbowed.

This just leaves the gold mylar, which you say shows blue, green, white and flesh tones.

They do.

The colors are also rainbow smearing which is a video artifact caused by camera movement



During camera movement, the red, blue and green frames are taken out of register, and this causes them to fall out of place from they were originally, and will do so until the movement stops. This would cause you to see patches of, say blue or green to be seen against a darker background, or red and green combining to give something near a flesh tone.




About the number of struts: you do recall that the video and the hasselblad photos were taken from different locations at different angles? The video was shot while the astronaut was removing the camera from the MESA, amd thus was shot very near the LM looking up at the struts, amd the 'blad photo was further away from the LM, pointing at the struts at a much shallower angle.

I feel that these differences account for the discrepreancies between the two photos. I can especially see the curved line of the bottom of the thrust deflector attached to the place where the four struts meet in my photo becoming the two lines going off the top and the left in your photo.
Your question marked area? Could be an edge on view of the rectangular hull section to the left in mine.

I see that you have had this same discussion in another forum:

ApolloHoax discussion on video anomalies

But they did not seem to be able to convince you on the nature of the images, either. Since they have said everything I have to say on the subject, I don't know what I can add that can convince you that the "anomalies" are what I believe they are - easily understood video effects of an ordinary subject in an extraordinary place.

Even if this were the case, it would not explain the combination of colors and shapes. That is, in order to make your theory plausible, an incredible set of conditions need to be met..

1. In every frame purporting to show the gold mylar of the LM, not even one shows gold color. Despite the fact that the single most noticeable identifying feature of the LM is the very reflective gold mylar. Despite the fact that absolutely every single video clip that shows the LM, from every Apollo mission using the color TV video camera on the Moon, shows the very reflective, very gold mylar - except this one video clip. Even the only Apollo 12 video clip showing the LM - reflected in an astronaut's visor - with the gold mylar indeed gold in color. The same color video camera was used on Apollo 14, 15, 16 and 17. Each of them filmed the LM, and they never once failed to capture the reflective gold mylar...



2. In this, the only film clip in the entire Apollo video library that shows a complete absence of reflective gold in the mylar, the camera itself creates colors such as blue-green, white and flesh tones.

3. The camera creates shapes that appear to be human figures.

4. Each of the colors created by the camera appear in the exactly correct places on the human shapes it also created. The flesh tones only appear exactly where hand shapes and face shapes were created. The blue-green and white only appear exactly where the upper torso shapes and arm shapes were created. The odds of this combination occurring are so unbelievably small that it virtually defies all logic and reason.





"Easily understood" when one considers the factors I've listed above? I couldn't disagree more. Also consider....

The below image is also claimed to be gold mylar of the LM. I see a very three-dimensional chair, facing towards a very three-dimensional black TV monitor, and what appears to be a person in a red shirt sitting just beyond, positioned in the same orientation as the chair.



So this same video clip is not only able to create the illusion of people mentioned earlier, but also can create an illusion of incredible depth, including a three dimensional chair shape and three-dimensional monitor shape. No other Apollo image, no other Apollo video clip, from any Apollo mission, was able to create such an illusion - a better three dimensional effect than even today's holograms.

Movement

Another point of contention is whether or not there is movement by the subject(s) being filmed, or whether camera movement alone accounts for what we see.

I contend that the black shade is being pulled up/down by people below the shade. To prove that, we need to establish some points of reference. In the first sequence below, I've noted two such points - the metal (or whitish) end of the shade, a white object below it, and the length between them. Image 4 clearly establishes that there is a white object resting upon a surface. Images 2 and 3 establish that the distance from the center of the white object to the metal end of the shade is about 4.4 to 4.6 cm (scaled in the image only for reference comparison).



The sequence below compares the different heights of the shade by measuring the bottom edge of the shade to the surface the white object is resting on. Image 2 shows the height to be about 1.1 cm, while the shade height in image 3 is about 3.2 cm, or mearly three times higher than image 2.



I am convinced that this can only be due to the shade itself being moved up/down. This can be considered in the overall context of my argument - that there are rope loops being pulled down by a bearded man to lower a black shade.

The argument for gold mylar is extremely weak, IMO. There is much more evidence that this is actually an Earth-bound studio set.

You people see arms and hands?
I've seen better supposed ghost pictures.
All I see is a pink color. Whats your point?
Are you so convinced that your right...that you see things that are not there?

Yes, I and others do see arms and hands here....



And also a chair here...



Are you saying that you can't see a very three dimensional chair in the image above?

I can even make out the side of a three-dimensional TV monitor, facing towards the chair...



There is only supposed to be reflective gold mylar in these areas, like in image 1 below...



So, let me ask you - are you so convinced this is gold mylar in images 2 and 3 above that you're seeing things that aren't there?

The color in those images is clearly distorted by the camera moving during the shot, you can see the white line at the top smeared into a rainbow by the separate red/green/blue imaging.

The pic on the left is just that, a picture, from a film camera. The other 2 are screen grabs taken from a horribly blurry video with poor color which was then compressed again for the web. Why should the gold mylar look identical in them?

Because, as I pointed out in my earlier post, the stills from all the other Apollo video clips that show the LM - including one from Apollo 12 - do look like them....



They are all horribly blurry and compressed, just like the stills I posted. And they all show that the gold mylar from the LM is indeed very gold and reflective. The image quality (or lack thereof) does not somehow "remove" all the bright gold color from the LM mylar. And it certainly does not "replace" it with colors such as blue-green, red, white, and flesh tones!

The easy explanation for that is that the camera was still at the time. It split's up into primary colours when you move it.

Gav, it may seem to you that this is an "easy" explanation, but the important point is whether or not it is a valid explanation.

1. Can gold actually be split up into the primary colors?

Gold is not the combination of red, yellow and blue - the primary colors. Gold is essentially yellow (primary color) and sometimes yellow-orange (primary color yellow combined with primary color red create the color orange)

2. Is it actually primary colors that are seen in the relevant sections of the video clip?

In the image below, for example, there are blue-green, white and flesh tones visible. These are not primary colors - in fact, white is created by all the primary colors combined together.



3. Is camera movement actually occuring throughout the relevant (suggested areas of LM gold) segments of footage?

Look at the gif clip below, or the actual online clip here...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12v.1155619.rm

At about 2:06 in the online clip, also seen in the gif clip below, the camera moves to the right and stops momentarily before moving back to the left.



The image below is seen during this time - when there is almost no camera movement...



There is no splitting up into primary colors in the above image, nor is there any gold mylar, while there is very little camera movement.

4. Are there any examples of the colors being split up into primaries elsewhere in the clip?

No. In fact, there is a lot of white seen in the clip while the camera is moving about, but they aren't split up into primary colors at all.

Sorry, Gav, but I don't find the "moving camera making gold split up into primary colors" theory even remotely valid.

Cheers

The camera images red, then green, then blue, in 3 separate passes. When the camera moves too fast, this results in the colors being offset and overlapping in different ways. You can clearly see that on the white lines in the image. That effect can alter the color of objects.

As for the gold, I can clearly see gold in those images, the color is just off a bit in that video, it wasn't in direct sunlight.

There is yet another anomaly in this same Apollo 12 video clip. It occurs from about 2:15 to 2:23. The camera moves from the "Moon surface" upwards, and presto! - we see a row of lights above, pointing down.....





Even though the camera moves about, and there is a short period of time when the image is blacked out to a degree, the lights are seen remaining in a straight line together, at an angle from downward at left to upward at right.

This is, IMO, certainly a bank of lights as is commonly used in film studios, such as here...

Or possibly reflections in the lens as the camera is pointed more towards the direction of the sun. The picture going dark is probably the auto exposure mechanism reducing the aperture. Check how the angle of your "lights" changes as the camera pans across the surface.

turbs .... Here is a still photograph from the Apollo 12 photo shoot confirming your evidence that banks of stage lights were used on the set , among other things .... Good job finding them in this video clip as well !

Apollo reference number or no cigar ^^^

Not that I don't believe it's from a NASA picture, but I'd like to look at the uncropped higher resolution picture....

It's a visor close up of AS12-48-7133

If it's a bank of stage lights where are the other shadows?

See why we wish to see the full image straydog? Once an uncropped image is there for all to see your "stagelights" and "ceiling fan object" become plain to decipher. They are simply the reflections of the Surveyor solar panel.

Turb:

When this camera is angled up from the spurious views of the lunar surface, what you're seeing is the camera lens unfortunately being pointed East, and unfortunately, right at the sun, which is, at that time, at an angle of only about 7.5 degrees above the horizon. It is being moved by hand in a rather random fashion.

What you see are momentary reflections within the lens body of this extremely bright light (perhaps 1/4 second or so), as it is pointed directly into the sun. The camera then fries. At 2:17-2:18 you are seeing as TV camera look at the sun. About 4 seconds later, the pictures starts to "wig-out", as the internal mechanism has had it.

