Moon landing hoax again...

[Souldweller]

Hi everyone, I'm new here at the forum, although I have been lurking around for a few months now. Now without further ado, let me tell you why I posted this thread.

I had been browsing here and there in Wikipedia, just looking a few interesting pages when I came around to the piece of the alleged 'Moon Landing Hoax'. Now, I am quite skeptic that there was a hoax, and I particularly dislike CTs. I'm studying Physics, in hope of doing research into Science, so, I have developed a quite healthy skeptical worldview, which obviously includes CTs. However, I have come across a video that I am quite at a loss to explain:

It seems that I can't post URL's just yet, so just put tinyurl/ followed by gb7n2.

Most of it are just shots of the Earth, with a voiceover that does nothing to support the hoax theory. However, there is a small piece of footage, about 5 or 6 min. into the the video that would seem to support what the voiceover is saying: A small Earth, looking as it may from a big distance, being shot from the spacecraft, suddenly looks like it is actually very close to the spacecraft, and it seems to support the idea of the voiceover that they actually used an optic 'trick' so that it looked far away.

I'm sure there is a more simple explanation than the hoax, but I'm at a loss to what it may be. I am not an expert in photography nor the moon landings, so it would be very difficult to me to come up with a decent, deep, and informed answer. I immidiately thought of this forum for some possible answers, as I have seen over and over, that most people engage in a rational, civilized disccusion, that helps dissipate most of the nonsense.

So, any answers?
​

 

[geni]

[/B]Most of it are just shots of the Earth, with a voiceover that does nothing to support the hoax theory. However, there is a small piece of footage, about 5 or 6 min. into the the video that would seem to support what the voiceover is saying: A small Earth, looking as it may from a big distance, being shot from the spacecraft, suddenly looks like it is actually very close to the spacecraft, and it seems to support the idea of the voiceover that they actually used an optic 'trick' so that it looked far away.

Two problems with this. Firstly the thing that fills the window is just flair. the second is that if they were much closer those clouds would be moveing.

 

[Shrinker]

I didn't see the slightest scrap of evidence for the claims the narrator was making. Everything I heard in the audio tape sounded perfectly reasonable, nothing in the images was suspicious. the claim about using the window frame to mask the earth came completely out of nowhere - simply made up.

The shot where you can see inside the capsule is presumably the one you're referring to. The earth and the light it shines upon the window is overexposed. The narrator said it herself - the iris is opened up. The earth looks bigger because of the enourmous flare. That's all.

 

[Beady]

A small Earth, looking as it may from a big distance, being shot from the spacecraft, suddenly looks like it is actually very close to the spacecraft, and it seems to support the idea of the voiceover that they actually used an optic 'trick' so that it looked far away.
<snip>
So, any answers?

I haven't seen the clip in question, but it sounds like you're worried about a simple change in magnification. This is no big deal, and never was.

Have you considered the possibility that the "trick" was to make something far away appear closer, rather than something closer appear far away?

 

[Pardalis]

The shot where you can see inside the capsule is presumably the one you're referring to. The earth and the light it shines upon the window is overexposed. The narrator said it herself - the iris is opened up. The earth looks bigger because of the enourmous flare. That's all.

Exactly, when they shot the Earth, they had to adjust the diaphragm to the light reading of the Earth, making space around it pitch black. This is because Earth is reflecting a heck of a lot of light from the sun, so they had to shut the diaphragm down, which made space around it not readable (because it reflects very little light in comparison, or rather the stars aren't eminating enough light in comparison). When they opened up the diaphragm to see inside the spacecraft, the Earth became washed out because the light reading inside the cabin is much lower than the light reading of the Earth, and also because the focus was now on the foreground, making the background out of focus.

And about the alledged "cache", it seems to be only the Earth's shadow, and whether it's on the top corner or on the side corner of the image, it's just because the spacecraft is rotating.

ETA: and about the narrator's accusations about it being filmed in advance, well first she doesn't let us hear much of the conversations, and secondly, "playback" doesn't necesseraly mean the broadcast to the world. The guy at Houston probably meant they would playback the footage for themselves later.

 

[Souldweller]

As always, the explanation is so simple. I was starting to come up with the most elaborate explanation... Thanks for that! I hadn't thought that answer. As for the conversations, I completely agree, it is impossible to hear what is actually going on.

Also, there is the contradiction that if the tapes weren't meant to be shown to the public, why would the astronaut said that they were a larger distance than they really were, especially if the conversation was "confidential"?

 

[ktesibios]

This [rule 8] is a resurrection of one of Bart Sibrel's claims, and, as with just about everything Sibrel, half of what he says is lies and the other half ain't true.

The "secret footage never before seen" claim is a lie; the entire, unedited transmission is part of Spacecraft Films' DVD set, and, as it turns out, a significant proportion of it was broadcast on TV at the time.

As Geni pointed out, had they been in low Earth orbit as claimed, keeping the camera pointed at the Earth for that length of time would have shown unmistakeable movement due to the craft's short orbital period. It would also have been impossible for the CSM/LM stack to remain in contact with a single ground station for long enough to produce a continuous recording of that length.

Jay Windley has already done a comprehensive analysis of the misrepresentations and misinterpretations contained in this clip. For the details please see

http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html
and
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html

 

[kc440_]

Moonwalk

I seem to recall Michael Collins writing a book on depression after being on the moon. Nothing else could compare to it in his life since. If he hadn't been to the moon, maybe the deception provoked depression. Or if he did land on the moon, I guess he was still mooning over it...

kc440

 

[Loss Leader]

I seem to recall Michael Collins writing a book on depression after being on the moon. Nothing else could compare to it in his life since. If he hadn't been to the moon, maybe the deception provoked depression. Or if he did land on the moon, I guess he was still mooning over it...

kc440

I'm sure any depression Michael Collins may have felt regarding the moon was because of the fact that he has never been on it. I mean, who drives all that way just to sit in the car?

 

[Pardalis]

And what about Michael Jackson? I never saw any astronauts sliding backwards...

 

[Obviousman]

The book you are thinking of was written by Dr Buzz Aldrin, entitled "Return to Earth". In it he speaks candidly about his struggle with alcoholism and depression.

 

[Loss Leader]

The book you are thinking of was written by Dr Buzz Aldrin, entitled "Return to Earth". In it he speaks candidly about his struggle with alcoholism and depression.

I like the fact that you think enough of him to call him Dr. but not enough of him to call him Edwin instead of Buzz.

Edit: Holy heck, the man changed his name to Buzz in 1988. I guess going to the moon does make you crazy.

 

[jhunter1163]

Gene Cernan's book "The Last Man On The Moon" is an excellent history of the space program as told by one on the inside. He details the incredible intensity of the training the astronauts went through, which kinda begs the question of if they weren't going to the moon, why bother?

 

[Carnivore]

I like the fact that you think enough of him to call him Dr. but not enough of him to call him Edwin instead of Buzz.

Edit: Holy heck, the man changed his name to Buzz in 1988. I guess going to the moon does make you crazy.

What? if I were changing my name from Edwin I'd totally go for Buzz. Or possibly Hoot.

 

[Alareth]

So, any answers?​

http://www.clavius.org/ has all the answers you need to counter any moon hoax believer.

Hell they have answers to questions you haven't even thought of

Beyond that you can ask in the conspiracy section of the Bad Astonomy and Universe Today Forums.

 

[Dave1001]

I'm more partial to the CT that they don't actually shoot sci fi/fantasy movies on soundstages. They slip into parallel dimensions, as in Michael Critchon's "Timeline", then shoot a bunch of raw footage of aliens or dragons or whatever's there, that they then later use as stock footage for sci fi/fantasy movies. At a certain point (Waterworld?) it became less expensive to develop technology to travel to parallel universes than to create cutting edge special effects for the latest summer blockbuster.

 

[Brainache]

I'm more partial to the CT that they don't actually shoot sci fi/fantasy movies on soundstages. They slip into parallel dimensions, as in Michael Critchon's "Timeline", then shoot a bunch of raw footage of aliens or dragons or whatever's there, that they then later use as stock footage for sci fi/fantasy movies. At a certain point (Waterworld?) it became less expensive to develop technology to travel to parallel universes than to create cutting edge special effects for the latest summer blockbuster.

Yes I think this principal was most clearly demonstrated in Lord Of The Rings.

Andy Serkis actually looks like Gollum. Any footage of him you see where he looks like a regular person has been digitally altered using motion capture and blue screen technology.

Oh BTW Dave get back to work.

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm more partial to the CT that they don't actually shoot sci fi/fantasy movies on soundstages. They slip into parallel dimensions, as in Michael Critchon's "Timeline", then shoot a bunch of raw footage of aliens or dragons or whatever's there, that they then later use as stock footage for sci fi/fantasy movies. At a certain point (Waterworld?) it became less expensive to develop technology to travel to parallel universes than to create cutting edge special effects for the latest summer blockbuster.

I read a sci-fi book years ago where a guy making a movie had a time machine and he used it to deliver the movie to the studio on time.

ETA: Holy heck, I was right! The book was The Technicolor Time Machine, by Harry Harrison.

 

[Brainache]

I read a sci-fi book years ago where a guy making a movie had a time machine and he used it to deliver the movie to the studio on time.

ETA: Holy heck, I was right! The book was The Technicolor Time Machine, by Harry Harrison.

Absolutely one of my favourite books.
I'd love to see a movie made of that one.

 

[Loss Leader]

I'd love to see a movie made of that one.

Like I haven't been waiting for Bill the Galactic Hero for twenty-five years.