• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moon Landing CTers

Last edited:
Mel Odious said:
A question for everyone, regarding the "no stars" argument:

I don't ever recall seeing stars in any of the other NASA photos/videos either. Not in video footage from Gemini or the many shuttle missions, not in the close-up shots of planets and moons taken by Voyager I/II and other probes, not anywhere.
Click to expand...

The primary objectives of the missions you mention didn't include taking pictures of stars (funny, that -- kinda like how we brought camera equipment to the Moon to, y'know, take pictures of the Moon ;) ). You can, however, find some images containing stars if you look. For example:

A couple of spiffy Cassini calibration shots:


If "no stars" means "fake", then how do the moon-landing hoaxers avoid saying that the entire US space program has been faked?
Click to expand...

I think it's some disconnect 1) about human space flight 2) undertaken by the evil gubmint. Some flatly believe 1 to be impossible (nothing can leave the firmament, y'know... or, OMG teh radiation!!!1!!11~), and 2 is approached by many CTers with predictable radical skepticism or unfounded distrust.

Robotic spacecraft don't seem to invoke their ire in the same way, and that's always struck me as odd. They don't seem to make the same "insufficient technology" claims about the Mariner, Pioneer or Voyager missions (or anything more recent). Instead, they seem to accept those spacecraft successfully traveled to their destinations, but they shift their focus to "anomaly" claims and allege NASA's withholding the "good" imagery from the public or deliberately manipulating it to "hide" evidence of extraterrestrial shenanigans.

ETA: Doh, I neglected one thing though -- part of the CTer appeal in regard to Apollo stems from the political angles they can play with. The race between the US and USSR opens a variety of conspiratorial chimeras for them to pursue, and "outs" for them to rationalize or justify some of their arguments with anecdotal or connect-the-dots reasoning. Perhaps that's easier for them to latch onto without considering the long list of robotic missions launched by both nations.
 
Last edited:
Corsair 115 said:
Arrgh, you had to remind me of that infuriating fact didn't you!

You may want to check out the series of books by Apogee Books, The NASA Mission Reports. the page for the book on Apollo 17 as an example.

The books include such things as training and engineering reports, debriefing transcripts, technical diagrams, and much more. Many of the books also include a CD which contains high resolution digital versions of the photos and copies of the television footage taken on the mission.
Click to expand...

Thanks Corsair for the tip about the books. But I'm interested if anyone knows the format of the video signals that were broadcast back from the moon. Were they standard NTSC signals, or something else? What was the frame rate? Was it interlaced?

I can't seem to find this info.
 
mrwronggt13 said:
Thanks Corsair for the tip about the books. But I'm interested if anyone knows the format of the video signals that were broadcast back from the moon. Were they standard NTSC signals, or something else? What was the frame rate? Was it interlaced?

I can't seem to find this info.
Click to expand...

Does this help at all?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/apollo_tapes.html

Because of power limitations, Apollo 11 used specially developed slow-scan video that had to be converted into a format that could be broadcast over commercial television. The original signal was transmitted at 10 frames per second in one field and had to be converted to 30 frames per second in two fields to be viewed on your TV set.

The signal originated on the Moon, traveled through the emptiness of space back to Earth, and was received by tracking stations on the ground in Goldstone, California; Parkes, Australia; and Honeysuckle Creek, Australia. These three tracking stations recorded the original signal that included the television video, as well as voice, telemetry, and biomedical data. The data was recorded onto magnetic tapes, and simultaneously converted into a U.S. broadcast format for transmission to Houston and final release to U.S. television networks. The equipment used to convert the signal unfortunately caused some unavoidable loss of image quality.
Click to expand...
 
PhantomWolf said:
Think about what you just asked....

The video was taken from TV signals direct from the Moon. There is a lot more on the cameras and how they worked in NASA's archives which are searchable online.

The film was taken using 18mm DAC cameras. The frame rate varied depending on how it was set at the time by the operator.
Click to expand...

Sadly these days you have to deal with people who claim that the Moon landings were impossible because you can't do streaming video direct from the Moon today, so how could it be done back in the 60's when they didn't have computers. (emphasis covers standard HB talking points).
 
mrwronggt13 said:
But I'm interested if anyone knows the format of the video signals that were broadcast back from the moon. Were they standard NTSC signals, or something else? What was the frame rate? Was it interlaced?

I can't seem to find this info.
Click to expand...

For which mission (bearing in mind six landings)? There were upgrades as the missions progressed, and different cameras were used.

