Re-visiting the Moon...

I agree dude,
It was blatent ambush journalism i admit.
Maybe that guy gets that every day,and he just popped!
I was most interested in his initial reaction though,where he froze up,
and seemed to have a "practiced"/programmed? look on his face.
He almost seemed to be trying to hide a cold sweat moment.
There is at least something fishy about the last section of the first video you posted-where they explain how the media were only allowed to film the landing "second hand"-no source material was given to them.
The recent missing tapes fiasco (missing master tapes of moon landing,now found)
only deepens the mystery.
I wonder if the "found" tapes contain any subtle changes?Be good to find out.
Maybe they were lost in the "photoshop" department...

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
That second part of the vid posted by odhen is interesting.
Theres something strange going on there,with the window and stuff.

Firstly. This clip about the window and the claim about it being a sign of a hoax was made by Bart Sibrel. This is the same guy who ambushed Buzz Aldrin and got punched by him. BS has done this to other astronauts. He even barged into a home of one former astronaut. He got a kick in the ass for that too. The guy is just scum in my opinion. His 'documentaries' are full of lies and half truths as well. If you want a detailed and logical explination about the Earth viewed from the CSM window, then go here.

lokishammer.dragon-rider.org...

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
The recent missing tapes fiasco (missing master tapes of moon landing,now found)
only deepens the mystery.
I wonder if the "found" tapes contain any subtle changes?Be good to find out.
Maybe they were lost in the "photoshop" department...

They are still missing. The EASEP data tapes were found, not the SSTV ones. Although the EASEP tapes contain more scientific value then the SSTV tapes.



What is it about the SSTV tapes that makes some people claim it as a sign of a hoax? All the Apollo 11 footage that you see comes directly from those tapes, but just poorer quality. If they do find the originals, the quality will only be marginally better. Some people seem to be under the impression that it contains super high quality footage. It doesn't. The quality is not even as good as the average TV. To quote something I wrote in another thread about the tapes.

Originally posted by jra
The Apollo 11 SSTV tapes have 320 lines of resolution and it runs at 10 fps (frames per second). The average TV today has a resolution of about 525 lines and runs at 30 fps. HDTV has a res of 1080 lines and runs at 30 fps.

So don't fool yourself into thinking these Apollo 11 tapes will have amazing picture quality. And don't forget that there were 6 other missions to the Moon after Apollo 11. They used different cameras, they were also in colour. The camera on Apollo 12 - 14 had 262 lines per frame and ran at 20 fps. Apollo 15 - 17 used a different colour camera although I can't find the information about it at the moment. All I know is that it has at least 200 lines per frame and probably a similar frame rate.

And there was also the 16mm DAC (Data Acquisition Camera) that was used on all the missions. It could run and various speeds from 1 fps, 6 fps, 12 fps, and 24 fps. Also you have the still photos that were photographed on 70mm film. The quality from these is way better than what you'd get from the black & white TV camera on Apollo 11.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
That second part of the vid posted by odhen is interesting.
Theres something strange going on there,with the window and stuff.

Firstly. This clip about the window and the claim about it being a sign of a hoax was made by Bart Sibrel. This is the same guy who ambushed Buzz Aldrin and got punched by him. BS has done this to other astronauts. He even barged into a home of one former astronaut. He got a kick in the ass for that too. The guy is just scum in my opinion. His 'documentaries' are full of lies and half truths as well. If you want a detailed and logical explination about the Earth viewed from the CSM window, then go here.

lokishammer.dragon-rider.org...

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
The recent missing tapes fiasco (missing master tapes of moon landing,now found)
only deepens the mystery.
I wonder if the "found" tapes contain any subtle changes?Be good to find out.
Maybe they were lost in the "photoshop" department...

They are still missing. The EASEP data tapes were found, not the SSTV ones. Although the EASEP tapes contain more scientific value then the SSTV tapes.

Originally posted by jra
The Apollo 11 SSTV tapes have 320 lines of resolution and it runs at 10 fps (frames per second). The average TV today has a resolution of about 525 lines and runs at 30 fps. HDTV has a res of 1080 lines and runs at 30 fps.

So don't fool yourself into thinking these Apollo 11 tapes will have amazing picture quality. And don't forget that there were 6 other missions to the Moon after Apollo 11. They used different cameras, they were also in colour. The camera on Apollo 12 - 14 had 262 lines per frame and ran at 20 fps. Apollo 15 - 17 used a different colour camera although I can't find the information about it at the moment. All I know is that it has at least 200 lines per frame and probably a similar frame rate.

Jra,
Yep,for sure-that Bart sibriel guy probably deserved a good walloping,especially if that type of work is his regular day job.
I bet all the ex apollo dudes all get together and exchange stories about him.
I am by no means convinced by this moon landing hoax,but there are some anomalies,which people like you help iron out for me.
Thanks

[edit on 7-11-2006 by Silcone Synapse]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fixed quote (I think)


[edit on 7/11/06 by masqua]

Agreed - too bad too, cuz maybe some of these poor 'ole flyboys would open up a bit more if jerks like BS didn't heap his BS on them. Besides, that whole, 'shake-my-hand-I'm-you're-buddy' approach followed by the badgering would set anybody on edge. The guy is gonna get shot if he keeps it up (and he doesn't help the rest of us who are simply seeking the truth).

BTW - I saw this on other ATS threads but never read a satisfactory response:
How come all the video footage from the moon looks like such amateurish cr@p? I mean even the Gemini flights had some outstanding hi-res, hi-def footage that awed the world. You mean we spent billions to get there and all we can come up with is this grainy, snowy, cheap junk - out-of-focus, B&W, poor quality film, poor quality cameras.

I would think if you're about to take the vacation trip excursion of any lifetime you'd want to capture the moment on the best equipment and techniques available. What did we get? "Look, ma, that fuzzy snowman-looking blob is me, the first human in history to walk on another celestial body! Nice, huh mom? Mom? *snore*

just my $0.02...

[edit on 11/7/2006 by Outrageo]

Originally posted by Outrageo
BTW - I saw this on other ATS threads but never read a satisfactory response:
How come all the video footage from the moon looks like such amateurish cr@p? I mean even the Gemini flights had some outstanding hi-res, hi-def footage that awed the world. You mean we spent billions to get there and all we can come up with is this grainy, snowy, cheap junk - out-of-focus, B&W, poor quality film, poor quality cameras.

As far as I know, the Gemini flights didn't broadcast live from space. I believe all the footage is recorded on 16mm film. The Apollo missions also had 16mm cameras, but the main stuff one sees from Apollo is the stuff captured by the video cameras. Different kind of camera is going to give you a different kind of picture. And 60's video technology was fairly primitive then, but that was the only way to broadcast stuff live.

Try looking for the Apollo 16mm DAC footage. The quality should be better if you can find good sources (ie: NOT youtube). Although a lot of the time they had the DAC camera recording at a low frame rate, but there should be some stuff recorded at 24fps.

You can also check out the stuff from Spacecraft Films if you have or want to spend the money.

This thread reminds me of a movie I watched yesterday.

Guess which movie I've been watching?

Thanks jra - knew about the film/camera types. My point was - why record the greatest moment in space-faring history on the worst equipment? Better WAS available - they didn't use it (very much). I know they got the live feed, but WHY NOT also put the hi-def equip out there ALSO. We've all see the famous ladder descent a thousand times - NASA must've know this was going to be the BIG moment - IMO someone dropped the ball on this opportunity (and others on that missio and subsequent missions).

A little off topic - but with all the lip service NASA gaives to their PR, they could've gotten way more mileage (and thus, credibility from skeptics, etc), if they had thought this imagery thing through and went with hi-end equip and procedures.

In any case - thanks again for your interest and insight...

Originally posted by Outrageo
Thanks jra - knew about the film/camera types. My point was - why record the greatest moment in space-faring history on the worst equipment? Better WAS available - they didn't use it (very much). I know they got the live feed, but WHY NOT also put the hi-def equip out there ALSO. We've all see the famous ladder descent a thousand times - NASA must've know this was going to be the BIG moment - IMO someone dropped the ball on this opportunity (and others on that missio and subsequent missions).

Well I'm sure there were better video cameras out there at the time, but they had to make custom ones that met there size, weight and power restrictions. They had to limit the resolution and the frame rate so that it all could be sent back to Earth easily and didn't drain there power supply.

The reason for not using the 16mm camera (or any film camera) all the time would be because of the amount of film reels you'd go through. Where are you going to put all that film? How much is it all going to weigh etc.

For Apollo the 16mm DAC cameras were ment to be used as sequential cameras. Recording a frame every second. The film reels would only last 3.6 minutes at 24 fps. Not good for documenting a trip that's going to last for a week or two.

Video was the only way to go really.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
That second part of the vid posted by odhen is interesting.
Theres something strange going on there,with the window and stuff.

Firstly. This clip about the window and the claim about it being a sign of a hoax was made by Bart Sibrel.

That clip with the window, is the only evidence Ive seen so far that hasnt been explained. Are you saying that Bart Sibrel hoaxed that clip or something? I think he is a bit of an idiot myself but I didnt think he faked that clip, unless of course Im wrong.

Originally posted by Dae
That clip with the window, is the only evidence Ive seen so far that hasnt been explained. Are you saying that Bart Sibrel hoaxed that clip or something?

No, I ment that he's the one that made the claim about the cutout on the window. Sorry for the confusion. The clip is real. And one thing about Sibrel is that he likes to show people only what he wants them to see. If he showed the whole footage of that part. You'd see the Earth disappear behind the window frame. A cardboard cutout or a transparent sticker on the glass can't do that.

Originally posted by jra
You'd see the Earth disappear behind the window frame. A cardboard cutout or a transparent sticker on the glass can't do that.

You've seen the rest yourself then? Id love to see that footage unedited for Sibrel's film. Dont you think it looks strange, Earth, all squished like that supposed to be 130k miles away, it truely looked like the port hole was the diameter and Earth was actually much much lager. What I mean is, that it looked the opposite of what we are being told is happening. The camera was supposed to be pushed up against the window when in fact it appears to be well inside the craft. As I said, Id love to see the footage of this but not from Sibrel's film.

Originally posted by Dae
Dont you think it looks strange, Earth, all squished like that supposed to be 130k miles away

Squished how? Part of the Earth is in shadow.

What I mean is, that it looked the opposite of what we are being told is happening. The camera was supposed to be pushed up against the window when in fact it appears to be well inside the craft.

It isn't supposed to be pushed up against the glass. It is being filmed from one side of the CSM and looking out the window on the other side. (as far as I can tell anyway)

I don't know if you saw the link i posted before, but here it is again. lokishammer.dragon-rider.org...

As for the original film. I haven't seen all of it, but I have seen parts where the Earth disappears behind the window frame.

Originally posted by jra
It isn't supposed to be pushed up against the glass. It is being filmed from one side of the CSM and looking out the window on the other side. (as far as I can tell anyway)

But the astronauts are clearly saying that they have the camera pushed up against the glass and that the view of the earth (and its surrounding darkness) is taking up all the camera space.

For instance this image I screen captured from the video, we are told that the camera is pushed up against the window, for maximum coverage of the earth, but really we see that the camera is actually way inside the craft and the darkness surrounding earth is the darkness inside the craft.



Here is what I see, please forgive my skills in paint! The Earth is actually much bigger than is being portrayed which means they are closer than the 130k miles away than what was stated by the astronauts. Which may hint that yes they did 'go into space' but not very far and not to the moon. Or perhaps they did go and the footage on the moon was not live but pre-recorded just in case something went wrong, not sure could be alot of things and Im digressin'.

Originally posted by Dae
For instance this image I screen captured from the video, we are told that the camera is pushed up against the window, for maximum coverage of the earth, but really we see that the camera is actually way inside the craft and the darkness surrounding earth is the darkness inside the craft.

Well they may have had it close to the window at some points and at other times not. Hard to say since I haven't seen it in a while. There are also 3 different videos recorded at different times, so I guess it also depends on which one we're talking about.

The Earth is actually much bigger than is being portrayed which means they are closer than the 130k miles away than what was stated by the astronauts. Which may hint that yes they did 'go into space' but not very far and not to the moon. Or perhaps they did go and the footage on the moon was not live but pre-recorded just in case something went wrong, not sure could be alot of things and Im digressin'.

