Apollo 15, Jim Irwin's historical narrative in review

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Gibborium
 



The idea of any layering or green screening, as decisively likes to call it, being used was proven to be false in part one of his four part video as shown here: Above Top Secret. Scott's entrance into the scene and his position change in relation to to the device sets up the coup. First Scott is in front of both the device and Worden, then the device is in front of him after he enters. Worden then interacts with the device and his hand not only casts a shadow on Scott's sleeve, but Worden's hand actually goes in front of Scott's arm showing that Scott is in the scene with Worden and Irvin.


I agree. It's not "green screen" and "green screen" is not the term I would use to describe what is taking place in the video. I would use the term "video enhancement".

These are important videos and I am glad that you have taken the time to look at them closely. Scott's entrance is a good effect. I am marginally convinced his entrance might be Zero G. However, the video clearly lacks for floating space pens, flashlights, fruit bars, plastic checklists, maps, or stamped envelopes.

Like you, I am looking at every detail. And I am listening for every detail.

At 00:49, Al Worden looks straight at Dave Scott and makes a joke that we can't hear. Al Worden smiles and bobs up and down. It's a joke we can't hear. What did he say?

At 00:55, CapCom says "Deke just passed out from the shock incidentally."

And for about 20 brutal seconds while Al Worden is telling some jokes that we can't hear. Very frustrating!

On another note, what do you think in terms of this video being a NASA - CIA - Hollywood Tv experiment? This is allegedly live Tv signals from cis-lunar space, signals were routed from Houston to Hollywood special effects houses for "video enhancement", in real-time, sent back to Houston and then provided to the networks.

The American taxpayers spent a lot of money on those Tv cameras. We had the best cameras that Westinghouse could rip us off for. Why the unnecessary re-route of Apollo 15 Tv through Hollywood? It seems to me that NASA was trying to fool the Tv audience and they did a good job of it. Scott's entrance may be a special effect and that might be what decisively was alluding to, but he used the incorrect terms.

I believe the "green screen" debacle is now adequetely settled, it is off-topic as pertains to this thread, from this point forward. Let us not consume ourselves with "green screen" any longer. Let us be consumed instead by the Apollo 15 Tv press conference and ... the Hollywood Enhanced Video Show.

Let us also consider that Apollo 11's MESA camera is a dead give away to the Howard Hughes film production that was filmed on a mesa on his 30,000 acre Krupp Ranch somewhere during the 1966-1972 time frame.


www.hq.nasa.gov...





posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Now find me some floating objects other than the imaginary boogers you say you see. I don't see boogers. I don't see floating flashlights, space pens, or empty fruit bar packages. Nothing in the video has convinced me that these guys are in Zero G. Make yourself useful.

There was a very good reason for Richard Orloff to leave this out of his Apollo 15 time line. He didn't want people to know this press conference existed. If they knew it existed, they would want to watch it. If they watched it, they would immediately see, that there are n o f l o a t i n g o b j e c t s !


what about Scott?? how do you suppose they were able to shoot the scene with scott there bouncing around?? do you believe they used the green screen layering technique too??



there is also a very brief period where scott waves his hand infront of that lever as well in the third video.. not to mention the shadow from worden's arm as he plays with his nose in the second video.

how can scott be in infront of wordens layer, behind that layer and infront of that layer at one instance?



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


choos, the "green screen" argument is completely over. There is no "green screen" in the Apollo 15 Tv press conference video at 270:21 MET. This just happens to be the same Tv press conference that Richard Orloff omitted from his Apollo 15 time line when he published NASA SP-2000-4029,


APOLLO BY THE NUMBERS:
A Statistical Reference

by
Richard W. Orloff Source history.nasa.gov...


There is, however, convincing proof of Hollywood "video enhancement". Your side has been very unwilling to admit that Hollywood was involved with the Apollo 15 Tv presented by NASA. Why is that?

Why are you so unwilling to stipulate to generally known facts?



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


If you can produce screenshots of floating boogers I will give you a star. The biggest problem with this video is that Dave Scott has everything "stowed away" at 270:21 MET. But the Richard Orloff time says they are doing photography.

Richard Orloff's time line published at history.nasa.gov... says that the Apollo 15 crew were doing some pretty intense photography during that time. Richard Orloff's published time line does not mention any Tv press conference at 270:21 MET.



What source do you believe choos? Do you believe the Richard Orloff timeline, that he published, in a book published with NASA's approval, with a NASA catalog number of NASA-2000-4029, is correct?

Place your bets, choos. Who are you betting on?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


So basically you are saying: "Because there is no junk floating around, the video is faked."

My, how completely thoughtless of them to clean up and stow gear away! How completely selfish of them to not have a pen floating by during this video press conference!

You've said there is no "green screening". You've said there is no "layering" of the video.

