Camera work of Apollo 17

[JayUtah]

Average velocity of particles catapulted out of the granular material is proportional to rover speed.

Nope.

Several mechanisms can prevent a cloud of dust, e.g. humidity resp. wetness (with water or another substance), a vacuum cleaner pre-removing all dust particles, and so on. At least what is shown with the Apollo 16 rover could easily have been faked on Earth.

"It could easily have been faked." Sorry, not convincing. Wet particulates do not disperse as shown. "Vacuuming" the dust to remove aerosols doesn't work -- they just reform as you drive over it. (I can tell you've never worked with any actual aggregate particulates before.)

To the second video corresponds an excellent paper of Oleg Oleynik

Prove he exists. It's not the first time the Aulis authors have simply made up "authorities" to prove their case. You keep relying on these proven liars. Why?

[*]A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images

Nope, not a valid method for authenticating images. My colleagues and I at another forum went into some depth showing all this author's hidden assumptions and errors. It's a paper written to seem as sciency as possible in order to fool laymen into believing there's real academic support for faked Moon landings. I wouldn't be surprised if David Percy wrote it himself.

Exceptional claims need exceptional evidence.

Exceptional evidence has been provided. In the case of re-entry, you simply don't understand it. In the case of photography, you are simply ignorant of it. The evidence exists, and you're frantically trying to explain it away. The problem is that you have no more explanatory power on your side than repeatedly asserting "it could be easily faked."

Therefore, only evidence which could not have been faked with the then technology should be taken seriously.

No. You want the standard of proof to be "cannot have been faked" rather than simply "was not faked." You're the one with the affirmative claim of fakery so you're the one with the burden of proof -- not merely that it can have been faked but that it was faked.

 

[abaddon]

Prove he exists. It's not the first time the Aulis authors have simply made up "authorities" to prove their case. You keep relying on these proven liars. Why?

As I recall, this has happened multiple times on aulis up to and including their star White admitting in a court of law that he had no clue what photogrammetry was in any context. He actually had not even heard of it.

In any event, wogoga, explain this..
http://imgur.com/fyiPrQ4

I await your cogent explanation.

 

[threadworm]

Why are you convinced that what you belief to have seen in corresponding film sequences was dry lunar dust?

The way it behaves.

It could have been heavy mineral sand.

Heavy mineral sands contain heavy minerals. This does not mean it is of uniform grade or devoid of fine material. Nor is it necessarily heavy.

Several mechanisms can prevent a cloud of dust, e.g. humidity resp. wetness (with water or another substance), a vacuum cleaner pre-removing all dust particles, and so on.

What evidence do you have that any such mechanisms were employed? I have sieved more soil material than you will ever do, and I can tell that it is not a simple and quick process. I again point you at the way it behaves - the soil in the live TV and 16mm footage does not behave as if it was wetted - quite the opposite.

Any time you want to identify where this alleged mass of fake lunar soil was sourced, as well as who transported it, where to and how, do feel free to do so.

At least what is shown with the Apollo 16 rover could easily have been faked on Earth.

No, it could not.

Exceptional claims need exceptional evidence. The claim of having accomplished the extremely difficult task of bringing men to the moon and back already more than four decades ago is very exceptional.

The evidence that supports the fact of the Apollo missions is copious, consistent and exceptional in its comprehensive support of them.

Therefore, only evidence which could not have been faked with the then technology should be taken seriously.

Then I suggest you take very seriously the fact that Apollo imagery contains details of the lunar surface that were not known about prior to the missions, and that every Apollo image of Earth contains a unique time and date specific meteorological fingerprint that also could not be faked, and one where the terminator position exactly matches the historical record. Every detail in every photograph, live TV broadcast and 16mm frame is entirely consistent with what should be there.

You could have got to the moon with the technology available. You could not have faked the missions with the technology available. If you want the make the extraordinary claim that Apollo didn't happen, then I suggest to present the evidence that we can take seriously instead of parading your ignorance with such pride.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Vacuuming sand?
Wet sand?

Haven't we had this in the existing Luner conspiracy thread?

 

[abaddon]

Vacuuming sand?
Wet sand?

Haven't we had this in the existing Luner conspiracy thread?

Yes. It so happens that for some reason wogoga wants to wheel out decades old nonsense.

Why? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[sts60]

Exceptional claims need exceptional evidence. The claim of having accomplished the extremely difficult task of bringing men to the moon and back already more than four decades ago is very exceptional.

We have an almost fractally detailed record of the science and technology and management of Apollo. We have extremely detailed timelines and records of just when and how all the imagery and samples were obtained. Much of the knowledge developed as part of the Apollo effort, including its predecessor and ancillary programs, is common practice today.

You have handwaving about "heavy sands" and pretend Russian "experts", but no clue about how things like reentry work, nor about the breadth and depth of the Apollo record. So why exactly should anyone pay any attention to your story, other than to point and laugh?