If you're asking about Apollo 11 (more), the broadcasts were in SSTV (10 frames/second, non-interlaced, 320 lines per frame) and converted to NTSC.

You should be able to find pretty much any documentation you need here and here.
 
Spindrift said:
I'm sure at some point if NASA returns to the moon that they will visit an Apollo site. One would hope that that would put to bed all the hoax claims, but somehow I doubt it.
Click to expand...


In order for the moon landings to have been a hoax, the Moon would have to exist. But the Moon is a hoax and the government successfully conned CTers into believing the Moon exists.

Dumb CTers fell for it.
 
mrwronggt13 said:
Sorry, I should have said "motion pictures" instead of "videos".

So the motion pictures were not recorded on any medium on the moon at all, they were shot by television cameras on the moon, and broadcast back to earth ?

Were they standard NTSC signals? 29.97 frames per second? 486 scan lines, interlaced?

So there was no motion picture film shot on the moon?
Click to expand...

The infomation is freely avaible on NASA's site even if it takes a little digging. Try something other than Googling.

And no you didn't have to say "Motion Picture" you just had to understand that Video and Film are totally different media, it might have helped if you actually read my post as well since I split the two and told you what the film camera they used was. Most of the footage was TV broadcast taped here on Earth, but the DAC camera was a 18mm film camera.

Here's a bief summary of the cameras used.

1. 70-millimeter Hasselblad (stills)
2. Maurer Data Acquisition Camera 1, 6 & 12 fps in automatic
3.Lunar Surface TV Camera 60 fps BW / 20 fps color (color filters alternated between each field)
4. Mapping Camera System-6-millimeter Fairchild mapping camera - in SIm Bay
5. Westinghouse Color TV Camera- Mounted in the CM and handheld: 30 fps, 525 scan lines lines per frame

The Surface TV Camera on Apollos 12-14 was a Westinghouse camera, and from 15 to 17 it was an RCA camera. There were minor modifications to the cameras before each mission so as to improve them.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
they are fake too

although i dont think ive seen anyone claim total impossibility, mostly impossible with 60s technology, or with the apollo craft (due to computer limitations, radiation shielding, etc)
Click to expand...

I actually watched a show on the science channel about sun spots and solar weather/flares. Actually, the radiation risk to the crew of the Apollo missions was very high, NASA either didn't know that yet or didn't care. Apparently if a sun spot/flare had gone off that would have exposed the crews to large levels of radiation. Also, they mention that the crews were always subject to radiation on their trips, but not enough of it and not for a long enough period of time. The problem NASA faces going to Mars is the crew will be exposed to radiation for months, and possibly deadly amounts if they are subject solar flare/sun spot. Apparently NASA is batting around ideas using several layers of water and making the crew climb into the most center part of the ship which NASA claims the crew would be shielded by the water and stowed gear which would be enough do reduce the negative effects of the radiation.
 
Monza said:
I am sure the CT'ers will continue their denial of the moon landings. These are people who believe that somehow the US government decided to take the risk of faking a moon landing at a time when the USSR would have been able to detect and willing to expose such fakery. And then the US continued to fake more and more landings for no apparent reason other than to risk getting caught.
Click to expand...

Agreed.... Also, weren't there like 500,000 people directly involved with designing, researching, building, filming, training, procuring, so on so on. The Apollo program was such a large national project, I find it hard that people would keep the fakery quiet.

And what about the three guys that died on the pad during an Apollo 1 test? I guess they are chilling with Elvis and 2 pac right now!:D
 
MilwaukeeMike said:
I actually watched a show on the science channel about sun spots and solar weather/flares. Actually, the radiation risk to the crew of the Apollo missions was very high, NASA either didn't know that yet or didn't care. Apparently if a sun spot/flare had gone off that would have exposed the crews to large levels of radiation. Also, they mention that the crews were always subject to radiation on their trips, but not enough of it and not for a long enough period of time. The problem NASA faces going to Mars is the crew will be exposed to radiation for months, and possibly deadly amounts if they are subject solar flare/sun spot. Apparently NASA is batting around ideas using several layers of water and making the crew climb into the most center part of the ship which NASA claims the crew would be shielded by the water and stowed gear which would be enough do reduce the negative effects of the radiation.
Click to expand...

