Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
turbonium

NASA Edits Proof Of Apollo Moon Hoax!

548 posts in this topic

The camera has moved slightly upwards over the course of these four frames. That is why the phone-type object moves out of view.

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

838019[/snapback]

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

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a few more cents from this end.

Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Apollo 12 lunar surface color camera was fitted with what was called the Lunar Day lens.

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

In other words, the Apollo cameras were fixed focus.

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

Apollo Color Television Camera, a paper by L. L. Niemyer, Jr.

p.2, Photo at bottom

Apollo Color Television Subsustem Operation and Training Manual

p.10, Top photo (apparently same photo as above)

p.15, Dimensioned drawing of zoom lens

p.18, Section 2.1.1, description of the Iris, Zoom and Focus controls

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

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

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

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

user posted image

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

user posted image

(click for full-size image)

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Apollo 12 lunar surface color camera was fitted with what was called the Lunar Day lens.

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

In other words, the Apollo cameras were fixed focus.

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

Apollo Color Television Camera, a paper by L. L. Niemyer, Jr.

p.2, Photo at bottom

Apollo Color Television Subsustem Operation and Training Manual

p.10, Top photo (apparently same photo as above)

p.15, Dimensioned drawing of zoom lens

p.18, Section 2.1.1, description of the Iris, Zoom and Focus controls

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

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

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

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

user posted image

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

user posted image

(click for full-size image)

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

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

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

838981[/snapback]

Hi Turb:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


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

Hi MID - just a point or two I thought I'd make regarding NASA censoring footage if it was indeed evidence of a hoax. We know, as I confirmed with you earlier, that the Apollo 12 footage was, for all intents and purposes, shown live on TV to the viewing public. And the Apollo journals also recorded the dialogue that the astronauts engaged in while the filming occurred. We therefore know this documentation could not be omitted from the record without questions being raised as to why it was deleted.

I don't see that they could have had the luxury that is afforded to a normal "movie studio" production, of doing "retakes" on messed up scenes. It had to actually be akin to a live stage performance, where "the show must go on", hiccups and all.

Cheers.

Share this post


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

Hi MID - just a point or two I thought I'd make regarding NASA censoring footage if it was indeed evidence of a hoax. We know, as I confirmed with you earlier, that the Apollo 12 footage was, for all intents and purposes, shown live on TV to the viewing public. And the Apollo journals also recorded the dialogue that the astronauts engaged in while the filming occurred. We therefore know this documentation could not be omitted from the record without questions being raised as to why it was deleted.

I don't see that they could have had the luxury that is afforded to a normal "movie studio" production, of doing "retakes" on messed up scenes. It had to actually be akin to a live stage performance, where "the show must go on", hiccups and all.

Cheers.

840903[/snapback]

Yes, I'd agree that's a perfectly valid idea, Turb.

But I think (and I'm going to do my best to support a hoax here blink.gif ), that a retake per-se wouldn't be necessary. After all it was in a TV studio or set somewhere on earth in 1969. Live TV hadn't exactly died yet, and if it were a hoax, there would've had to have been a director, a producer, and some technical writers there in the control room. I think an ad-lib could've been arranged, as was sometimes seen on live shows.

First: we have a camera failure. We're getting nothing. OK, I'm going to ad-lib the situation.

DISCLAIMER: The author would like to make it clear that the following conversation is completely fabricated by him, and has no relation whatsoever to the actual transcripts of the Apollo 12 mission. Everything below is fictional. Any resemblence to anything real is purely coincidental, and was alot of fun to put together!

grin2.gif

Houston: "OK, AL, uh we're getting a little behind the timeline here, so we'd like you and Pete to press-on to SURFACE-34 at this time while we look at the camera and see what we can figure out. over."

Al Bean: "Roger, understand you want us to leave it alone and go to SUR-34."

Houston: "That's affirm Al. You can proceed to SWC deployment, and Pete can go ahead with the initial PAN, moving into ALSEP OFFLOAD when you're ready. We'll have you standby on the TV and we'll let you know what we think after we get a little brain power on it."

Conrad: "Okee Dokee."

And there's just a bunch of chit chat betwen the crew as they continue on with their stuff, sans TV.

At the same time, the producer's been on the phone with tech support. Of course, they're well aware of what's going on and have loaded another camera onto the set. Hands are on the set replacing the faulty one and making sure it works in the control room.

When that's done...a couple minutes, we get the following:

Houston: OK, and Al if you would, we'l like you to make your way over to the camera for a minute.

Al: Stand by a second, Ed (Gibson, EVA CAPCOM), I'm just about finished with the Solar Wind"

Houston, "OK, Al, we'll stand by."

Al: "OK, I'm moving over there now...alright, you have something?"

Houston: "That's affirm Al, first, we'd like you to verify that the adaptor cable pin connector to the camera is properly connected, if you would."

Al: "OK, stand by one... Yea, that looks fine, Houston."

Houston: "OK, Al. Is the camera in it's deployed position now?"

Al: "That's affirm, Ed. We just continued on deploying there."

Houston "Alright Al, we didn't realize you put it out already because we haven't seen anything, but the back room would like you to go back to the MESA and verify that the male connector on the cable wasn't disconnected or loosened at all from the LM when you removed the camera."

Al: "OK, Houston... uh, the connector on the LM is secure, looks just fine."

Houston, "Copy that, Al. Uh, one more thing if you would. Please verify that the space connectors on the 100 foot cable are secure."

Al: "Ok...uhh, you know what, the little clamp has slid off the pin, and that thing is a little opened! I'm gonna open this thing up and re-connect here and see if I can lock that thing down."

Houston: "Sounds good. That might be the problem."

Al: OK, houston, I got it to snap in, and the camera is on transmit, you getting anything."

The live feed is turned on at this point.

Houston: "Stand by...Yes, Al, we have a picture!"

Conrad: "Got TV, huh? Alright!"

Houston: "Yes, Pete we're seeing a picture pretty clearly now. No one's in it, but we can see the LM and Al, if you would, we'd like you to adjust it a little so we get a decent field of view."

Al: "OK, I must've snagged that thing when I was twisting the camera around there. never noticed the connector pin. Probably due to sun glare or somethin'"

Conrad: "Shoot, you were throwing that thing all around there. I didn't see it either though."

____________________________________________________________________

Script writer!

There, I just illustrated how this thing could've been hoaxed with a TV camera failure.

I feel like I've jumped ship crying.gif

Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thumbsup.gifthumbsup.gif

That deserves a standing ovation, MID! You sure you weren't a script writer in 1969? grin2.gif I like the "okee-dokee" - perfect!

I take off my hat to the classiest pro-Apollo debater I've ever had the pleasure of discussing this subject with.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you know I meant that the object remained stationary "as placed on its surface".

I am in 100% agreement... that "surface", of course, being the surface of the LM descent stage. No other "surface" is visible.

My point was that there are objects that do not remain stationary in relation to the phone-type object. The black shade and people (as I see them) are in different places from frame to frame.

Here are the only 6 kinescope frames in which the "phone-type object" is even partially visible, the 1st and 5th of which correspond to the only frames of the RealVideo in which it appears.

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

Any differences in shape or color of the hilights is attributable to color ghosting and motion blur, which itself is greatly amplified by the color ghosting and kinescope frame-straddling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thumbsup.gif  thumbsup.gif

That deserves a standing ovation, MID! You sure you weren't a script writer in 1969?  grin2.gif  I like the "okee-dokee" - perfect!

I take off my hat to the classiest pro-Apollo debater I've ever had the pleasure of discussing this subject with.

Cheers

842595[/snapback]

blush.gif

Aw shucks...

Thanks so much, Turb.

I should've put a "Whoopdee Doo" in there. Pete Conrad (rest his soul) was quite an animated guy...

It's been a pleasure on this end too!

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The phone-type object is also seen in other frames, as I've noted below. In these frames (not in video sequence), the distance varies between the bottom edge of the "black shade" and the phone object (and the surface it is placed on). Note frames 1 and 3 for the best examples of this variance...

user posted image

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aw shucks...

Thanks so much, Turb.

I should've put a "Whoopdee Doo" in there. Pete Conrad (rest his soul) was quite an animated guy...

It's been a pleasure on this end too!

Regards

I've enjoyed our discussions, MID. On a side note, since you mentioned Pete Conrad. I want to make a special point to emphasize that I hold the astronauts in high regard, and that I am not in any way trying to diminish them as people or not being the utmost professionals in their field. They were certainly the cream of the crop to be picked by NASA, from their prior accomplishments in aviation, etc.

I don't approve of the Bart Sibrel approach, which is intended to denigrate them through immature tactics. I find it quite disrespectful towards these men who have represented America in an exemplary way. That I feel the Apollo landings were hoaxed, means I feel that they have been compromised to uphold this hoax. Seeing Armstrong in the press conference after Apollo 11, he looks for all the world like someone whose pride does not want to maintain a charade. Only my opinion, of course, just the feeling I get when I look at his expressions and body signals (head down, slumping, not at all happy).

Anyway, I sense your admiration for the astronauts, and wanted you to know I also have great respect for them, whether Apollo was real or not.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aw shucks...

Thanks so much, Turb.

I should've put a "Whoopdee Doo" in there. Pete Conrad (rest his soul) was quite an animated guy...

It's been a pleasure on this end too!

Regards

I've enjoyed our discussions, MID. On a side note, since you mentioned Pete Conrad. I want to make a special point to emphasize that I hold the astronauts in high regard, and that I am not in any way trying to diminish them as people or not being the utmost professionals in their field. They were certainly the cream of the crop to be picked by NASA, from their prior accomplishments in aviation, etc.

I don't approve of the Bart Sibrel approach, which is intended to denigrate them through immature tactics. I find it quite disrespectful towards these men who have represented America in an exemplary way. That I feel the Apollo landings were hoaxed, means I feel that they have been compromised to uphold this hoax. Seeing Armstrong in the press conference after Apollo 11, he looks for all the world like someone whose pride does not want to maintain a charade. Only my opinion, of course, just the feeling I get when I look at his expressions and body signals (head down, slumping, not at all happy).

Anyway, I sense your admiration for the astronauts, and wanted you to know I also have great respect for them, whether Apollo was real or not.

Cheers.

849740[/snapback]

Yes, you are correct Turb; I do have a great deal of respect and admiration for the astronauts of the day. I also appreciate your comments, and understand your position.

To be honest with you, it was the flight control teams that I held in deepest esteem, but all of them, astronauts and controllers were just human beings, all possessed in one degree or another of decidedly normal human characteristics. I never viewed them, oddly enough, as heroes...just guys doing their jobs.

Of course, some of the astronauts had pretty large egos and a highly competitive bent, some were more reserved guys, some even got into trouble for their antics, but few if any were like Neil Armstrong, then or now. In fact, few men can behave with the integrity he has consistently exhibited since being assigned the distinction of being the first human being to set foot an another world.

He wouldn't even give a guy like Sibrel the time of day, and acted toward him as I would've expected. In contrast, I am not surprised that Buzz Aldrin capped him.

That Apollo 11 press conference you mentioned said something different to me.

I know exactly what you're talking about, mind you, and I can see where people might be curious about the crew's seemingly quiet and detatched attitude at places in that conference (however, there were also a few light moments in that conference as well). However, one has to take into consideration what the Apollo 11 crew had endured up to that point, and what was ahead of them in the very near future.

Several years of unremitting training, and, since the splashdown, several very busy weeks writing reports, de-briefing, and quite frankly prersenting in exquisite detail what they were again to present at this press conference, albeit in brief.

What was to follow was the thing that made them all very uncomfortable, especially Neil Armstrong.