 

[Slowvehicle]

My claim of an inverse proportionality between height of ejected material and gravity (in case of identical rover speed) is correct under the following unstated premise: Average velocity of particles catapulted out of the granular material is proportional to rover speed. Therefore increasing rover speed by factor √6 increases by 6 not only kinetic energy of the rover but also average kinetic energy of ejected granular material. And both height and length of parabolic trajectories are proportional to kinetic energy (assuming identical gravity).

...and you just failed your remedial 9th grade ESL Conceptual Physics class...

You keep formulating your fantasy precisely backwards.

Not to mention, it is not (may I repeat myself? NOT) the height of the parabolic trajectory of the particulates that demonstrates behavior that could not be simulated upon the surface of the earth.

A fake rover on Earth must be √6 = 2.45 times faster than an original lunar rover...

You really, really, really ought to learn the proper application of the subjunctive...

And the employ of actual...i don't know...evidence...to support your fantasies.

<snip>

 

[abaddon]

We have an almost fractally detailed record of the science and technology and management of Apollo. We have extremely detailed timelines and records of just when and how all the imagery and samples were obtained. Much of the knowledge developed as part of the Apollo effort, including its predecessor and ancillary programs, is common practice today.

You have handwaving about "heavy sands" and pretend Russian "experts", but no clue about how things like reentry work, nor about the breadth and depth of the Apollo record. So why exactly should anyone pay any attention to your story, other than to point and laugh?

Easy. Wogoga's position is simply that because he cannot figure it out, nobody else can.

Trivially untrue, but that is wogoga's position.

You could kick seven shades out of me, but that is what our protagonist thinks on the basis of Aulis crap.

 

[Agatha]

Posts unrelated to "camera work" and more suited to the general Apollo hoax thread have been moved there. Please stay on topic.

Posted By: Agatha

 

[Foster Zygote]

Doesn't anyone who thinks the video was slowed down ever actually bother to view it at its "real" speed?

 

[abaddon]

Doesn't anyone who thinks the video was slowed down ever actually bother to view it at its "real" speed?

The antipodean wingnut hoax proponent who shall not be named claims it is 2.45 times. So it's worse.

I name him not so he gets no google.

 

[Foster Zygote]

This video does an excellent job of exploring the technical impossibilities of faking what was seen on TV in 1969.

 

[abaddon]

This video does an excellent job of exploring the technical impossibilities of faking what was seen on TV in 1969.

Yup. Our antipodian got very irate about that.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yup. Our antipodian got very irate about that.

It's funny how truth seekers react to the truth.

 

[abaddon]

It's funny how truth seekers react to the truth.

It is easy to have a rant about nonsensical claims. The aim of CTists is to lure you into a rant. They care not a whit about truth.

 

[wogoga]

This video does an excellent job of exploring the technical impossibilities of faking what was seen on TV in 1969.

This video moon hoax not is not only an insult to the listeners' intelligence but also to common sense and logical reasoning. Its central message:

NASA did not have the slow-motion technology to fake Apollo on video. "Nowadays it would be easy to fake a moon landing, and we seem to have forgotten how to do it for real. But back then is was the other way round."​

Let us ignore technical details and questions concerning originals and copies of the Apollo coverage. The claim: It was easier for NASA to transport astronauts with commercial cameras to the moon than to procure or build cameras taking around two times as many frames per second as such normal cameras. This argument is so incredibly absurd that I'm speechless. Many technologies had been used by secret-service-related organizations, before they became generally available.

This guy S. G. Collins is either 1) naïve, 2) prejudiced and intelligently misled by others, or 3) he is simply a disinformation agent.

Disinformation agents knowing that the Apollo missions were faked have a big advantage over honest believers when defending the Apollo program. They do not lose time and energy in order to try to find rational explanations for what they already know to be a fake. So they can invest all time and energy to efficiently fight the proponents of enlightenment and truth by rhetorical and psychological means and by adequate disinformation. Internet discussions on Apollo and 9/11 are full of posts from such disinformation agents knowing the truth.

There is a recommendable response by Jarrah White to S. G. Collins' video:
Re Moon Hoax Not (REUPLOAD)

A further response by S. G. Collins:
for jarrah

By the way, Jarrah White has a logically quite consistent site, a "must read" for everybody interested in the topic:
www.moonfaker.com/faqs.html

Cheers, Wolfgang
Slow Motion and other Techniques of Apollo Camera Work

 

[threadworm]

This video moon hoax not is not only an insult to the listeners' intelligence but also to common sense and logical reasoning. Its central message:

NASA did not have the slow-motion technology to fake Apollo on video. "Nowadays it would be easy to fake a moon landing, and we seem to have forgotten how to do it for real. But back then is was the other way round."

Let us ignore technical details and questions concerning originals and copies of the Apollo coverage.