But instead (because there is no junk floating around) then the video has to be faked because of "Video Enhancements"

Care to clarify on that please? What exactly is "Video Enhancement"?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


like erik is saying.. what do you mean by "video enhancements"??

and before you were asking about floating stuff.. if there is no green screen than its clear that Scott is "floating stuff"

also regarding orloff, i told you before so here it is again:


This website is an update to the printed version of this NASA publication 2000-4029, Apollo By The Numbers: A Statistical Reference, published in the spring of 2001.

The printed version was produced four years after the research and writing had been completed. During that period, essentially no editing was done to the original manuscript. Following publication, the author received many compliments and comments, including suggestions for additional and updated information, corrections, format changes and recommendations for editing some text for clarity. All these suggestions have been incorporated into this website.

Even so, Apollo By The Numbers remains a living document. The author welcomes any suggestions for improving the information offered by this revised version of the published book.

Richard W. Orloff
June 2004
history.nasa.gov...


perhaps you want to notify him?? this is suggesting that there are mistakes in his reviews.. or do you expect everyone to be robots?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



There is, however, convincing proof of Hollywood "video enhancement". Your side has been very unwilling to admit that Hollywood was involved with the Apollo 15 Tv presented by NASA. Why is that?


You are the one who refuses to explain why real time video enhancement would be necessary if the whole thing was shot in a special effects studio. Why is that?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


He wipes his nose and rubs it on his collegues jacket laughs to his mate cracks some jokes
SO WHAT.Grow up sayonara and get some proof! instead of looking for faces in the clouds
Also you need to get your head out of them soon and explain video enhancement .

Wiping his nose onto his jacket : what you never had fun never horsed around ?..
I think it is funny as i would of done the same thing is it now a crime to have fun
and keep ones spirits up.Sorry in your childhood you never had fun so you do not
understand maybe its been shallow for you..Your remarks are about as flat as bloculars
discworld which you seem to applaud to .



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


If it is not green screen , explain video enhancement come on explain.
Don't tell me your answer is a hologram like the sun your collegue refers to ?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos
 


There is, however, convincing proof of Hollywood "video enhancement". Your side has been very unwilling to admit that Hollywood was involved with the Apollo 15 Tv presented by NASA. Why is that?

Why are you so unwilling to stipulate to generally known facts?


OK einstein explain how they did it



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Gibborium
 

I agree. It's not "green screen" and "green screen" is not the term I would use to describe what is taking place in the video. I would use the term "video enhancement".

It's your thread so explain buddy boy


These are important videos and I am glad that you have taken the time to look at them closely. Scott's entrance is a good effect. I am marginally convinced his entrance might be Zero G. However, the video clearly lacks for floating space pens, flashlights, fruit bars, plastic checklists, maps, or stamped envelopes.

they run a tight ship what can i say, so what.



At 00:49, Al Worden looks straight at Dave Scott and makes a joke that we can't hear. Al Worden smiles and bobs up and down. It's a joke we can't hear. What did he say?

If it's rude your not hearing it ..deal with it



At 00:55, CapCom says "Deke just passed out from the shock incidentally."

Probably told him he is dating his daughter



And for about 20 brutal seconds while Al Worden is telling some jokes that we can't hear. Very frustrating!

Not for publics ears rated 18


edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


What I find fascinating about these in flight news/press conferences is that they may very well have been made, that is, shot and canned, well before the launches. Every question asked of these guys would be anticipated knowing the script.

The line of Irwin's about his falling down, this type of thing seems very contrived to me SayonaraJupiter, staged itself, contrived/staged in the sense that I can easily see them thinking/plotting, "having Irwin respond to a question by emphasizing HIS FALLING, this authenticates the just post lunar surface EVA aspect of the news conference. We''ll totally fool them, trick them into buying into the notion that this is all very much real-time by way of Irwin referencing a fall he made just a little while ago, just a little while ago "on the moon " ".

And of course, if the fall was part of a staged scenario shot only God knows how long prior to the Apollo 15 Saturn V launch, then an in flight press conference shot God only knows how long prior as well, would be easy enough to do, a shot and canned bogus in flight press conference, shot and canned way before the Apollo 15 Saturn V launch, a terrestrial shot and canned fraudulent "in flight" press conference that included the response by Irwin referencing the very staged and very bogus fall Irwin pretended to have had on the moon.
edit on 21-6-2012 by decisively because: added "this"
edit on 21-6-2012 by decisively because: period, comma
edit on 21-6-2012 by decisively because: comma
edit on 21-6-2012 by decisively because: he > the, he > Irwin



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
RE: Cislunar news conference - My previous comments on this centered on part 2 of the cislunar press conference as posted here by DECISIVELY - www.abovetopsecret.com... - and in it we see a lot of so-called ‘floating motion’ on the part of Dave Scott. I mentioned that I had noted that when I grabbed the cursor bar at the bottom of the VirtualDub viewer and moved it rapidly back and forth that the fakery of Scott’s apparent ‘floating’ motions became rather obvious.

I then examined part 1 in a similar manner and noticed that there is very little movement on the part of Dave Scott. The only really obvious motion on his part comes at 4:16 to 4:26 (see Gif below) where we can see that he (Scott) is pushing himself up out of his seated position. He did NOT FLOAT out of his seat. He comes out of it on his own power. Its obviously faked to make it appear as an involuntary floating.action.

BTW - Why is it only Dave Scott who seems to be floating around. The other two astronauts are virtually motionless throughout - what gives?

GIF - 4:16 to 4:26 Dave Scott's fake floating motion.
GIFSoup

Direct Link
gifsoup.com...


The producers of the fake interview must have noticed that there was not enough movement on the part of Dave Scott in the first part so he must have been told to “step it up” in part two hence the great difference in motion from the first to the second part.

I also took note of Scott’s entrance into the scene. He did NOT float into the frame. He may have attempted to give the illusion of having floated in, but it’s a “fail.”
edit on 21-6-2012 by Vitruvian because: spelling



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitruvian
 


Still agree on the snot or bogey wipe or not?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



What I find fascinating about these in flight news/press conferences is that they may very well have been made, that is, shot and canned, well before the launches. Every question asked of these guys would be anticipated knowing the script.


Perhaps you could explain why the transmissions needed real time enhancement if they were pre-recorded? (Google Image Transform, I'm not going to make your task any easier.)


The line of Irwin's about his falling down, this type of thing seems very contrived to me SayonaraJupiter, staged itself, contrived/staged in the sense that I can easily see them thinking/plotting, "having Irwin respond to a question by emphasizing HIS FALLING, this authenticates the just post lunar surface EVA aspect of the news conference. We''ll totally fool them, trick them into buying into the notion that this is all very much real-time by way of Irwin referencing a fall he made just a little while ago, just a little while ago "on the moon " ".


Contrived? Why contrived? How can you tell the difference between something that actually happened naturally, and something contrived? Be specific.


And of course, if the fall was part of a staged scenario shot only God knows how long prior to the Apollo 15 Saturn V launch, then an in flight press conference shot God only knows how long prior as well, would be easy enough to do, a shot and canned bogus in flight press conference, shot and canned way before the Apollo 15 Saturn V launch, a terrestrial shot and canned fraudulent "in flight" press conference that included the response by Irwin referencing the very staged and very bogus fall Irwin pretended to have had on the moon.


The only problem with that, as I pointed out on this pathetic thread, is that if Houston were hit by a hurricane, or one of the astronaut's wife died, or any one of countless things happened that was not in the script, the whole thing would blow up in public. The missions, especially not the in-flight press conferences, could not have been pre-recorded. It would be far too dangerous.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitruvian
 


Never mind the boring press conference. What about this?



Or better yet, this:



How did they get those flashlights to float for so long> How did they manage to pass them from one to another? How was this done in a completely enclosed space?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by decisively
 


The only problem with that, as I pointed out on this pathetic thread, is that if Houston were hit by a hurricane, or one of the astronaut's wife died, or any one of countless things happened that was not in the script, the whole thing would blow up in public. The missions, especially not the in-flight press conferences, could not have been pre-recorded. It would be far too dangerous.
YES suck a judea just shows that sayonara and doc do not listen.
What planet are these guys from?.They know nothing about tv, every time in this pathetic thread
they ignore the difference between privacy and public and other threads included.

edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I just wanna add i just showed my friends this scott irwin worden video
each one of them said , he wipes his snot rubs it in "scotts sleeve" smirks to
his mate..wtf are you moon hoaxers seeing


Why see faces in clouds, why do it to yourselves?
edit on 21-6-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


You two listen up .... decisively your threads about diarrhea are just that

1 Man sh*ts in space, therefor it is all fake.
2 Man wipes snot on scotts sleeve, therefore it is all fake
3 Sayonara cannot get his head around censorship therefor it is all fake.
4 You moon hoaxers need to get real, and post some interesting stuff for your cause .

Summary of your claims so far ..people if i missed any can you add?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Vitruvian
 


Never mind the boring press conference. What about this?

Posting Apollo 8 videos in an Apollo 15 thread again??

How did they get those flashlights to float for so long> How did they manage to pass them from one to another? How was this done in a completely enclosed space?


DJW you are off by a factor of '7' missions. Way off topic. Let's keep it somewhere in the vicinity of Apollo 15 and Jim Irwin. Thanks.

This is not a boring press conference for me. It's filled with more sparkling treasures to find
edit on 6/21/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags bloody tags
edit on 6/21/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags bloody tags part 2





top topics
 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join