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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 126
377
<< 123  124  125    127  128  129 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I am still waiting for evidence that someone has proved the Apollo mission were faked.

:shk:

Anyone??



I won't hold my breath.

Yet I'll be receptive.




posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
I think you're looking at these images at a very different depth to me. No offense, but most of the links you've provided are straight from a google search, so its difficult to explain through lots of copy and pasted information from other sources.


Originally posted by FoosM
"The modern technique"


This is picking words a bit from google. What you have to understand is that previously the wires were all visible and they just tried to minimize how much you could see.



This is not nitpicking, did you see wires in Mary Poppins?
They had many ways of hiding wires:
book

Blue screen to painting the wires.
Considering the exceptional black sky in Apollo photography and videos I can see how easily they were masked.






Most of the footage for Apollo was shot on Video as far as I can tell.
Look at the movie Capricorn One for the slo-mo technique used for via video.
Truthfully, Im not sure if it was even possible (ramping speed) on video at the time, but I dont see why not.


Apollo wasn't shot on video. I know video when I see it. It was shot on Kodak 16mm film.


Wait what?
Ummm.... how do you think the walk was broadcast live ?





Still Cameras:
Hasselblad 70mm EDC
Maurer 16mm Data Acquisition Camera

Video Cameras:
Apollo 11: Westinghouse Apollo Lunar Television Camera
Apollos 12-14: Westinghouse Lunar Color Camera
Apollo 15-17: RCA J-Series GCTA




Capricorn One was DEFINITELY not shot on video. It was shot on 35mm film - I can tell you this without looking it up. There are a plethora of reasons why slow motion was not possible on video. Identifying the differences between types of video and film is a basic skill in this industry.


Well you need some help in that area brah
if you are saying what I think you were saying that everything was shot on 16mm for Apollo.
And regarding Cap1, reading comprehension please, in the movie they showed how they slowed down video of the astronaut jumping on the martian surface. I didnt say Cap1 was shot on video. Now if you want to claim that video could not do slo-motion please back that up.


Again, for the 16mm footage, where do you
see the need for wires or other special effects?
How many reels of film did the astronauts take with them?
This would limit the amount of footage they would have to fake.



The average film can take several thousand meters of film - Apollo missions allegedly had many times this. Slow motion would cause problems with this. Allegedly they took 33 reels.


And it could hold 130 feet of thin base film, right?
So thats 33 rolls x 130 feet = 4,290 feet of film.

Ok lets compare this to a low budget film shot on 16

Length of film: 100 minutes
16mm holds 122 meters (400 feet) of film which is about 11 minutes of footage.
If you shoot your film on a 10 to 1 ratio (typical ratio) you need
a 1000 minutes to shoot which translates to 91 rolls of film to cover it.
91 x 400 feet = 36,400 feet.

Thats 9x more than Apollo.
And even if you meant per mission 33 rolls of film, that translates to
30 thousand feet of film. Still less than a low budget film shot on 16mm.
And you still want to claim there was a problem with too much film?
Come on.

Now explain this:

In an article for Texas Monthly Al Reinhart states NASA has 6 million feet of 16mm film in storage! Six million.
Where did that number come from?
Book

You have an answer for this?
Well I guess that explains the $ 42 billion production.




The need for wires is fairly simple ... Time isn't just slowed down in these shots - there are moments where objects move at different speeds than would be expected in a standard 2x slow down or similar.


I asked you to show me.
Present some videos.
Explain what I should be looking for.





Also, can you find me full quality NASA 16mm videos?


It concerns me that you're debating this subject without viewing a full resolution copy of the subject matter. There are many places you can purchase or acquire non-youtube footage and unedited versions of these films.


Show me.




Therefore in the first place VFX artists aren't taught to make picture perfect imagery.


What does that got to do with faking Apollo? Obviously an effects artist would be concerned about trying to make it look real or accurate for scientific scrutiny.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



In an article for Texas Monthly Al Reinhart states NASA has 6 million feet of 16mm film in storage! Six million.
Where did that number come from?
Book

You have an answer for this?


Hmmm... let's see... they've got footage of chimpanzees being trained to push a button, footage of John Glenn trying to touch his toes in a pressure suit, footage of model Mercury capsules crashing onto various surfaces, footage of Wally Schirra climbing into a water tank... in case you haven't noticed, NASA is the most self-consciously photogenic public agency on Earth. I'll let Pinke handle your other concerns, save to point out that although things fall slowly in the Apollo films and videos, they move laterally at the same speed as on Earth. Do you know why? How was it done?

Edit to correct formatting.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I am truly surprised ANYONE would attempt to use that schlock movie Capricorn 1 in an attempt to lend credence to an Apollo landing "hoax" cliam!!



And regarding Cap1, reading comprehension please, in the movie they showed how they slowed down video of the astronaut jumping on the martian surface. I didnt say Cap1 was shot on video.


Earlier you said you just watched it again??

My, my...how could you stand it?

Had to have been one of the worst, most unrealisitic pieces of crap ever made, in terms of what it called its SFX...and that says a lot. As a story it left a lot to be desired, with many plot holes....I rank it up there with "Atomic Train".





Or!! Even better!!! "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians"!!!!




But, as an IDEA it was something that Hollywood usually craves...just because it was fairly 'novel', and hadn't been done. Check this reviewer, who actually (IMO) goes too easy on the film:


Capricorn One falls into the type of conspiracy film that became all the fad following Watergate – Peter Hyams amusingly states that he shipped the idea for Capricorn One around for several years but it was not until Watergate made the idea fashionable that was able to sell the script. Peter Hyams’ plot is a devilishly clever one. Hyams happily swipes more than an idea or two from writer Barry Malzberg’s satirical exhumations of the space-program and from the lunatic conspiracy theorists who insist that the Moon Landing was faked on tv.


Spot on, that bit!!!


When it came out, Capricorn One attracted a good deal of disdain in the science-fiction community...


Including me, for it was so appallingly bad...the "faked" scenes on "Mars" were pathetic, and completely unconvincing...and trying to make it look like 1/3 G by 'slo-mo'? Pathetic!

But, anothr reason was (oh, and writer David Gerrold first came to be known by writing a Star Trek episode...in the late 1960s. A favorite of many --- "The Trouble With Tribbles":


..... for its less than reverent attitude toward the space programme. Writer David Gerrold pompously claimed “it [the film] belittles and demeans the highest aspirations of the mind ... devalues the integrity of science itself. Those of us who stood in our backyards on quiet summer nights, gazing up at the stars and wondering, hoping ... the makers of Capricorn One have taken our dream girl and portrayed her as a prostitute.” Although this was an argument that was somewhat defeated by the fact that NASA co-operated with and even loaned equipment and space modules for the making of the film.


Gee...what about that, huh??? That last bit, there...I highlighted it for ya...

Finally, the reviewer added:


... – Hal Holbrook has a magnificent soliloquy early on in the film that languishes the loss of the dream embodied by John F. Kennedy’s original call to space in the face of 1970s budgetary cutbacks.

www.moria.co.nz...

"[Capricorn 1" has also been called slightly 'interesting' in the first half, but that it quickly degenerated to a simple 'chase' film to the end.....

Of course, most audiences wouldn't notice the inaccurately false appearances of the "Mars" scenes; especially back in 1977! People are at least a bit more sophisticated, today. Still, they've been spoiled so often, even the REAL thing looks "fake" to them now! :shk:


jra

posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Context.
See your mind is trying to rationalize it.
You dont know know how somebody should move on the moon in a pressurized suit.


I could say the exact same thing to you. How do you know you're not the one trying to rationalize it in your mind? You haven't shown any evidence of wires. You just linked to videos with astronauts moving about in ways that appear different than how it would work on Earth.

Please provide more thorough evidence of wire rigs being used. What kind of set up was used? How was it designed to allow full freedom of movement in all directions? Where were the wires attached to on there suits? How where the wires removed from live video? If you don't believe it was live, then show evidence of it being pre-recorded.


Supposedly its difficult to move and hold objects, yet we have seen as astronaut grab hold of a feather and drop it in unison with a hammer.


So then I guess it's not so difficult is it? Why are you mentioning this? What does it have to do with astronauts and wires?


And what about golfing on the moon?


You brought it up. You tell me.



Your assumption that those objects are in the same space.
Your assumption that those objects are what they say they are.
The dust that kicks around, what proof do you have that it lands anywhere?


And it's your assumption that it's all fake. Provide some evidence of your claims.


Your assumption that special effects weren't so special in the 1960's when they were pretty good since the 1930's to pull off all those effects.