This is precisely what the camera was pointed into , at about the same angle:


AS12-46-6739





That's about all that's actually there.
I, respectfully, see no stage light rigging in the photo above, which is in fact taken by a Hasselblad at just aboiut the precise angle that the TV camera was pointed when it fried....


Regards.

Straydog you should probably open another thread or somat, I don't want to push this one of course.

Waspie, I don't think the 'bank of stagelights' is actually a reflection of the surveyor solar panel, I think it's the just how the sunlight is hitting the helmet.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7136HR.jpg

See the same effect here?

Going back to the "technicians" clip, I decided to take the frames that turbonium provided and compared them th the LM:

AS12-46-6726



I then cut out the most likely location that the video camera was moving around:



I then pieced together portions of turbonium's frames:



Like I said before, the video camera sees the scene at a sharper angle, and there is a whale of distortion caused by camera movement, but the struts, black panel and gold mylar are clearly visible in both the hasselblad photo and my reconstruction of the video stills. If these stills were not of the LM, I would not be able to piece them together to anything near resembling it.

I invite comments from viewers of this thread.

Not even close ... As you can see from the original photo, the Surveyor has TWO WIDE PANELS , NOT FOUR NARROW ONES , as the fan object clearly has .

Also the photo that Gavsto posted trying to debunk the bank of stage lights , does not explain this anomaly either, because in his photo the 'sun' is in a very DIFFERENT POSITION from the photo I posted a close up shot of .... So the 'sun' could not be creating the bank of stage lights in my photo , as they are on the OPPOSITE SIDE of the visor reflection from the 'sun' .... Not on the SAME SIDE , as in the one he posted .. Pretty clever Gav , but like you said .... No cigar .

You could be right. However onething I'm sure of... if they were spot lights that solar panel would be casting shadows all over the place.

The 'sun in this photo is ridicuolus looking ... Isn't the moon the same approximate distance from the sun that the Earth is ? .... This light source is obviously very close to the edge of the moon set and even looks as though it is only a few feet off of the ground .

It's called a SPOTLIGHT !!

Let's not hijack this thread, it is about video anomalies. Gavsto is correct, we should stay on subject,

Getting back to videos then , here are several freeze frame shots from the Apollo 17 LM launch video .... Not being a rocket scientist I have no idea what I'm looking at here .... Can anyone explain to me why the rocket engine used to launch the LM did not make any noise when fired up, or cause any kind of exhaust plume either ? ... And why would rocket fuel look like specks of colored paint being flung off of the bottom of the LM as it was released from it's lower section ?

When viewing this motion video it looks as though the LM doesn't lift off using rocket fuel but rather looks like it pops up , as if released by something which had bolted it down to it's lower section , and then is pulled up by an invisible cable line .

I don't know about the exaust plume but since thereis no air on the moon, there's no sound.

Hi MID

I considered reflections, but I dismissed that possibility for several reasons.

1. Light reflections do appear in the video, as seen in the still image below...



...but as you can see, they are not solid lights, and are very much a reflection in the camera lens.

2. Watch the segment below - the bank of lights is not only solid, but actually moves forward while the light in the upper left of the frame remains stationary....





3. The lights remain in the same configuration throughout (unlike the randomly scattered reflections in the first, "sample" image I posted). They are also very solid, and grouped together in a very straight line...



So this is, IMO, an independently moving, solid, and linear formation. Very much unlike a hazy, random series of light reflections. To me, it is most definitely a bank of lights.

Cheers, as always.

I'd like to point out a few things that I am certain disprove the gold mylar theory...

1. There is still no gold mylar in the video clip, unlike your image below, and every other Apollo video clip showing the LM.



2. There is independent movement of the black shade, as it goes up and down in reference to the end of the shade and stationary white object that is resting on a surface.



3. There is a very three dimensional chair, a very 3-D monitor, and incredible depth in this image from the clip...



Gold mylar does not create "holographic" 3-D images such as we can clearly see above.

4. Below is the segment that shows the black shade as the camera pans around. I've included the time in the video to show that this camera movement takes about 3 seconds...



The LM struts are about 3-4 feet long, judging by the astronaut standing beside them in your image. That means the video camera would only be panning around within about a 7 foot field of view in the clip if these are the LM struts.



The camera is swinging about wildly in the video clip, as soon as movement begins here...



The struts are simply not large enough to account for the wide panning of the camera.