Not true, NASA were aware of the risks and had plans to deal with the situation if it arose. Because the main part of the Solar Flare that is damaging is not the intial light, there is time from the flare occuring to the dangerous partical radiation getting here. NASA had a watch on the sun to alert them to any signs of flare that could be a problem and had one occured they would have put their plans into action. This plan differed depending on where the craft was at the time. In lunar of Earth orbits the orbit would have been changed to make sure that the craft was on the night side as the radiation hit, thus putting the moon or the earth between the radiation and the craft. If the crew was on the lunar surface then any EVA would have been cut short and they would have return to orbit then followed the above procedure. If they were returning and could get to Earth before the wave hit then that would continue as planned. If they were in transit and could not reach either Earth or the moon in the required time, then the stack would have been turned so that the SM and heat shield were between the incoming radiation and the crew.

The craft were not engineered specifically for a flare simply because it was considered to be a rare event and unlikely to occur. Still plans were indeed made in case one occured. For the normal radiation that was expected, all of the crews wore dosmeters and regularly read out the number showing on them to mission command. The average exposure was about what a person would experience over an entire year on Earth, not a huge amount, but given that this was over only 10-13 days, any long term exposure at that rate would cause serious issues, which of cause is the problem they are facing for the Orion Missions and beyond to Mars.
 
MilwaukeeMike said:
Agreed.... Also, weren't there like 500,000 people directly involved with designing, researching, building, filming, training, procuring, so on so on. The Apollo program was such a large national project, I find it hard that people would keep the fakery quiet.
Click to expand...

So do all sane and rational people. It's the insane and irrational ones that seem to have the issue.

And what about the three guys that died on the pad during an Apollo 1 test? I guess they are chilling with Elvis and 2 pac right now!:D
Click to expand...

Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Rodger Chaffee and Edward White.

The HP's claim that they were killed to shut them up because they were going to exposure the state of the programme and how it would be impossible to use the equipment to get to the moon. They point to Grissom's statements about not being able to communicate between two buildings and that he hung a lemon on the simulator (though they usually say it was the actual spacecraft.) In reality (that place most HBs and certainly the HPs, like to avoid) Grissom and his crew were NASA's go to people. Grissom had been highly involved in modifications to the Mercury Capsule and had been the Commander on the Gemini shakedown cruise as well. Grissom's crew's job was to tell NASA everything that was wrong with the Block 1 Apollo Capsule, which is why they were often reported complaining about various things, that was what they were being paid to do. The irony in the HPs claim of them being killed for doing exactly what NASA was paying them to do, seems to be lost on the typical HB though.


(HP - Hoax Promoter, HB - Hoax Believer)
 
I'm surprised that no one has brought up John Lear and his particular brand of lunacy. He is like the Max Photon of moonbatness. It boggles the imagination. He has been on Coast to Coast and numerous forums professing some incredible stories. I wont even call them theories or hypothesis, because this is FACT, according to John Lear:
  • The moon has atmosphere
  • There are lakes and vegetation
  • We went there in 1962 and have been there ever since
  • Went to Mars in 1966
  • Have traveled to and set up colonies on most planets.
  • The mining operations are going along just swimmingly
  • The astronauts had to have their memory erased to keep them from talking.
  • There is a 600 ft "Soul Catcher" antenna on the moon
  • The moon was towed into its current orbit by a huge electromagnetic vehicle
It goes on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ASTvjNBaAw
 
Last edited:
We went there in 1962 and have been there ever since
Click to expand...

Well,the Fantastic Four got there in 1963....

The moon has atmosphere
Click to expand...

Yup..It's the Blue Zone that Reed Richards discovered and there are ruins of a ancient Civilization there and Uru The Watcher like to hang out there.

Stan Lee and the Estate of the Late,Great Jack "King" Kirby should sue John Lear for plagarism.
 
Last edited:
BTW I have just watched my DVD of the HBO miniseries "From The Earth To The Moon" again, and I like it,overall ,better then ever. If you have not seen this,do so. Watching it just makes me angrier at the Moonbats,who want to deny that Man went to the moon .
 
You guys sure do some critical thinking.
If we did go 39 years ago, what would be so hard now?
Name another example of what we could do then, but cant do now.
 
Tweeter said:
You guys sure do some critical thinking.
If we did go 39 years ago, what would be so hard now?
Name another example of what we could do then, but cant do now.
Click to expand...

Explore the Challenger Deep.

This has only ever been done twice, the first time in 1960 by the manned submersible, the Trieste, and later by an Japanese unmanned sub, the Kaiko. Neither ship now exists and no current submersible can get anywhere close to the depths required to explore there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom