The Video that shows 100% Man DID NOT land on the Moon

page: 16
23
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
I don't believe that it was a hoax.

However, I do have one question about the camera.

When we see the video we see the astronauts and we can hear them communicating to each other through radio.

So, this is my question about the camera's abilities.

Did it have the capability to have sound? Because, as far as I know, the moon has no air, and sound can only travel in air, as far I know anyway. So that means, the camera could not have picked up those radio communications between the astronauts. Otherwise, how would the camera be able to pick up their communications?

Because, if that camera they use didn't have sound capabilities, then that means there would have to have to have been some editing of the sound that we hear.

But please, don't take this mean I am trying to make an argument for a hoax, I am not. I am just asking about the camera.


Strange point. The film recorded by the camera had no sound, and no the camera did not have a mic. The sounds of the astronauts speaking were recorded separately and added to the film afterwards, or simply, as in a live broadcast played simultaneously. I mean you can hear Houston capcom speaking to the astronauts as well, and his mic was on his head back here on Earth.

As for editing, yes of course editing was done, and in some cases this has been claimed erroneously by hoax believers as evidence of fakery. We have seen the same clip with different soundtracks mistakenly or deliberately edited over them. This has to do with how things were done in the editing room back in the 60's/70's and who was contracted to do the editing in the first place. I don't think that having 100% accurate continuity was high on the editors priority list back in those days, and modern fake landing theorists tend to be rather shortsighted and pedantic in this area.

edit on 6-9-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by hanyak69
 


They knew it was bedrock under the dust after sending probes there. I'm not trying to degrade you in any way, but a basic physical science class in any community college will explain Newton's three laws which should give you further understanding of how 1/6 gravity in a vacuum will make things a lot different than they are here on Earth.
One of the first videos I was shown in a community college physical science class was of David Scott dropping a feather and a hammer on the moon. Both fell at the same speed because of the lack of atmosphere.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
The sounds of the astronauts speaking were recorded separately and added to the film afterwards, or simply, as in a live broadcast played simultaneously.


Audio and visual feeds are generally sent as two different signals (vision/audio) to the reciever which then picks it up and plays both back. This can be to a tape or just a monitor or whatever. Even recording off the screen at NASA, broadcasters would be producing two feeds. Between early Apollo and later Apollo there was tonnes of changes to how the data was transmitted exactly, so the rest of that is a lot more reading but the info is available.

I do know there was issues which caused interference in the early missions with multiple feeds at once.


This has to do with how things were done in the editing room back in the 60's/70's and who was contracted to do the editing in the first place. I don't think that having 100% accurate continuity was high on the editors priority list back in those days,


Been a while since I did film history but: Continuity is actually worse now than it ever has been. Saying that, 60's - 70s had the Cinéma vérité movement in France and mixing images with different audio to make a point or have an agenda was becoming much more common. Not that it was a first but WWII was mostly using a voice over to drive the images (propaganda style). From the 60s and 70s onwards it started to become much more common to actually present a reality as if it was entirely observational 'truth' but in fact heavily edited to support a film maker agenda.

It's for another thread, because I suspect this one should die since the original question has been answered but ... I imagine most of those changes have come about over the decades with production companies retiming the footage for segments, and also the communications delay was removed in later releases/restorations which caused some confusion.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks!! I laughed so hard



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
The best solution to this dilemma is for NASA to use updated technology and send another group of astronauts to the moon. If they do this they would be able to quell all of the conspiracy theories.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Absoluttruth
The best solution to this dilemma is for NASA to use updated technology and send another group of astronauts to the moon. If they do this they would be able to quell all of the conspiracy theories.


As if anything can convince people who have been groomed by charlatans all thier life.
The only way it seems to convince the charlatan-washed-chaps of ATS is to send them up there!.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 



Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by Equality
Once someone shows you where the ground meets the green screen, every picture looks so unbelievably fake.


Once you realise that green screen was a no go back in the 60's and 70's comments like that make me

Please just a little thinking before posting.



Originally posted by PsykoOps
I didn't say it didn't excist. It just was useless. Up untill proper cgi came around.


No you implied it by saying "comments like that make me

Please just a little thinking before posting."

All I did is point out it was used, which it was, you are the one saying peoples comments make you



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I didn't imply that. You misunderstood that. I said it was a no go. Quite clear.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


No GO implies NOT an option when it quite obviously was an option just maybe not the best option.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Holy hell. It wasn't an option. Because it sucked untill proper cgi came along and even then it would've been fishy as hell.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


thats doesnt really answer anything, just more of the same, some agree some dont lol , but thanx for the link



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


How were they tracked with optical and radio telescopes if they were fake though?
www.astr.ua.edu...





top topics
 
23
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join