It's not an assumption. I can see with my own two eyes that the best special effects at that time were not capable. Even Stanley Kubrick's "2001" is filled with many flaws. Special effects don't age well either. How is it that the Apollo videos can hold up so well for 40 years and a movie from 10 years ago doesn't? Hell, even special effects in sci-fi movies today don't look remotely convincing.


You say Rammstein didnt do much but put a flag up, well thats basically what they did on Apollo.


If that's what you believe then you obviously haven't spent much time on this subject. Some of the activities may seem mundane to you, but they set up all sorts of equipment, collected samples, etc. The point I was trying to make was that they were moving around and being active, where as in the music video they were not. They just stood in one place for most of it.


I asked first.
And I want to see if anybody else can see it.


Well when you get bored of waiting, could you then explain what it is you see?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
I am still waiting for evidence that someone has proved the Apollo mission were faked.

:shk:

Anyone??



I won't hold my breath.

Yet I'll be receptive.


sure and you still haven't watch Jarrah's videos.

Sad afraid you might change your mind? A weak willed one then you are? -Doing Yoda's voice impression



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



In an article for Texas Monthly Al Reinhart states NASA has 6 million feet of 16mm film in storage! Six million.
Where did that number come from?
Book

You have an answer for this?



Hmmm... let's see... they've got footage of chimpanzees being trained to push a button, footage of John Glenn trying to touch his toes in a pressure suit, footage of model Mercury capsules crashing onto various surfaces, footage of Wally Schirra climbing into a water tank... in case you haven't noticed, NASA is the most self-consciously photogenic public agency on Earth.



did you read the article?



I'll let Pinke handle your other concerns, save to point out that although things fall slowly in the Apollo films and videos, they move laterally at the same speed as on Earth. Do you know why? How was it done?



what things, point them out.


[edit on 29-6-2010 by FoosM]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



what things, point them out.


Everything. Notice how the astronauts hop? How their arms move? How the dust flies? How the astronauts scramble when they fall and try to get up? Have you watched any of the films or videos closely enough? When they jump, they go up pretty quickly, don't they? That doesn't look like slow motion to me. It's only on the way down things look odd, isn't it?

Edit to correct typo.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   
This thread is now descending beyond ridicule... Has any decent point been made by any deniers in the last ten pages or so?

Frankly, the belief that slow motion was used in Apollo is.. beyond ignorant.

It takes an incredibly simple equation (one that no Apollo denier here has the brains (or guts) to work out for themselves) to show that the factor required to emulate 1/6 gravity is around 2.46x. Not 1.5x, which is what the terminally stupid Jarrah White claimed. Why did he claim that? Well, that would be because it looks completely ridiculous at 2.46x. And yet it HAS to be to get the fall rates right. And then there's the weird effects caused by low gravity but same mass - (that's called 'inertia' for the challenged..), which explains some of the odd movements. Deniers tend to have tunnel vision - they can only think in terms of mass=weight, and anything that looks odd can't be due to other effects.....


Maybe it's just me, but if a person (with a brain) theorised that some videos were using slow motion, I would have thought they would:

- WORK OUT THE SLOW MOTION FACTOR REQUIRED

- APPLY THAT FACTOR TO THE VIDEOS IN REVERSE... AND LOOK AT THE RESULT.

I now invite anyone with a brain to do that. Work out the factor for yourself. It's not difficult - just remember that the gravitational accelerations for earth and moon are in m/sec2, so you need to use that square root button to get a speed factor... Then use a decent video player and speed up a good sampling of the apollo videos to the factor you have calculated. Try NOT to laugh too much.


Slowmo just doesn't come close to emulating 1/6g.


Oh, and drifting a little offtopic and changing the subject (if the deniers can do it, so can I) here's one for you Youtube lovers... parlez vous francais?



I like the comments...


And it's noteworthy that these analyses are *not* coming from NASA, just enthusiasts... People with BRAINs...


PS Radiation analysis is on hold, sorry. (Am currently rebuilding computer, the old mobo finally died... unpleasantly
I've got a lot of stuff to transfer, and my 'rad' stuff is low on the list, along with other equally expired equines...)

[edit on 29-6-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



what things, point them out.

Everything.
Notice how the astronauts hop? How their arms move? How the dust flies? How the astronauts scramble when they fall and try to get up? Have you watched any of the films or videos closely enough? When they jump, they go up pretty quickly, don't they? That doesn't look like slow motion to me. It's only on the way down things look odd, isn't it?