The very next day, these three guys were subjected to a cross country, one day tour, which saw them in ticker tape parades in New York, Chicago, and finally, Los Angeles, after which, they were at a large dinner with President Nixon. That much public exposure and adoration is, in my view, insane, although understandable in its way. But that was not all. The next month was spent touring dozens of cities all over the world, accepting the accolades of everyone, followed by home town parades, a million speeches, interviews, appearances before Congress, and Neil Armstrong even wound up spending time in Viet Nam with Bob Hope on a USA show tour...

How Neil Armstrong, in particuar, was able to handle this hero-worship, without ever succumbing to it is beyond me. It was not something he enjoyed in the least.

That crew never had a chance to contemplate their feelings or the significance of what they had done before they were thrust into the uncomfortable position of being heroes.

With Neil Armstrong, you were seeing a man who had spent the past 6 years of his life in unrermitting training for a couple missions, in back rooms, out of the public eye, a pilot doing his job. He then executes the first lunar landing, and before he can even contemplate the significance of it, or his deepest feelings regarding it, he is thrust into the public eye...someplace he does not wish to be, and he is giving speeches before the President of the United States, and having confetti rained down upon him by millions of cheering people.

He, and his crewmates, were immediately bombarded by the questions they could not have possibly had time to formulate answers for, or could not speak to, like "Give us your impression of the meaning of Apollo 11," or , "What did it feel like to be the first man to set foot on the Moon".

The questions, and their frequency, must have been mind numbing. Mike Collins was probably best equipped to speak, and was comfortable doing so. Buzz Aldrin, on the other hand, had a heck of alot of issues to deal with in the coming months and years, which seemed to be beased upon his inability to cope with his status as a hero, but Neil Armstrong never felt any such status, and avoiding exposing himself at all. He refused missions in endorsements, spoke little, and retired to as much anonymity as he could cultivate for himself.

I think, what you see in this press conference, is a crew uneasy, and already somewhat numbed by what they'd been exposed to post-flight, and apprehensive about what was to follow.

That's my take anyway, but I do understand what you're perceiving in this scenario, based upoon your position.

Regards...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The phone-type object is also seen in other frames, as I've noted below.

The "phone-type object" only appears in the first two of those frames. In the other frames, you have indicated quite different details.

Here is the DVD frame corresponding to your 4th frame above, followed by the two succeeding frames:

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

That is the upper portion of a completely different hilight entering the frame. The vague similarity in shape is due to the distortion of the video in the bottom 8 lines or so, which is present throughout the RealVideo footage. The DVD has similar distortion, only to a much lesser extent (the bottom 4 lines out of 480, rather than 8 out of 240 ).

Here is the DVD frame corresponding to your 3rd frame above, preceded by the 2 frames leading up to it:

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

That is yet another hilight as it is exiting the frame. Further, I don't see any resemblance between the details indicated in your 1st and 3rd frames, anyway.

The persistence of motion is largely lost in the RealVideo, due to the high degree of motion and low frame rate. Here is a side-by-side comparison of the entire sequence during which the LM is visible from the RealVideo and DVD footage. (994kb, XviD)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK - let's look at your last 3 frames. They beautifully illustrate my point. The red arrow pointing to the same object all remain stationary. But look at the black shade - it has lowered noticably, from top to bottom as one piece it has come down, with the man on left also going from standing to sitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK - let's look at your last 3 frames. They beautifully illustrate my point. The red arrow pointing to the same object all remain stationary.

user posted image

huh.gif They do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I'm back to the Apollo moon hoax topic, as I promised, after receiving the new Apollo 12 dvd. And, it is, to put it simply, one gigantic cover-up job!! NASA is very aware of the anomalies in their video, and have manipulated the evidence which proves Apollo was a GIGANTIC HOAX!! 

683965[/snapback]

Receiving the new Apollo 12 DVD laugh.gif I bet you payed 30 usd for it.

And forget about the anomalies you think are there,those pictures from the DVD are so pixed out no one can tell what we are looking at.

And to say that just because you think you see "anomalies" in a dvd bought from shenanigans means the rest of the undisputed proof can be forgotten is ignorant,to say the least.

