Remastered and stabilised film of Apollo 16 Lunar Rover.

Gibborium
reply to post by dlbott

 

Could you please a bit more specific by at least giving some example photos and their identification number? This way, we can see what you are referring to and give an informed answer rather than having to generalize. This way we will at least be referencing the same thing.

Gib

edit on 12/19/2013 by Gibborium because: dropped word

Sorry limited on this thing what I can do and I get hollered at for quoting sometimes but to me it just gives reference to what you are talking about. I just took the screen shot pics or saved copy of pic of rover that showed the foot print.

Look this is a huge problem, prints, tracks, dust etc. Most days i believe we were there, but others i hear foolishness like the dust just filled in the tracks nonsense. Look you are really not sane if you think that you will be able to see their footprints but no track evidence from none of the four wheels on a vehicle that weighed allot more than they did and went flying across the surface like that.

Also you clearly see fine dust kick up in some shots as they come off the ladder and move around. The famous first footprint photos are clearly in fine dust like dirt. But yet in all the videos there is no dust kicked up on landing or take off, nor burn marks. This is problem.

I believe Armstrong was, is hero for what he did prior to moon. Never take that away from him. I can't find the link to the interview but sure someone will find it where he teared up when asked about how they got through the radiation belts. You could see resignation in his eyes.

I want to believe but this video and shots raise more questions. Looks really kewl but I really doubt if I am in space on the moon with limited everything and so much danger i really doubt I would be hot rodding the rover that way lol. They seem to be acting like there was no deadly consequences lol.

I wish the Chinese will run over there and answer it for sure. Course they could point the hubble over there and get some close up shots lol.

The Bot

Gibborium

Fearthedarkforiaminit

 

Problem with that is that whole frame will ghost, not just portions. In the kitchen video you offered, yo can plainly see that the entire frame is "ghosted" as you would expect. In the clip of the lunar landing only the astronaut is supposedly ghosting. In addition, the ghosting never once affects the horizon or bleeds into the sky. You can see on the kitchen video that the ghosting overlays the entire frame, as it should. If the same happened in the lunar sequence, problem solved, but it does not. Watch them both side by side and think for yourself. Maybe I'll do a comparison video if folks are interested.

Yes you are correct that the whole frame ghosts in wmd_2008's video. However, your conclusion is faulty. In wmd_2008's video example the camera is being moved (panned) and the subject matter is static. This causes the ghosting of the subject matter to move across the screen.

However, in the Apollo TV video, the camera is static and the astronaut is moving. This causes the astronaut to move into the ghosting area. The ghosting remains stationary and makes it appear the astronaut is transparent.

Conclusion, wmd_2008 is correct in his analysis and ghosting is the culprit.

Well, for anyone who hasn't already made up their mind, the above argument would have you believe that anytime you use this camera and there is movement, whether its the camera moving or the subject, it will cause ghosting. So there should be plenty of examples of this effect. As a matter of fact anything ever shot with this camera should do it. Bring on the footage.

Comparison of the OP's youtube video and a different youtube video of the same scene, but from a different source.

I circled the 3 white areas and used them to match up the width of the sample frames. What's going on here? Any ideas?

reply to post by wmd_2008


Sorry it wrong one replied to

Fearthedarkforiaminit

Gibborium

Fearthedarkforiaminit

 

Problem with that is that whole frame will ghost, not just portions. In the kitchen video you offered, yo can plainly see that the entire frame is "ghosted" as you would expect. In the clip of the lunar landing only the astronaut is supposedly ghosting. In addition, the ghosting never once affects the horizon or bleeds into the sky. You can see on the kitchen video that the ghosting overlays the entire frame, as it should. If the same happened in the lunar sequence, problem solved, but it does not. Watch them both side by side and think for yourself. Maybe I'll do a comparison video if folks are interested.