Edit to correct typo.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by DJW001]



I asked you to point it out, not restate what you have been stating. Point to a specific video and explain why we are looking at a lunar landscape and not a rigged astronaut.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by FoosM]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Had to have been one of the worst, most unrealisitic pieces of crap ever made, in terms of what it called its SFX...and that says a lot. As a story it left a lot to be desired, with many plot holes....I rank it up there with "Atomic Train".



Instead of giving a summary of movie reviews why dont you and others answer the questions I asked:


I want to seriously know:
1. Who here is willing to pay extra taxes to go to the moon, and how much?
2. How much do you realistically think a mission to the moon will cost?
3. What programs would you recommend cutting, if necessary, to pay for the trip?
4. What countries or space agencies would you recommend working with to accomplish the mission?
5. Where do you think the public stands on a return trip to the moon? In favor? Against?
6. If in favor, why not dont you think there is a grass roots push for it to happen? Or which candidate would you need to support to make it happen?
7. Will going back to the moon generate jobs? Generate income for the country? For the world? In other words, what could the positive effects be for sending men to the moon?


They are not a trick questions



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Seeing you asked nicely, and they aren't (mostly) stupid questions...


Originally posted by FoosM

1. Who here is willing to pay extra taxes to go to the moon, and how much?
Nope. Been there. It's a dead place, with little of interest. I would pay more to see lots more robotic probes to other planets and moons, especially the interesting ones around Saturn and Jupiter.

2. How much do you realistically think a mission to the moon will cost?
About 10 times the original, in current monetary terms, because of all the additional cleverness we would want, and additional safety margins that are required by all the non-pioneering-spirit types these days.

3. What programs would you recommend cutting, if necessary, to pay for the trip?
See 1.

4. What countries or space agencies would you recommend working with to accomplish the mission?
NASA, ESA, JAXA, as long as we are talking about wider missions.

5. Where do you think the public stands on a return trip to the moon? In favor? Against?
Against. Been there, done that, like I said. Too much misspent money in other areas. And I agree with them. Apollo was right for its time. Not now.

6. If in favor, why not dont you think there is a grass roots push for it to happen?
You're not very good at polling, are you? You should have had a 'Go to Q.99' in there somewhere.

Or which candidate would you need to support to make it happen?
See 6. And not everyone lives in the US, or gives a ....

7. Will going back to the moon generate jobs?
Of course it would, if it happens.

Generate income for the country?
Some..., just like any big project (or war, for that matter) does.

For the world?
Basic economics lesson required?
Flow on...?

In other words, what could the positive effects be for sending men to the moon?
About the same as any huge project, like covering deserts with solar panels... I'm more interested in the benefits of the project itself. I don't see that much in returning to the Moon.



[edit on 29-6-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



I asked you to point it out, not restate what you have been stating. Point to a specific video and explain why we are looking at a lunar landscape and not a rigged astronaut.


Here's a random scene. Note. first of all, how wide the field of vision is. If it were a set, it would be huge. Also note how high the field of vision is. It extends many, many times the height of the astronaut. I point this out because it means that if he were on wires, they would have to be extremely long wires, which would cause him to swing. The wires would also have to travel quite some distance with the astronaut. Now, do you see anything like a framework to support the astronaut being flown on wires? Notice how the camera pans to follow the astronaut? Notice that the entire sequence is one continuous take? I mention all these obvious facts so that I won't have to repeat them later.

Notice the quality of the motion. As he hops along, his arms and legs move at a pretty normal speed. In fact, he scoots along very rapidly. The only thing "slow motion" is the rate that he (and the dust he kicks up) fall. As CHRLZ pointed out, if you sped the sequence up, his arms and legs would be flailing comically. Again, observe the quality of the motion:


And, so long as we're reduced to argumentem ad youtubum, you might want to watch this as well:


As CHRLZ pointed out, the reason things look so strange on the Moon is that although objects weigh less, the have the same mass and are therefore just as difficult to move or stop, In other words, if instead of playing golf, the astronauts decided to toss a boulder around like a medicine ball, it would take the same exertion to toss, travel at the same speed as on Earth, and knock the astronaut trying to catch it just as far back... but as he fell, he would do so in comical slow motion.

This is why they scoot along so quickly, but seem to be "moving" so slowly. You can re-create this situation on a high speed elevator. Try it. It's fun.