Well the some footage is recorded on the 16mm DAC camera if I remember right (in other words it's not live) and then some of it live with the video camera. Also, if they were in LEO (low earth orbit) You'd see the Earth surface rotating by the window rather noticeably, but that doesn't happen in the video. Also there are high quality photos taken with the cameras at the same time and the cloud patterns match the video stills.

Did you look at the link I posted?

From Video


From 70mm still camera


From video. Earth partly blocked by the window frame

Originally posted by jra
Well they may have had it close to the window at some points and at other times not. Hard to say since I haven't seen it in a while. There are also 3 different videos recorded at different times, so I guess it also depends on which one we're talking about.

You're right, thats why I wondered if there was unedited versions of this footage as Sibrel's film is a tad bias to say the least!

Did you look at the link I posted?

Grrr, I missed it! Sorry dude, if I had read your link I wouldnt have pursued it, however Im glad I did as making my version of Earth helped me see what that site was saying.

My intuition says something isnt right, and it probably isnt, ie. its not as clear cut as they make it out to be and I think Sibrel et al. use that to further their goal, whatever that is! Thanks Jra for answering my questions.

new prospects of activity on the moon?

folks, MAINSTREAM news even knows there is far more kicking on the moon than NASA or any other government body wants to publicly admit.

why is that?

it's soo frustrating because as a concerned human being, why are we "outsiders" usually left soo far behind in the game and all we're left with is crappy scientists with privey information rarely willing to give the people what they deserve to hear.

this may sound minor, but i never knew about astronomers debating about white spots being seen on the moon by amatuer sky watchers as described in the link.




[edit on 10-11-2006 by chetinglendalevillage]

Originally posted by chetinglendalevillage
new prospects of activity on the moon?

Your link took me to a fascinating article called 'Physicists Observe New Property of Matter', it was very cool but I dont think it was what you intended. Could you repost the link?

HAHA - note to self : don't post at 3:30am ever again!

here's the link i REALLY meant for this audience:

moon still active?

Yeah, that article was good, Im glad I asked you to post the right link

Yup, odd lights and whathaveyou have been reported by astronomers for a long time now:

Source:

Nov. 23, 1887: Observed: "Flakes of light moving toward Plato from all the other craters of the moon."

Sept. 13, 1889: Reported by Prof. Thury, of Geneva, "a black spot (on the moon) with an 'intensely white' border."

March 30, 1889: Observed: a black spot near the center of Copernicus.

May 11, 1889: Observed: an object "as black as ink" on the moon.

April 1, 1893: "...a shaft of light was seen projecting from the moon, by M. de Moraes, in the Azores. A similar appearance was seen, Sept. 25, 1893, at Paris, by M. Gaboreau."

And more recently:

NASA itself published, in 1968, a Chronological Catalogue Of Reported Lunar Events which reportedly included "more than 570 moon anomalies from 1540 to 1967." [1] Among the oddities:

May 1787: Flashes of light seen on the moon by two astronomers.
March/April 1787: William Herschel, discoverer of Uranus, sights lights moving above the moon.
July 1821: Various reports of blinking lights seen on the moon.
February 1877: Streak of light, lasting for about one hour, seen stretching across the moon's Eudoxus Crater.
April 1882: Moving shadows seen in the moon's Aristotle area.
April 1915: Beam of light sighted in the crater Clavius.
June 1940: Two streaks of light noted, in the crater Plato, "a location where reports of lights have numbered in the thousands." [1]
June 1964: For over two hours, "something dark moved across the moon's surface near the Ross D. area." [1]

I agree, this sort of information is so readily ignored in standard text books. Which of course is full of 'facts' that are actually theories! So instead of our young people getting interested in the universe around us we bore them with facts that pretty much tell them to be an office worker because all the science is known. Sorry for going off on one there but my son showed me his homework diary, it has oneliner 'tidbits' of information at the bottom of every page. One such tidbit claimed as a FACT that comets are understood as dirty iceballs! It is not a fact it is a THEORY and a poor one that is loosing ground as more experiments are being done. Grrr...

Ok, rant over, thank you for listening