The first thing you do if you are going to fake it is you definitely don't bring any rocks back. Only real lunar rocks will work. If you try to make rocks that appear 4.5 billion years old, you not only have to create them to appear that old by every known dating method, you also have to account for new dating methods that hadn't even been invented.

There's more to these rocks than just dating. They have cosmic ray tracks through them. They formed in a near vacuum. They formed in a 1/6 gravity environment.

And what about the Telemetry and Voice/Data transmissions that were tracked from Earth!

DUST.

Another thing is the dust,it does not float in a vacuum. The only reason it 'floats' on Earth is because of the air that surrounds it. In a vacuum dust behaves exactly like any other object. You throw it up and it will then fall. It is no different from what a rock would do. Rocks do not float or billow around nor does the dust, even if it is lighter.

Because there is no air, dust falls quicker on the moon than on Earth. This may seem strange, as the Moon's gravity is much less. But the lack of an atmosphere is far more significant to the dust. But it still falls slower than you'd expect a rock to on Earth.

These two facts make dead certain proof of a lunar landing. There is absolutely nowhere on Earth that you could make dust behave in this, to us, peculiar way.

THE REFLECTORS..

This can be done by just about anyone. Ok, maybe not everyone, but plenty have done it and it proves men have been up there.

Basically all you do is buy a laser and a detector and a light collecting mirror. Then you fire it at a precise point on the moon. There is a reflecting prism there that acts like a mirror, placed by Apollo astronauts. Now if there was nothing at that point but rock that would be the last you would see of your laser. But time and time again scientist have been getting their laser reflected back. Indeed, they have done a number of experiments using these reflectors. This experiment has provided a very accurate method of measuring the distance to the moon. Due to these measurements we can now tell that the moon is actually steadily receding from the Earth.

And what about this.

Now I'd be the first to admit that this isn't conclusive proof, but still evidence and the clearest pictures we're going to get until the SELENE mission.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Clementine.htm

SELENE

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/SELENE.htm

"anomalies" in a dvd bought from shenanigans. laugh.giflaugh.gif

Dont give these people your money,they made a fortune on the gullible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no.gif Edited by hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thumbsup.gifthumbsup.giforiginal.gif

Yes, you're right that there is a bit of movement from frame 1 to 2 and more movement from frame 2 to 3. wink2.gif

In fact, we can see that there is a lot of movement of objects taking place in your animation sequence. It is not due to much movement of the camera. The objects are doing most of the moving.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And forget about the anomalies you think are there,those pictures from the DVD are so pixed out no one can tell what we are looking at.

No kidding they're "so pixed out"! That was the point I was making. And there is movement of objects going on where there should be no movements. Regardless of what those objects actually are. The other issues have been hashed over many times before, some of them earlier in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, we can see that there is a lot of movement of objects taking place in your animation sequence. It is not due to much movement of the camera. The objects are doing most of the moving.

Yes, everything in the frame is moving in the same direction and at the same rate, because the camera is moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thumbsup.gif  thumbsup.gif  original.gif

Yes, you're right that there is a bit of movement from frame 1 to 2 and more movement from frame 2 to 3.  wink2.gif

In fact, we can see that there is a lot of movement of objects taking place in your animation sequence. It is not due to much movement of the camera. The objects are doing most of the moving.

850903[/snapback]

How to be an Internet Woo-Woo.

Never look for the simplest, most obvious cause of something. Refrain from mentioning Occam's Razor (it's your nemesis). thumbsup.gif

Edited by hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, we can see that there is a lot of movement of objects taking place in your animation sequence. It is not due to much movement of the camera. The objects are doing most of the moving.

Yes, everything in the frame is moving in the same direction and at the same rate, because the camera is moving.

850915[/snapback]

Look at the movement on the right side - there is movement downwards to the right, not straight down. That is not just the result of the camera movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at the movement on the right side - there is movement downwards to the right, not straight down.

Look at the movement on the left side. Look at the movement at the top. Everything is moving downward to the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ape is not moving!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.