Edit to fix embedding.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Edit to correct embedding FAIL.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by DJW001]

[edit on 29-6-2010 by DJW001]

[edit on 29-6-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 




1. Who here is willing to pay extra taxes to go to the moon, and how much?


I'm not. I would be willing to invest in a private corporation that had a reasonable business plan to mine the Moon by, say, 2025.


2. How much do you realistically think a mission to the moon will cost?


There's no point in sending a single manned mission to the Moon. A company that wanted to develop the Moon commercially would need a massive program designed to create profit centers at each stage. A space station for staging out-bound craft could double as a space tourism facility. The cis-lunar shuttles can rent space for scientific experiments, etc.


3. What programs would you recommend cutting, if necessary, to pay for the trip?


N/A

4. What countries or space agencies would you recommend working with to accomplish the mission?

N/A


5. Where do you think the public stands on a return trip to the moon? In favor? Against?


I think they'd be thrilled, provided it's done with someone else's money.


6. If in favor, why not dont you think there is a grass roots push for it to happen? Or which candidate would you need to support to make it happen?


There is a grass roots movement for privatized space travel. Virgin Intergalactic is fully booked.


7. Will going back to the moon generate jobs? Generate income for the country? For the world? In other words, what could the positive effects be for sending men to the moon?


Definitely. Depending on the project, it would employ engineers, machinists, software designers, etc.


[edit on 29-6-2010 by DJW001]



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Nice examples DJW. (I hope you have fixed your links..? I worked them out anyway...)

And that stage musta been real high too:



Kudos to Ed Fendell, who finally got it right, just in time (although he didn't know that at the time..) Apollo enthusiasts will know what that means..



PS - Example of correct YT embedding:

[yvid]W6uVCo8zEww[yvid]

Replace curlies with squares... In other words, it should only be the numbers after the equals sign, in a 'yvid' item.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Well did you know NASA helped advise the director of the movie Capricorn one?



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 



But, anothr reason was (oh, and writer David Gerrold first came to be known by writing a Star Trek episode...in the late 1960s. A favorite of many --- "The Trouble With Tribbles":


..... for its less than reverent attitude toward the space programme. Writer David Gerrold pompously claimed “it [the film] belittles and demeans the highest aspirations of the mind ... devalues the integrity of science itself. Those of us who stood in our backyards on quiet summer nights, gazing up at the stars and wondering, hoping ... the makers of Capricorn One have taken our dream girl and portrayed her as a prostitute.” Although this was an argument that was somewhat defeated by the fact that NASA co-operated with and even loaned equipment and space modules for the making of the film.



Gee...what about that, huh??? That last bit, there...I highlighted it for ya...


You really need to start reading other people's posts!


jra

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

1. Who here is willing to pay extra taxes to go to the moon, and how much?


Although I'm not an American, I would be willing to pay more taxes for such a thing if I were.


2. How much do you realistically think a mission to the moon will cost?


That's impossible to say really.


3. What programs would you recommend cutting, if necessary, to pay for the trip?


NASA programs or Government programs in general? I would have no idea either way. Preferably no cuts to anything else.


4. What countries or space agencies would you recommend working with to accomplish the mission?


As many as possible. At the very least, NASA, RSA, CSA, ESA, JAXA, and ISRO. I'd like to see a mix of Government and commercial spaceflight, as well as a mix of human and robotic exploration. It could help keep costs down, assuming that the International cooperation doesn't become some tangled bureaucratic mess.


5. Where do you think the public stands on a return trip to the moon? In favor? Against?


No idea. It's a mix from what I can tell.


6. If in favor, why not dont you think there is a grass roots push for it to happen? Or which candidate would you need to support to make it happen?


N/A


7. Will going back to the moon generate jobs? Generate income for the country? For the world? In other words, what could the positive effects be for sending men to the moon?


It would most definitely create jobs and generate income from ones Country. From what I've read, the return on investment from the money spent at NASA from 1958-1969 was 33%.

There's a page on wikipedia that talks about NASA's budget and gives some information as to how it effects the US economy.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
(Apologies this will be another double post)

I see these debates as exchanges of information and thoughts, not games to win or lose.

You're accusing a large group of men and women of a criminal act. At least show some respect and do some indepth research on your chosen topic, and be prepared to engage your fellow posters in respectful discussion.

Imagine if someone was accusing you of something based on a photo they saw once that didn't look quite right in their uneducated opinion and challenged you to prove your own innocence?


