It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Classified Nasa Video - AstroNOTS phaking footage

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 02:43 AM
link   
This is an awesome video, it shows astronauts of apollo 11 using trick photography during their space flight.

Previously Classified NASA Video

Video shows astronauts of Apollo 11 faking their voyage to moon. An image of the earth was phaked by darkening the interior of the capsule and focusing the camera from the opposite side, onto the circular window in the hatch. The astronots likely never left low earth orbit, and hence needed to phake an image of the earth that appears to be distant. However, the size of the apparent earth image appears way too small. Earth's image is smaller than size of the moon as seen from earth. You can still see the earth outside of other windows, too.

MUST SEE - space footage from nasa.

Notice, later parts of video show interior shots of capsule and earth still brightly visible outside every window that camera pans across. video.google.com...

Earth also visibly outside windows on later missions, like apollo 13 when they are supposedly orbiting moon in the LEM, earth is still outside window. Apollo 13's "landing" coincided with the wrong part of the lunar cycle. Landing zone was in shade for the duration of the days planned for the EVA's....THEY CAN'T LAND IN THE DARK!!! Surviving in the earth's shadow on the moon would require massive energy expidentures for heating! Dark parts of moon go as low as -280F! When sun is shining heat is over 260F!! video.google.com...


apollomoonhoax.blogspot.com...




posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   
I find evidence based on shadow arrangements and james bond movies kind of troublesome.


if they faked landing on the moon, why have they not faked a mars landing or any other type of landing?

I think they have landed a man on the moon


the Russians even confirmed it.


jra

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
Previously Classified NASA Video


In regards to this video. Firstly it was never classified. And read this link that talks about that video specifically. lokishammer.dragon-rider.org...

[edit on 17-12-2006 by jra]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
The David Icke film "Secret Space" is indeed a must see and I love the sheer scope of the conspiracy from Nazis to Bush to Nasa to Moon Bases to Aliens... however it loses ALL credibility when it shows an edited version of a Sci-Fi Channel commercial as a legitimate UFO video at the 36:50 mark. Shameful.

Still, all that Project Paper Clip stuff is cool and the radiation belt and lack of protection for the Apollo astronauts is interesting too. Not sold yet, but it's fun.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Well Sp00n1...you have me convinced...the shadow arrangments, background inconsistentsy's, and the part toward the end when the astronaunt has so much trouble getting up then just pops up like he is attached from above by a cable...looks so fake...why do you not hear rockets while they land that tin can attached to massive rockets on the moon and the astronauts talking so calmly like there sitting in a chair in a recording studio, god forbid they sound nervous at all, or you here any background static from the rockets...all the pics being so studio perfect when in fact the camera where attached to their chest with no view finders...the list goes on...and the nasa spokes person is a real idiot and sounds scared to answer questions and annoyed with all the questions...dont sound like he is covering something up, sounds so guilty, then says if you dont belive nasa, bring your proof to the experts, not nasa and ask them...heck the whole vodie is full of experts saying its a fake...in my opion i dont see how somone can watch the video and argue it.

unbelivable...i would like to belive we have been to the moon, maybe the real mission was covered up, and we all seen the pretty movie mission nasa made.

oh..one more thing...whats up with almost no pics of the first man to touch the moon..armstrong...but 300 of uldrin (sp?)


jra

posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by origin
why do you not hear rockets while they land that tin can attached to massive rockets on the moon and the astronauts talking so calmly like there sitting in a chair in a recording studio, god forbid they sound nervous at all, or you here any background static from the rockets.


Why would they hear the rockets? There is no sound in space, they could feel the vibrations from them, but not hear them. And why should they sound nervous? They trained for many years and knew what they were doing. They were test pilots, they were used to risking there lives.


all the pics being so studio perfect when in fact the camera where attached to their chest with no view finders.


Not all the photos were perfect, let alone studio perfect. And the need for a view finder is highly over rated. They practiced on Earth with the camera's a lot. Any photographer who knows how to use a camera well, doesn't really need the view finder. As long as you know the field of view of your lenses and can estimate distances, that's all you need. I've done it many times.


oh..one more thing...whats up with almost no pics of the first man to touch the moon..armstrong...but 300 of uldrin (sp?)