No, let's not ignore them, because they are extremely relevant to the point and pretty much the subject of the video.

The claim: It was easier for NASA to transport astronauts with commercial cameras to the moon than to procure or build cameras taking around two times as many frames per second as such normal cameras.

That is not the claim. The claim is that it was impossible then to fake it on video, and that it couldn't be done to slow down live TV transmissions for hours at a time, not that they didn't know who to run a camera at high speed. You are misrepresenting what is in the video. Oh, and the Apollo astronauts aren't moving in slow motion. They also couldn't get time and date specific images of Earth in to the studio.

This argument is so incredibly absurd that I'm speechless.Many technologies had been used by secret-service-related organizations, before they became generally available.

Aah...we're resorting to the sooper seekrit argument...

This guy S. G. Collins is either 1) naïve, 2) prejudiced and intelligently misled by others, or 3) he is simply a disinformation agent.

Or 4) He is an expert who knows what he's talking about. Unlike you. Contact him. He's on Twitter. Ask him yourself. Or be a chicken and don't.

Disinformation agents knowing that the Apollo missions were faked

These don't exist, they are a fabrication of your overactive imagination.

have a big advantage over honest believers when defending the Apollo program. They do not lose time and energy in order to try to find rational explanations for what they already know to be a fake. So they can invest all time and energy to efficiently fight the proponents of enlightenment and truth by rhetorical and psychological means and by adequate disinformation. Internet discussions on Apollo and 9/11 are full of posts from such disinformation agents knowing the truth.

Nope, they are not. This is completely false. As in not true. You made it up. Am I making myself clear?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

So.. wait, wogoga your claim is now both that at the time of the Apollo launch camera technology was not advanced enough to be remote controlled to the moon and at the SAME time advanced enough to create a fake delayed transmission capable of fooling the entire world?
Because if was as advanced as you claim in your last post, then simply remote controlling the camera on the moon would be child's play.
As for the cost. What DO you think is cheaper? Sending a single rocket to the moon, or funding a worldwide conspiracy where you need to pay probably over a million people silence money for the next 5 decades?
Lets say I had real proof of an apollo hoax, not the incoherent ramblings currently presented on the internet, but actual proof. I could make several million dollar easily from that. So to keep silent I'd want to be payed that at least. And given how such blackmail works I'd probably ask for more. But I have friends. They'd have copies now, and be asking the same. And there are a LOT of people involved in these projects with families and friends. And then there are the camera men etc. The yearly silence budget would probably be larger than the US's whole yearly budget.

 

[threadworm]

The sudden appearance of government spooks in wogoga's imaginarium is telling.

By & large your average tinfoil hatter is an inadequate, whose failure in life has to be attributed to someone and as it can't be themselves it must be some hidden hand preventing what they see as their inevitable rise to glory.

This is another manifestation of that. The people out there disagreeing with everything wogoga writes can't just be wrong, they must be deliberately wrong and being paid by someone to do so. It's the lamest of arguments, and just as blaming spooks absolves them of any responsibility for their own failings, the presence of fictitious pens allows them to ignore any inconsistencies in their own arguments and flawed evidence and blame someone else. Neither does it stop the evidence they disagree with being wrong.

Unfortunately for wogoga, he has moved from blaming a hidden hand to one that is conspicuously visible, easy to find and contact - as many people have, eg

http://skepticsonthe.net/meet-s-g-collins-the-man-behind-the-moon-hoax-not-youtube-video/

What people with poor google skills don't get is that there are many social media groups out there that contain not just Apollo enthusiasts but Apollo specialists - people who not only understand the technology and the missions but who were actually directly involved, or whose family and friends were directly involved.

Like SG Collins, these experts know their specialisms and can spot a fake very very quickly - just like people can very quickly spot someone who doesn't know the subject and is hopelessly out of their depth.

Do as Collins suggests wogoga, come up with a coherent, complete and technologically possible mechanism for broadcasting hours of live TV that looks like it was on the moon. Do it with synchronised audio. Make it appear as if it is coming from the moon. Put in time and date specific images of the moon. Even with today's technology you would not be able to do it and fool everyone.

 

[Foster Zygote]

This video moon hoax not is not only an insult to the listeners' intelligence but also to common sense and logical reasoning.

threadworm has already covered everything I would have said in response, but I'd like to add a little more.

When someone like David Percy lies about the video playback being slowed, editing down to only a single hop, while leaving out the hours of video that makes it clear that the claim is ridiculous, why isn't it an insult to your intelligence?

Having trouble with links. full URL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0OS26q20R0&index=1&list=FLYDUaO7TkGyDygmXxVC1g0g

When someone like Bart Sibrel similarly edits video "evidence" to delete the part that shows he's lying to his viewers, why isn't that an insult to your intelligence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKkpfYUhkig&t=2s