This is not nitpicking, did you see wires in Mary Poppins?
They had many ways of hiding wires:
book

Blue screen to painting the wires.
Considering the exceptional black sky in Apollo photography and videos I can see how easily they were masked.


There's problems with this. Colour grading in the 1960s involved a handful of options. Input, output, print lights red, print lights blue, and print lights green. With the type of footage that this you couldn't just change the input/output (thus increasing contrast) as you would end up with a clearly altered image. You say 'easily' and you have no basis for this what so ever. The black in the apollo footage is not black. If it was this would be highly suspect. With basic tools and scopes it is easy to detect paint and matte lines. Take some of the footage into an editor and look for yourself.

Even if you personally couldn't see any evidence with your naked eyes in Mary Poppins, the artifacts are there. See my previous point that matte lines in various films in their original VHS releases were visible to the naked eye due to values above 0 being present in the final composites that the human eye couldn't see. Then note that the apollo footage is full of values above 0 that don't coincide with wire work. (Or anything else suspect but please look for yourself)


Apollo wasn't shot on video. I know video when I see it. It was shot on Kodak 16mm film.


Wait what?
Ummm.... how do you think the walk was broadcast live ?


It was sent to a special decoder in each station on earth. The system Kodak developed the footage on the moon and sent it to decoders back at Earth. Better versions were stored in the film magazines and brought back to Earth.

"These spacecraft carried fully automated film processing laboratories. After processing, the film was scanned for radio transmission of the pictures back to Earth." (Quote from NASA)

Video was not involved. Sorry if I've misread your text again.


Capricorn One was DEFINITELY not shot on video. It was shot on 35mm film - I can tell you this without looking it up. There are a plethora of reasons why slow motion was not possible on video. Identifying the differences between types of video and film is a basic skill in this industry.

Well you need some help in that area brah
if you are saying what I think you were saying that everything was shot on 16mm for Apollo.
And regarding Cap1, reading comprehension please, in the movie they showed how they slowed down video of the astronaut jumping on the martian surface. I didnt say Cap1 was shot on video. Now if you want to claim that video could not do slo-motion please back that up.


This is just plain disrespectful.Yes, it absolutely did sound like you were stating the above. English is my second language also.

Obviously not everything was shot on 16mm film exactly - and this is taken out of context. And no, I will not waste my time explaining this or why it wouldn't work in the 1960s - it would be many times easier to detect than film and would make your case even more difficult to argue. I also won't refute information from a fictional movie - its the equivolent of being asked to provide evidence that Donkey from Shrek isn't real.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Thats 9x more than Apollo.
And even if you meant per mission 33 rolls of film, that translates to
30 thousand feet of film. Still less than a low budget film shot on 16mm.
And you still want to claim there was a problem with too much film?
Come on.


history.nasa.gov...

At least you're approaching some of this with thinking and facts. My issue with the amount of film is you document how much you're taking, then you take more with you. People would ask questions. It's yet another smoking gun. The film they took was not always standard either, therefore them having a stockpile of 16mm film doesn't eliminate this issue at all.


I asked you to show me.
Present some videos.
Explain what I should be looking for.


Meet me half way. Go study at Lost Boys or another VFX school, study at a local university, or at least pick up a book on film making and camera techonology. You're essentially asking me to provide university level education to someone who is disrespecting my ability to read. I would consider this if I thought you might appreciate my continued input and weren't so sarcastic.


Show me.


If I find you higher quality versions of the footage are you then going to ask me to find you the equipment to play it on?


Therefore in the first place VFX artists aren't taught to make picture perfect imagery

What does that got to do with faking Apollo? Obviously an effects artist would be concerned about trying to make it look real or accurate for scientific scrutiny..


It has everything to do with it. You say 'obviously' as if it was a matter of me missing out a word or dropping my pen. Watchmen is covered in artifacts. Jurassic Park is covered in artifacts. Independence Day is covered in artifacts. Speed is covered in artifacts. Mary freaking Poppins is covered in artifacts. Effects artists only care what 'looks' good, and the vast majority of VFX artists don't ever bother to learn the deepest technical secrets of the hardware involved. NASA and the artists involved would have to consult so many people for this information - so very many ...

I will continue to discuss this with you when you have a film degree/qualification or at the very least a copy of Nuke, Flame, or at least After Effects or Photoshop and have read through the manual. There are many other books I would recommend you read before discussing doctoring films.




top topics



 
377
<< 123  124  125    127  128  129 >>

log in

join