Yes you are correct that the whole frame ghosts in wmd_2008's video. However, your conclusion is faulty. In wmd_2008's video example the camera is being moved (panned) and the subject matter is static. This causes the ghosting of the subject matter to move across the screen.

However, in the Apollo TV video, the camera is static and the astronaut is moving. This causes the astronaut to move into the ghosting area. The ghosting remains stationary and makes it appear the astronaut is transparent.

Conclusion, wmd_2008 is correct in his analysis and ghosting is the culprit.

Well, for anyone who hasn't already made up their mind, the above argument would have you believe that anytime you use this camera and there is movement, whether its the camera moving or the subject, it will cause ghosting. So there should be plenty of examples of this effect. As a matter of fact anything ever shot with this camera should do it. Bring on the footage.

Go to 2:40 on this one and see a similar effect to the Armstrong one now will you accept it!!!!!



You will see the background through him.

SayonaraJupiter
Comparison of the OP's youtube video and a different youtube video of the same scene, but from a different source.

I circled the 3 white areas and used them to match up the width of the sample frames. What's going on here? Any ideas?

Well your top image is COMPRESSED IN THE VERTICAL & and is of poorer quality can you actually not see that?

I truly believe that you and others with your belief what to see something that is an error so bad that you don't actually see whats really there,

mrkeen
While Chinese study the Moon with a real rover, NASA releases a scratch-free saturated version of their old footage. Impressive. But why remastering? I vote for a full remake of Apollo landings with George Clooney as Louis Armstrong.

No they didn't, the upload is two and a bit years old, the Chinese rover has only just landed, and don't lets kid ourselves the Chinese effort is no mean feat either, but it is on the back of what went before in the US and Russia, even though the Chinese space prgramme has been active since the 50's.

It's so ironic that the Chinese effort is in some ways a public secret..what did you see of the Chinese landing? it was a cartoon built around the parameters of information coming in, and the only pictorial information was when it bonked the Moon. How different is that from the Moon landings of the US?

What would you have said back in the day if you were looking at cartoons of a US Moon landing? better still, what would you be saying today if the Chinese cartoons were from the 60's? If that bothers you, it doesn't me, the Chinese effort is real, just as I know the US Apollo Moon landings were real. but vastly different approaches ultimately.
Worst of all, you say this, "While Chinese study the Moon with a real rover" how do you define a "real rover" you can probably make a real rover from Legoland these days, and you will know the saying, "if it looks like a duck, and waddles like a du..."
As for remastering that could mean 'done proper' from the original film into a digital format.

wmd_2008
Well your top image is COMPRESSED IN THE VERTICAL & and is of poorer quality can you actually not see that?

I truly believe that you and others with your belief what to see something that is an error so bad that you don't actually see whats really there,

The correct answer is that he drove the LRV twice, the other guy filmed it twice, so there are two different takes, just like in Hollywood. If you add some banjo music in the background the kids won't be able to tell the difference.

I think the bottom picture is the lower quality, it has to be, because it was digitally stabilized using Deshaker v2.5 filter for VirtualDub 1.9.9., that's what the anonymous youtube users says. Do you believe it?

Can we all agree that the original source material is 16mm film 24fps and not CGI'd, it is kept in climate controlled chambers and protected under armed security.

I think that the top image is Grand Prix Take #1, the drive begins from a stopped position, there is a unique rock which partially covers the right side, rear well of the LRV, he drives the LRV down the set, from A to B and back to A.

I think that the bottom image is Grand Prix Take #2. it shows the LRV in a turn radius and moving start, the driver goes from A to B and back again, he has not gone as far as the first time and then returns.

reply to post by Fearthedarkforiaminit

exactly!! where are the tyre tracks.
take a look at the chinese rover (for lack of a name as i write) the tracks are as deep as in the surface
but funny, no tracks on this tyre who is kidding who?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


YOU can measure the lander in photoshop or gimp in both images they are DIFFERENT heights you dont even need to do that you can SEE the lander in the top image is squeezed in the vertical and looks wider!!!