I believe because they only had one camera and Armstrong did most of the photographing, thus Aldrin being in most of the shots. The later missions had both astronauts with there own cameras.

I highly recommend you look at the link i posted earlier in this thread.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
sp00n1,

I watched that whole video (all 54 minutes) looking for what you claim was a view of earth from low orbit being viewed from a window cut-out. I didn't see it. All I saw was some great historical footage of the trip to the moon.

You said the film was classified, but at the 50:00 mark into the film, the controller at Houston(?) says that they see the video "12 seconds before the Networks can get it out". To me that sounds like this was live TV (or at least a 12 second delay.)

You say they were in low earth orbit. If that were true, how could the whole earth be visible. In fact, at the 53:20 time mark, you can see the whole window with an image of the whole earth outside the window, then they zoom in on the earth. It looked nothing like the cut-out in the window that you described.


sp00n1 says:
.....However, the size of the apparent earth image appears way too small. Earth's image is smaller than size of the moon as seen from earth. You can still see the earth outside of other windows, too.


This one is too easy...The next time the moon is visible (even a full moon), go outside and take a picture or a video of it. When you take a look at those images, you'll be shocked to see how small the moon looks. It will look like a small blob, not the large orb you remembered. That's just the nature of photography. The same thing goes for photographing the earth. When the Astronauts filmed the earth (with normal 1X zoom) it looked just as it should...small. Throughout most of that video the camera was zoomed in on the Earth (they even talked aboout the zoom), but there were occasions when the zoom was around 1X and the Earth looked just as small as expected.

BTW, if you use your digital camera to photograph the moon, I'll even let you use the 3X to 4X zoom on your camera...the moon will still look surprisingly tiny.

And what do you mean you can see the Earth from the other windows. I only saw one Earth at a time. Did you see more? If you're talking about the blue glare on the window over Mike Collins' left shoulder at around the 33:00 minute mark, then that's all you saw - glare (jra already posted this point about the glare.) Even though I don't know the exact position of the sun, I'm not surprised that there would be glare on the windows. There is some hint as to the Sun's position at around the 37:00 minute mark when they are discussing Aldrin's make-shift star chart window shade. The sun in such a position as to shine through that chart-covered window would be consistent (IMO) with the glare visible in the other window.



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
JRA...this is all just my opinion...I would belive even though sound dont travel in space, wouldnt you still here the sound inside the cabin, wouldnt the soundwaves from the rockets travel in side the cabin as well as outside...i mean maybe you cant hear them if you were outside in space, but there is a artifisal atmosphere in the cabin where sound does travel..so if the rochets were blasting right on the other side of the wall i belive you would here them...but maybe not...

about the photo's..they were astronaunts, not photgraphers who knew there camera's well...in one part of the footage, the astronaut didnt even know he wanst allowed to aim the camera at the sun and had to ask ground...when in earlier mission a camera was ruined because somone did that...that makes me think little practice with photography, yet awsome pictures with great lighting. Then one astornaunt has so much trouble setting up a video camera to just tape the LM, yet with a normal camera all the pics seem to be right on...

And last...do you really think they over looked the fact to need photo's of both astronauts with all their planning, especialy photo's of armstrong, the first man to set foot on the moon. Seems like nasa plans every last detail out to the tee...why miss something so huge? Maybe Armstrong who has mostly stayed away from the public for the rest of his years refused on moral grounds...anyways...there are so many holes in the footage...I wish a real NASA spokes person would debate the subject with some outside scientist to resolve the mysteries once and for all....



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Part of the second transmission went out live. The entire video had been kept in storage and never shown in full before.

The first transmission is a test to see how convincing it looks, and the oblivous people on the ground were pretty convinced. The second transmission was set up and then a very brief portin was broadcast live to the american taxpayers to convince them of the transparency of the operation...

Why was there no independent third party audit of the process? Why weren;t video cameras rolling live the entire trip to the moon? You wouldn't believe me if i went to the moon unless there was an independent auditor like ISO or someone guaranteeing the validity of the process.

The image you see is most definately not the entire earth. They are in low earth orbit, and they use the circular window in the hatch to creat a circular image of the earth. The window cuts out the rest of the earth, which stretches on far beyond the edges of the window...

If you are seeing the entire earth at a distance, why can you not see any stars around it? why can you not see the atmosphere layers, which should be very evident?

Why is the earth soooo bright?

And you can most definately see the earth outside of other windows...


From 30:30 - 32:30 you can see that the camera is not actually in the window like they claim. You can see that the camera is obviously on the opposite side of the craft and that they were zooming in on the window. You can see quite clearly how they were using the window to create an image of the earth that appears to be distant... The earth is still filling the window!!!



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   
First of all, before you read my post, please read this link that was posted earlier...
lokishammer.dragon-rider.org...
...and make at least some form of rebuttal for that.

Anyways,:

Originally posted by sp00n1
Why was there no independent third party audit of the process? Why weren;t video cameras rolling live the entire trip to the moon? You wouldn't believe me if i went to the moon unless there was an independent auditor like ISO or someone guaranteeing the validity of the process.


There was no independent process because when 400+ thousand people and the US government are involved in a project to land people on the moon, sane people tend to take their word for it. If you still don't believe, look at the amateur photographs taken of the CSM/LM and S-IVB on the way to the moon, all in their proper trajectories. A bit skeptical? Read up on the role of the Parkes Observatory in Australia during Apollo 11, or about the radio transmissions overheard by amateurs. Still don't believe? Ask the scientists studying lunar rocks or doing rangefinding experiments.

www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...
www.astr.ua.edu...

There was no non-stop video because video cameras and radio transmissions use up lots of power. Additionally, the astronauts were very busy much of the time. Lastly, what would be the point? Plenty of pictures and videos were done at the lunar surface, which is where it counts.



If you are seeing the entire earth at a distance, why can you not see any stars around it? why can you not see the atmosphere layers, which should be very evident?


No stars because the Earth is bright and the camera's exposure is set low to not overexpose the Earth. Same thing that happened on the lunar surface. If you don't believe me, take a photograph of the moon and see if you can capture both the moon and the stars immediately beside it.

The atmosphere is not very visible (though it is visible - there is no sharp cutoff) because the astronauts are far away from the Earth. Shots in low earth orbit show the haze easily because the camera is much closer to the Earth's horizon.

Other pictures show the same thing:
www.physics.usyd.edu.au...
This was taken by the Galileo probe, not by Apollo astronauts.

Additionally, you're ignoring one key fact: if the astronauts were in low earth orbit, they would be traveling at more than 7.8 kilometers per second past the ground and clouds, and the motion would be easily visible, especially if, like you say, only a small fraction of the Earth is visible at a time through the window.
Oh, and if it's just the window, what explains the fact that the Earth's terminator is clearly visible and shows a fairly smooth transition from light to dark?



Why is the earth soooo bright?

Because it's a 13400 km diameter sphere lit by the sun? Also keep in mind that a "full earth" would be much brighter than the full moon because the Earth's albedo (percent of sunlight reflected) is more than three times that of the Moon's (0.367 vs. 0.12).


jra

posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by origin
about the photo's..they were astronaunts, not photgraphers who knew there camera's well...in one part of the footage, the astronaut didnt even know he wanst allowed to aim the camera at the sun and had to ask ground...when in earlier mission a camera was ruined because somone did that...that makes me think little practice with photography, yet awsome pictures with great lighting. Then one astornaunt has so much trouble setting up a video camera to just tape the LM, yet with a normal camera all the pics seem to be right on...


It was the TV camera on Apollo 12 that was pointed at the sun, that's not the same as the still camera's. Which many times had the sun in frame.

Here is Buzz training with the camera
www.hq.nasa.gov...
There are many photos of the astronauts training on Earth and they practiced with the camera's a lot. But still, not all the photos were perfect.

some examples...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

That's just 3 shots out of many imperfect shots.


And last...do you really think they over looked the fact to need photo's of both astronauts with all their planning, especialy photo's of armstrong, the first man to set foot on the moon. Seems like nasa plans every last detail out to the tee...why miss something so huge?


They didn't plan out the photos to details like that. How could they? But Armstrong was in some of them. It's not really a big deal that he's not in all the photos.

Here's at least one of Armstrong.
www.hq.nasa.gov...


Originally posted by sp00n1
The image you see is most definately not the entire earth. They are in low earth orbit, and they use the circular window in the hatch to creat a circular image of the earth. The window cuts out the rest of the earth, which stretches on far beyond the edges of the window...




