Apollo - Video Anomalies?

[flyingswan]

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 ?

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

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

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

Edited October 4, 2006 by flyingswan

[flyingswan]

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 !!

Have you ever taken a picture with the camera pointed straight at the sun (not a sunset with the sun dimmed by the atmosphere) and a normal daylight exposure setting?

Edit: Sorry, I didn't see "stills are off topic" before I posted this

Edited October 4, 2006 by flyingswan

[AtomicDog]

It has been established in the Apollo 17 liftoff sequence that fast moving gold mylar can and does take on other colors when shot by an Apollo video camera.

Let me post the photos in question again:

Close up of RCS deflector strut area of Apollo 12 LM, AS12-46-6726

pieced together frames of Apollo 12 TV camera as it is being removed from the MESA:

The two photos have these co-relating areas: the struts bracing the bottom of the deflector, the shiny curved metal of the bottom of the deflector, the gold mylar on the right where the strut ends, the gold mylar on the bottom and the painted black area above. Thus, it is established that these features are features of the LM.

It has also been established that at the time the video was shot, the camera was being removed from the MESA at the base of the LM and thus, was right next to the LM. Thus, we have reason for the camera, while it is being removed, to be pointing at an area of the LM.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Which is the extraordinary claim? That a video shot next to the Lunar Module should show the Lunar Module? Or that a video shot next to the Lunar Module should show tv monitors, chairs and scurrying stage technicians? Where is the extraordinary evidence?

There is evidence for the existence of the LM in the video, and no supporting evidence at all for the existence of "technicians" and "pulled shades" in the video.

Edited October 4, 2006 by AtomicDog

[flyingswan]

The two photos have these co-relating areas: the struts bracing the bottom of the deflector, the shiny curved metal of the bottom of the deflector, the gold mylar on the right where the strut ends, the gold mylar on the bottom and the painted black area above. Thus, it is established that these features are features of the LM.

Nice one, AtomicDog. Turbonium's been pushing this one for a long time on other forums, but it looks like you finally nailed it.

[MID]

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

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

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

Flyingswan:

You are absolutely correct regarding the colored specs of material.

Concerning the invisible exhaust plume, this has been explained in depth before...but essentially, you don't see one due to the fact that there is virtually no exhaust plume from an engine operating in a vacuum, especially a hypergolic engine operating in a vacuum...beyond initial ignition by-products, one generally sees nothing at all, save a glow inside the cumbustion chamber (which you can see when the LM pitches over).

There was also some mention of why there was no noise associated with the Apollo 17 video of the LM's liftoff.

The answer is that there is no sound producable in a vacuum. If the LRV's TV camera had a microphone on it (which of course it did not, since it would've been useless), it would've heard nothing...ever.

[phunk]

Another good example of the the color separation that was mentioned. See the red/green/blue specs flying in sequence? That's a single bit of debris moving too fast for the camera.

Edited October 4, 2006 by phunk

[Pericynthion]

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.

Hi Turbonium,

While reading through your post about the bank of lights you believe is visible in the Apollo 12 video footage, the left-hand frame in the above segment caught my eye. To me, this looks like a blurry but recognizable shot of the LM's +Y landing gear strut, footpad, and bent landing probe. Here's a marked-up version of your screen capture showing what I believe we're looking at, along with a still of the next frame in the sequence taken from a copy of the video found here:

Here's a cropped version of AS12-46-6739 showing the +Y landing gear strut and the deployed MESA where the TV camera was originally mounted. If I've got my geometry right, Al Bean would have been near this position and walking to the left as he carried the camera away from the LM to set it up. The landing probe under the +Y footpad bent backwards on landing and is seen here sticking up almost vertically at the right edge of the footpad. It's actually sticking out at angle, but is pointing backwards almost directly at the sun in this shot.

Here's a cropped version of AS12-46-6779 which shows the view from the opposite direction (the sun is now behind the camera):

Al Bean is taking a picture of the +Y footpad, and you can clearly see the bent landing probe. Also note the silver insulation attached to just the upper surfaces of the landing gear main struts. The dead TV camera is seen mounted on it's stand at the right side of the shot. Looking under the LM, the deployed MESA is visible hanging down on the opposite side of the descent stage. The camera burned out somewhere along the way as Al walked from the left side of this shot to the right side.

My take on the video is that Al was in a spot not too far from where he's standing in this shot, waving the camera around as he walked. Watching the video, I see the camera pan across the lunar surface, pass just under the sun, and then hesitate briefly on the LM landing gear. From there, the camera is moved up and left, right into the sun.

What do you think?

Regards,

[turbonium]

It has been established in the Apollo 17 liftoff sequence that fast moving gold mylar can and does take on other colors when shot by an Apollo video camera.

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

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

And even that area isn't where the gold mylar is....

Let me post the photos in question again:

Close up of RCS deflector strut area of Apollo 12 LM, AS12-46-6726

pieced together frames of Apollo 12 TV camera as it is being removed from the MESA:

The two photos have these co-relating areas: the struts bracing the bottom of the deflector, the shiny curved metal of the bottom of the deflector, the gold mylar on the right where the strut ends, the gold mylar on the bottom and the painted black area above. Thus, it is established that these features are features of the LM.

The struts in your photo are clearly in front of the black material. And the strut on the left is even in front of gold mylar, not black material....

Compare the struts to the video images. The whitish lines are not in front of the black material - they are the top part and the black material is the lower part - of one single piece joined together....

And of course, there is no gold mylar anywhere in the video clip. No gold mylar to the right of your "strut" (where we can clearly see a 3 dimensional chair, monitor, and incredible image depth). And no gold mylar below the black material (where blue-green, white, and flesh colors place themselves on two shapes that look just like people).

It has also been established that at the time the video was shot, the camera was being removed from the MESA at the base of the LM and thus, was right next to the LM. Thus, we have reason for the camera, while it is being removed, to be pointing at an area of the LM.

But we also have a reason for unintented filming of "offstage" areas - the camera holder is swooping the camera around haphazardly, without aiming.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Which is the extraordinary claim? That a video shot next to the Lunar Module should show the Lunar Module? Or that a video shot next to the Lunar Module should show tv monitors, chairs and scurrying stage technicians? Where is the extraordinary evidence?

There is evidence for the existence of the LM in the video, and no supporting evidence at all for the existence of "technicians" and "pulled shades" in the video.

Ah, the good ol' Sagan quote - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The quote may sound reasonable enough, but it's a logical fallacy (some call it a red herring).

Most people would certainly consider my claim to be "extraordinary" when compared to your claim. But the evidence for any claim is, and must be, weighed and judged on its own merits. If the evidence should lead us to make an "extraordinary" claim, then it must meet the same standards of evidence as any claim would to substantiate it.

Let's say a murder is committed. There are two prime suspects - Joe Shmuck and Queen Elizabeth (yes, as in the Queen of England). Consider two different scenarios unfolding after the investigations are concluded...

1. There is little evidence that Joe Shmuck was the killer, but substantial evidence that the Queen did it. A very high quality video taken by a bystander confirms her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. There is little evidence that the Queen did it, but substantial evidence against Joe Shmuck. A video of identical quality to the "Scenario 1" video now confirms Mr. Shmuck's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Scenario 1 is obviously the extraordinary claim being made. But it doesn't have "extraordinary" evidence when compared to the claim being made for Scenario 2. In fact. it has exactly the same amount of evidence. (Of course, in the real world, the Queen would never be found guilty of murder in such a scenario as described above - but it would not be because it lacks evidence of her guilt!)

The point is that evidence cannot have qualifiers such as "extraordinary" attached to them by virtue of how "extraordinary" the claim is. By that logic, we could say that any claim that is considered "ordinary" or uncontroversial requires little or no evidence to validate it.

_______________________________________________________________________

As to your argument...

"There is evidence for the existence of the LM in the video, and no supporting evidence at all for the existence of "technicians" and "pulled shades" in the video."

There is indeed evidence that the LM exists in the video - we see the camera is still attached to the LM ladder from an earlier video clip. I don't claim otherwise. But that isn't evidence that what is being filmed throughout the video is the LM.

And to say there is "no suppporting evidence at all" for my claim is absolutely incorrect. I haven't heard a logical explanation for how gold mylar can create the illusion of a 3-dimensional chair and monitor, with such incredible depth to the image. I have yet to hear an explanation for the movement of the black shade, confirmed by reference points in the images.

While I do respect those who have given alternative explanations for the anomalies, the counterclaims have simply not been convincing in the least.

Consider the possibility that what some things appear to be, they indeed are just those things. To wit, that the simplest, most obvious explanation may just be the correct one....

- When something looks like a very real, very 3-D chair, it's because is a chair. Not an unsubstantiated, "holographic-type" of effect created by gold mylar.

- When an image appears to have such incredible depth, it's because there is an area of incredible depth. Not an unsubstantiated, "holographic-type" of effect created by gold mylar.

- When something looks like two people with flesh toned hands and faces, and colored shirts, it's because it is two people. Not gold mylar filmed by a moving camera.

- When it looks like a man is holding onto two loops attached to a black shade, it's because it is a man holding two loops attached to a black shade. Not a Rorschach interpretation..

- When it looks like the black shade is going up and down, and measurements confirm this movement, it's because the black shade is moving up and down. Not an illusion created by camera movement.

- When something looks like a bank of overhead lights, it's because it is a bank of overhead lights. Not reflections from the Sun.

- When it looks like a bank of lights is moving while another light remains stationary, it's because it is a bank of lights being moved. Not reflections from the Sun combined with camera movement.

- When something looks exactly like a bare right arm, it's because it is a bare right arm. Not the S-band antenna cover.

These observations may lead to what many would call an "extraordinary" claim. But the evidence is not extraordinary, and doesn't need to be. It only has to support the claim as much as any claim does to validate it. And I think it does.

Anyway,

Cheers

Edited October 5, 2006 by turbonium

[turbonium]

My take on the video is that Al was in a spot not too far from where he's standing in this shot, waving the camera around as he walked. Watching the video, I see the camera pan across the lunar surface, pass just under the sun, and then hesitate briefly on the LM landing gear. From there, the camera is moved up and left, right into the sun.

What do you think?

Regards,

Hi Pericynthion

Here is the segment from the clip in question....

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

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

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

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

Cheers

[phunk]

Hi Pericynthion

Here is the segment from the clip in question....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[turbonium]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited October 5, 2006 by turbonium

[flyingswan]

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

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

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

[AtomicDog]

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

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

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

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

Turbonium has shown features in the video and he has presented a hypothesis that they are

a chair, a technician, a shade, and an arm. He shows no evidence to support his hypothesis; he just assumes that it is true.

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

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

[straydog]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AtomicDog]

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

NASA Edits Proof of Apollo moon Hoax!

I had no idea of turbonium's single mindedness on the subject. I'm not, and it's getting tedious.

No one sees an arm but turboniun, and it is obvious that he's not going to budge. I'm not one to beat my head against a brick wall.

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

[straydog]

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

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

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

[aquatus1]

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

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

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

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

[DogsHead]

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

My bold

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

[Pericynthion]

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

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

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

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

Cheers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what I got:

Still think reflections can't be that bright??

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

[turbonium]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LM Struts

1. The LM struts are clearly separate from the black material in the photos - only 2 or 3 of

the strut ends touch the black material. The lower left strut isn't even touching near the

black material - it's actually over the gold mylar....

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

piece....

2. As I pointed out earlier, the white in the video clip isn't necessarily even a line! The

video still below clearly proves, 100%, that this white material is not a strut...

Black material

1. The black material of the LM is rectangular in shape, while the black material in the

video stills clearly shows the black material is angular....

2. Same as point 2 above - in the video, the black material is attached to the white

material all along the top. The LM black material is not attached to the struts.

Gold Mylar

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

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

I agree. Absolutely.

[flyingswan]

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

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

[flyingswan]

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

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

Edited October 6, 2006 by flyingswan

[flyingswan]

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

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

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

[straydog]

ONE SINGLE LIGHT SOURCE CREATES ONE LONG LIGHT REFLECTION .

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

NO MATCH

Edited October 6, 2006 by straydog

[straydog]

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

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

Edited October 6, 2006 by straydog