It's just amazing that every single thread about the moon turns into a debate about the authenticity of the NASA moon landings. And the idiocy of the "moon-hoax" posts just makes me SMH until I have to stop reading.

I always thought the ATS crowd represented some of the most reasonable, intelligent, analytical, and educated people the internet had to offer, but moon hoaxers always prove me wrong. They have absolutely no grasp of physics or photography, see what they want to see, and dismiss proof presented right in front of their eyes.

I would like to create the definitive moon hoax debate thread, but I can see that it would be meaningless for the reasons stated above.

Anyway, the film in the OP is great, and brings back a lot of cool memories of those times. Anyone who didn't see all this live has no idea what they missed.

eathis
reply to post by Fearthedarkforiaminit

 

exactly!! where are the tyre tracks.
take a look at the chinese rover (for lack of a name as i write) the tracks are as deep as in the surface
but funny, no tracks on this tyre who is kidding who?

So are they both at the same location, have the same wheel type ,same thickness of dust, the same pressure on each wheel , the sun at the same position ,the same camera.

The answer to all of the above is NO!!!

SayonaraJupiter
Comparison of the OP's youtube video and a different youtube video of the same scene, but from a different source.

Are you sure you got identical frames to compare? To me it looks like one frame is from slightly later than the other frame. The moon buggy moved some distance respective to the LM, so the dust shape is obviously different too.

For those asking me on the previous page(s)...

I'm not saying that Humans, or the U.S. during the 60's/70's in particular, haven't been to the Moon. I am simply implying that the materials (audio/image/video) the entire world has been presented and shown "live" are fake. Not the launch, landing and whatnot, but the footage.

Now you're probably going to say "Oh and why would they do that?!".

Perhaps because...

a) They went to the Moon, already knowing what is up there, for an entirely different purpose/reason than what the world has been told. The "space race" could've been just effective PR to get people's attention and make them focus on something else while the true reason behind the mission(s) remained secret. They may have been searching for ancient artifacts or minerals.

b) They went to the Moon, totally uninformed, and encountered something that would make the public go crazy. Something the people weren't ready for. Aliens, artifacts, buildings, spaceships, etc. Simply stuff that shouldn't be there in the first place.

In either case it would be necessary to fake the footage and film it before or after the actual missions somewhere on Earth.

Now you're probably going to say "Oh and how would they do that?!"

Well...

There are dozens of places on our planet that look unearthly and could be used. NASA and other space agencies have sites for this particular purpose - to train astronauts and test vehicles before actually sending them to space. It wouldn't be, and most certainly wasn't, too hard to find an ideal spot not too far.

Plus, if the reason behind faking the footage was national security and to keep the truth from the public, money wouldn't have been an issue. It would've been something they'd need to do at all cost.

Given that they'd have unlimited funds, they could easily build anything to make it as perfect as possible. Perhaps with the help of Hollywood. Something that would look so convincing that even those who faked it wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Something that could endure for years to come. Home computers were non-existent at the time and arrived only 20 to 30 years later. And even those were primitive compared to what the government had back then and what the public has now. Just in the last few years mainstream users are starting to have the same possibilities (editing, sharing and creating quality content) that Hollywood and the government had for years. People couldn't edit photos on their home computers twenty years ago. Not in the way you can today, anyway. And even if they did, with whom would they share them when the internet barely started taking off?

And another thing to consider... Nobody questioned the government and authorities back then. Not in that amount and that way. The idea of own governments lying? Today the news is full of it, but at the time? I doubt the average Joe thought about it. I think people had different issues to worry about. Sure, you had spies. But did you have an Alex Jones? I don't think so. Average people were loyal and some of them are even today, simply because they can't fathom the reality around them.