So you never went to that link I posted did you...

So if there's a circular cutout over the window, how does the Earth then disappear behind the window frame in some parts of the footage? Here's a still from the clip, showing the Earth being partly blocked by the window frame.
lokishammer.dragon-rider.org...
lokishammer.dragon-rider.org...

If they were still in low Earth orbit, how come you can see most of North America and South America? Here's a still from the video, compared to a photo taken with the still camera around the same time.



If you are seeing the entire earth at a distance, why can you not see any stars around it? why can you not see the atmosphere layers, which should be very evident?

Why is the earth soooo bright?


This all has to do with exposure. The Earth is very bright when photographing it. Star light is to faint to be picked up on a normal exposure. The Earth will look brighter when the exposure is adjusted to film within the cabin of the spacecraft, because the light isn't as bright inside. And no, you wouldn't see the atmosphere clearly from that distance, especially not with the quality and resolution of the tv camera.

Seriously, read this link! lokishammer.dragon-rider.org...



posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
Why was there no independent third party audit of the process? Why weren;t video cameras rolling live the entire trip to the moon? You wouldn't believe me if i went to the moon unless there was an independent auditor like ISO or someone guaranteeing the validity of the process.


I think you're pulling my leg...you're just trying to get me riled up. But I'll play along.

Why in the world would they ever think they would need an independant auditor to prove they went to the moon. It was broadcast on TV. I saw it. There were thousands of people involved. The Soviets were tracking us. NASA could never imagine that people would ever think they faked it.



The image you see is most definately not the entire earth. They are in low earth orbit, and they use the circular window in the hatch to creat a circular image of the earth. The window cuts out the rest of the earth, which stretches on far beyond the edges of the window...


Ohhhh, now I see what your're talking about. Let me correct what I posted before. I don't "see" the whole Earth because some of it is in night-time (as expected...it would be quite the extraordinary if they just "happened" to be flying in a direct straight line away from the dead center dayside of the earth.) In the first video segment, I see about 3/4 daylight side of the earth, the other 1/4 is in darkness. In the second segment, I see about 2/3 day side. The different vantage points relative to the earth is expected, since the 2 segments are filmed 22 hrs apart and the spacecraft is moving more than 25,000 mph.



If you are seeing the entire earth at a distance, why can you not see any stars around it? why can you not see the atmosphere layers, which should be very evident?

Why is the earth soooo bright?


The Earth IS so bright. It's mostly white clouds and (reflective) water. The camera's F-stop was set low (they talk about this at 32:36) because the Earth is bright. With the f-stop set low, you would not see any stars. This is an experiment I posted before: on the next starry night, take a picture of the sky (even with a normal f-stop setting). Develop or download the photos. You will see no stars in the photos (you may see venus, but it's not a star.)

The earth is 8000 miles in diameter. The "visible" atmosphere is about 50 miles thick (thin?) or less than 1% of the diameter. That would be very hard to see on the video. (99% of the atmosphere's volume is below 17 miles altitude). BTW, you can see some of the atmosphere..that's where the clouds are.



From 30:30 - 32:30 you can see that the camera is not actually in the window like they claim. You can see that the camera is obviously on the opposite side of the craft and that they were zooming in on the window. You can see quite clearly how they were using the window to create an image of the earth that appears to be distant... The earth is still filling the window!!!


Now I'm convinced you're pulling my leg...The window I see, and the one you're talking about, is square-ish, not circular. There were 5 windows - 2 square, 2 rectangular and 1 circular on the hatch. (The non-circular windows did have rounded corners, but they weren't circles.) using you're hypothesis, how would the Earth look round looking thru a square-ish window.

From 30:30 to 32:00, I still only see the small Earth in the window. In fact at 31:52 the controller says he can see a little of the interior plus the Earth thru the window. At 32:07 Collins turns on the flood light (he say's "it's on" at 32:07, but his hand is in the way until 32:10. At the very moment he says "it's on", a blue glare appears in the window (this glare is what you say is the Earth filling the window). I believe this glare may be from the floodlight. To correct one of my earlier posts, I said this could be sun glare. I now think it could be the floodlight.

[edit on 22-12-2006 by Soylent Green Is People]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join