Remastered and stabilised film of Apollo 16 Lunar Rover.

geobro

reply to post by smurfy

 

like the see through neil

Please learn a little elementary scientific logic before looking foolish! the camera taking that footage was a lower quality vidicon tube that is VERY slow (a lot like the moon hoaxers) and it was 'absorbing' the image of the horizon before Neil came down the ladder, therefore the image of the horizon was still on the vidicon screen. After he stood there for a few seconds the light stabilized and he looked solid again!
This camera was subjected to the landing and all the dust sticking to it as well, they knew it wouldn't be clear but they wanted the first step to be recorded hence the camera mounted on the strut!
I hate having to explain stuff a child should understand but you are probably too young to remember all early "TV" cameras did that!

AthlonSavage
Does anyone have the ability to take this film and speed up 6 times. I would expect at 6 times speed it will look like a buggy travelling over a desert surface. Doesn't prove anything however.

You can speed it up by x2 in Youtube (if you have this option enabled), and even at x2 it looks unnaturally fast and jerky. The dust falls back down too fast, and the buggy itself would've probably come apart from all that jerking and bumping.

Calls in this thread that "the footage looks fake" are just pathetic. Everything I see in the video corresponds with airless, low gravity environment on the Moon.

~~~

By the way, the video is now in the Huffington Post www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

"Something is wrong with that video...it just doesn't seem right"

- A person who has never been to the moon

Amazing video, the only issue I have with it... and its a massive issue that everyone should pick up on. Its too short! I want to watch more of it, something very calming about watching it

Jukiodone
"Something is wrong with that video...it just doesn't seem right"

- A person who has never been to the moon

Care to expand on that with some reasons?

reply to post by smurfy


funny though that these same tracks are visible from orbit...those infamous LRO pics of the Apollo sites.


I always found that one overly amusing.

OmegaSynthesis
reply to post by charlyv

 

The world thinks twice about their greatest achievement, these moon rocks could very well be, just rocks considering.

edit on -060012America/Chicago11pmth13123111 by OmegaSynthesis because: (no reason given)

Well, that is denying all that we know about geology on the Earth. We know that these samples are lunar, because their isotopic chemical makeup can only have a lunar origin. Micro impacts by micro meteor particles can only happen in an environment that has no atmosphere. These impact occur at cosmic velocity. Nothing as small as that makes it through Earth's atmosphere at cosmic velocity.

BTW: the reverse side of these samples , the side facing down on the lunar surface, do not have have these impacts.

Has anyone else ever noticed that in real life when you see a person murdered or die an accidental death it isn't nearly as real looking as the stuff on TV?

Thanks for the vid. After all these years it is still mesmerizing.

reply to post by smurfy


one question ..why did they never film the sky...i guess the reflection of the moon would vanish and make it possible to see sky as there is no "air" that reflects the reflection of the moon..

or am i wrong?

I always find such old footage and the Apollo images, over 40 (FORTY!) years old extremely fascinating.
(Yesterday searching for "moon buggy" on the internet I also found lots of hi-res Apollo pictures of the moon landing I NEVER see before).

Those images convey a very odd mix of nostalgia and the modern...from a time where there was a huge enthusiasm...almost to the point of silliness like riding a moon buggy on the moon. It's like when you're seeing the pics you're torn between feeling how outdated and ridiculous, say some tech was...between being in AWE that they indeed made it to the moon and that this was so long ago already.

It's like you're seeing the past and future, all at once. Fascinating in a weird way.

NoRulesAllowed
I always find such old footage and the Apollo images, over 40 (FORTY!) years old extremely fascinating.
(Yesterday searching for "moon buggy" on the internet I also found lots of hi-res Apollo pictures of the moon landing I NEVER see before).

Those images convey a very odd mix of nostalgia and the modern...from a time where there was a huge enthusiasm...almost to the point of silliness like riding a moon buggy on the moon. It's like when you're seeing the pics you're torn between feeling how outdated and ridiculous, say some tech was...between being in AWE that they indeed made it to the moon and that this was so long ago already.

It's like you're seeing the past and future, all at once. Fascinating in a weird way.

edit on 42013R000000ThursdayAmerica/Chicago51AMThursdayThursday by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)

A great observation.

It is the legacy of hero's , both on the ground and on the moon that command our greatest respect for what they were able to achieve.

DiscordianJism
reply to post by smurfy

 

More evidence that it never took place. If you play the video slightly faster, it just looks like a 4 wheeler driving around in the desert. The gravity is identical as Earth's, the motion is just slowed down slightly. I call BS.

No, it doesn't look just like Earth. It looks similar, but not just like. Because it wasn't filmed on Earth. Face it, the moon hoax thing is dead. Let it go and move on with your life, lol...

reply to post by Cybernet


How would you have ANY idea how things *should* look on the Moon? Have you been there? Let me guess...someone on YouTube told you, right?

NoRulesAllowed
I always find such old footage and the Apollo images, over 40 (FORTY!) years old extremely fascinating.
(Yesterday searching for "moon buggy" on the internet I also found lots of hi-res Apollo pictures of the moon landing I NEVER see before).

Head on over to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal where you can marvel at hundreds of hi-res Apollo images (many of them colour).



By the way, here is some more footage from the 16 mm cameras:
www.youtube.com...

kauskau
reply to post by smurfy

 

one question ..why did they never film the sky...i guess the reflection of the moon would vanish and make it possible to see sky as there is no "air" that reflects the reflection of the moon..

or am i wrong?

They did take lunar sky pictures, 'Earthrise' being the most famous.

The one below is also from Apollo 16 in UV of Earth and stars and stated to be in their correct relative positions.

MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by smurfy

 

funny though that these same tracks are visible from orbit...those infamous LRO pics of the Apollo sites.


I always found that one overly amusing.

I suppose I should have been a bit clearer, I was talking about the rover coming to rest. There is bound to be a disturbance on the ground where the dust is abundant from a passing rover. I think there is actually a glimpse of the tracks from Apollo 16's departure at some distance in the link Wildespace provided.

reply to post by smurfy

IF the moon did not have 65% of the earth's gravity, those wheels would not be kicking dust up and so quickly back down AND if the atmosphere is so thin, where are all the stars? NASA blacked out the entire background sky.

shinto
reply to post by smurfy

 

IF the moon did not have 65% of the earth's gravity, those wheels would not be kicking dust up and so quickly back down AND if the atmosphere is so thin, where are all the stars? NASA blacked out the entire background sky.

Stars are very faint, while the sunlit lunar landscape is very bright. The camera exposure was set to daytime.

Ask any astronomer - to photograph stars they need to use long exposure, and mount the camera on a tripod.

reply to post by smurfy


That was "AWESOME"! Thanks for the ride:-)

shinto
reply to post by smurfy

 

IF the moon did not have 65% of the earth's gravity, those wheels would not be kicking dust up and so quickly back down AND if the atmosphere is so thin, where are all the stars? NASA blacked out the entire background sky.

Maybe there is a need to think of lunar dust behaving in a different manner than a fine dust on Earth, the fine dust on Earth actually lingers or carries in the air, while heavier stuff falls down quickly. On the Moon, both the lighter fine dust, and the heavier regolith are only subject to gravity, remember Dave Scott and the hammer and the feather?

You can't make a visual comparison of falling material between Earth and the Moon. It's ironic that the same Lunar dust you say is Earth dust, (presumably desert sand) was the biggest irritation, literally, and figuratively to the Astonauts. It is jagged, caustic, electrostatic, destructive and clingy. It destroyed boots, clothing and equipment.