As for the thing being "live"... That's the easiest thing to do and it is done even today. Simply record something and air it later - either with a "live" bug or with a "live voice-over". Most people can't, and back then wouldn't be able to, tell a difference. As for CGI backgrounds that are used all the time, 99% won't notice unless you tell them. Sad, but true. Just because something is "live", doesn't mean it always is actually "live". And even if it is live, there always is a slight delay for safety reasons. But again, 99% think "live" = live.

So to sum it up... I can see them faking the footage and I can see why. It is doable and would make sense. Did they actually do it, though? Personally... I think so. I think they have been to the Moon, but for some reason decided to fake it.

reply to post by Cybernet


How do the relatively small craters and boulders photographed by Apollo astronauts on the Moon match precisely to LRO images?

Is there anything in particular about the photos and film footage that reveals that they are fake, or are you just making a generalised assumption that they could be fake?

All the data I have seen correlates with them being on the Moon and taking those photos and footage there and then.

If we're gonna go assuming that they faked it so well it can't be told apart from reality, then we might just as well assume you're a robot, but designed so well you can't tell yourself apart from a living person. So it's a slippery territory to wade into.

Occam's razor = they went there and took those photos that we now see.

P.S. Just noticed that your username is Cybernet. Maybe you are a computer or software.

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed


LOL! Of course I meant Neil Armstrong, silly typo Nice picture!

wildespace

SayonaraJupiter
Comparison of the OP's youtube video and a different youtube video of the same scene, but from a different source.

Are you sure you got identical frames to compare? To me it looks like one frame is from slightly later than the other frame. The moon buggy moved some distance respective to the LM, so the dust shape is obviously different too.

The "A16 Grand Prix" took two takes of the "A16 Grand Prix", and the OP only had take 2.
So I just brought up the fact there were two different takes of it.

Is it possible to get scientific information/confirmation from a 16mm film, anonymously transferred it to standard video, digitally edited for stabilization, and then...finally... anonymously uploaded to youtube?

I think there are too many digital transformations in the OP's video and to illustrate that I included the screenshot for the other take, take 1., from a different youtube source, "Nothing so hidden..."

I think some of the 'rooster tails' have been painted on and there are some distortions of the LRV in the OP's video which are too blatant to ignore.

SayonaraJupiter

wildespace

SayonaraJupiter
Comparison of the OP's youtube video and a different youtube video of the same scene, but from a different source.

Are you sure you got identical frames to compare? To me it looks like one frame is from slightly later than the other frame. The moon buggy moved some distance respective to the LM, so the dust shape is obviously different too.

The "A16 Grand Prix" took two takes of the "A16 Grand Prix", and the OP only had take 2.
So I just brought up the fact there were two different takes of it.

Is it possible to get scientific information/confirmation from a 16mm film, anonymously transferred it to standard video, digitally edited for stabilization, and then...finally... anonymously uploaded to youtube?

I think there are too many digital transformations in the OP's video and to illustrate that I included the screenshot for the other take, take 1., from a different youtube source, "Nothing so hidden..."

I think some of the 'rooster tails' have been painted on and there are some distortions of the LRV in the OP's video which are too blatant to ignore.

Not a '.gov' source, no link to take us to your source, image has been doctored by you. Inadmissible.

smurfy
A remastered short clip of the Apollo 16 rover. So amazing a quality, you could almost be there. I hope more old space film will be done like this!

Look at the video camera cable and the antenna cable, they are not moving, neither does the astronaut, look at the astronaut's left arm it's not moving either, it's a dummy in a remote controlled toy car. Look at the tire tracks at 0:57 the rover model is in fact going backwards

Ove38
Look at the video camera cable and the antenna cable, they are not moving, neither does the astronaut, look at the astronaut's left arm it's not moving either, it's a dummy in a remote controlled toy car. Look at the tire tracks at 0:57 the rover model is in fact going backwards

The driver's arm has no flexibility... not even to wave to the camera... I'm looking for any visual hints that there might be someone alive in that suit.

There is some good footage (for comparison) in NASA's film "Nothing so hidden..." (1972) catalogue HQ-222.