Another Fake Video?

Originally posted by lasse
From AS15-9630:

From the alleged AS20-1020:

Lets animate it:

If it's a hoax someone spent considerable time on it. If i were to do it, and I'm rather decent at photoshop (lasseman.deviantart.com)..and I was hard core about it..I'd start by looking at the original, generate a nice bumpmap..which would take me some time, slap it into 3D Studio, position lightning. Recreate the object. Go into photoshop, manually add details. All of this were to be done at extreme resolution. Finally I'd resize it and make sure to try to appropriately lessen the detail.

If this is of a physical miniature? Yeah could be I guess. Someone really quite crafty did it I'd have to say.

It's a lot trickier to add detail to an image than it is to remove.


[edit on 6-5-2007 by lasse]

When I saw this comparision, I remembered the controversy about the Mars "face" photos. I must say that this "model", if it's such a thing, is just GREAT.

Originally posted by 1nL1ghtened
Unfortunately, as in any venue, there are going to be those whom for the lack of education and open mindedness, are going to "automatically " debunk any material put before them.

I would think those people would tend to believe it was real and not use the education to discover that it is not.

Hello NLDelta9, gosh you sure can bring out the best in controversial stuff. Happy to see yah here posting Sir.

Sorry, I watched your suggested vid and believe it's a dusty old ship but I'm not a photo analyst. But since it's suggested by you as being fake or real, it really does make me think what is it?

Regards,
Dallas

Originally posted by roadgravel

Originally posted by 1nL1ghtened
Unfortunately, as in any venue, there are going to be those whom for the lack of education and open mindedness, are going to "automatically " debunk any material put before them.

I would think those people would tend to believe it was real and not use the education to discover that it is not.

I would tend to agree...but the opposite has been shown frequently on this thread, many have posted "Oh this is FAKE why do people keep faking videos and putting them on youtube..bla bla bla " without offering a rebuttal whatsoever, educated or not...on how their opinion is factual or conducive for finding the truth....that is the meaning behind the statement.

Originally posted by scepticsteve
However his so-called video of the Apollo 20 launch is so fake looking and so clearly computer generated that it discredits all the rest of his videos in my eyes.

I can't understand why someone would go to all the trouble of making a decent fake of a wrecked spaceship on the moon, and then post such crappy launch footage. I mean, all other discrepancies aside, the footage of the "ship" looks great to me, even if it does turn out to be fake, it's much better IMO than the standard YouTube UFO video. It had to have taken time and effort. To post such dodgy looking footage of a launch alongside it defies all logic. I wonder if any explanation will be forthcoming.

looks like a submarine

didn´t know there was an apolo 20, ended with 17 from what I know and even those 17 are probably faked.

Another UFO ! NOT

But ive found a "stonehenge" pic from the moon.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

[edit on 6-5-2007 by Oblate Spheroid]

Pay attention, the author of that film is making statements at Youtube:

www.youtube.com...

But well, he seems not being able to answer a simple question about the Apollo 11 label and the begining of the scene... quite convenient.

hello to all viewers, i answer to everybody by mail. I didn't want to post here but;
I live in Rwanda since 1994. The government provides me protection and discrecy, but digitizing and video treatment is poor here, so, don't be offended.The crew patch video made 90mb the first time, the team here didn't knew what a codec was, so only 4seconds 90mb 758-576 was posted. Same problems with subtitles, choice of a codec, format.

I refuse to answer to any revisionist comment , the same type of comment that can be found on the "apollo hoax subjects". About apollo 20 cancellation, consider that nasa claimed that the lm-15 was destructed . A billion dollar LM put to scrap? I'm amazed how lie become truth when printed on a wikipedia page. I would like to have the proof of intelligence lifeform on earth sometimes.
I'm not active on newsgroups, i just put references sometimes, i read them a lot, but i'm sick of that.

Most of the people now have no technical culture. I'm not surprised that people claim that mankind didn't go to the moon. Pictures of men walking on the moon are pictures who come from the future (for the youngest generations) and from the past. The illusion of progress associated with time...
The Apollo tapes show that it was possible better things, with ambition and ingeniosity. For me the most beautiful heritage of Apollo are pictures from the earth.

But this particular mission brought to earth new tech and bio artefacts.
The skies of Germany in 1945, saw the first "mama ships" coming in the middle of the boxes. B17' cameras made good shots of them. Later, the R/D department of the pentagon transferred technologies to Bell laboratories, DuPont de Nemours and others. A lot of retired persons like me , write, publish. These things can seem ridiculous, like a man walking on the moon in 2007, but it was our job.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by JackHill]

First thing of things have any of you seen a prism, of prism can create an array of colors incluing green and brown. But the reason why the camera made the surface betray the brown color and the lighting and especially the camera isn't modern so only an array of colors are there for the camera to use. Kinda like how black always seem to look olive green under a low res camera. Black lines well if you look real carefully you'll see numbers and I know plenty of you have played FPS and you can't tell me that those line on there isn't but similar to the lines you'd see through the scope of a sniper rifle. The swinging effect well cameras back then didn't exactly weigh 3 oz especially analog ones, and if you keep zooming in and out while look around it would clearly look like there were more than 2 angles but there weren't look again. Another thing guys Nasa never incorporated Apollo so it doesn't entitle this to be a fake, because this mission wasn't Apollo 20 it was 11. Look at this beginning of the video when you the blue hit pause. As for the locations before the site Delporte, Lutke, Izsak, CSM DSKY?. Well anyways this enough for right now.

Originally posted by Anubis Kanubis
How about launching it at night during high winds or extreme overcast... storm?
C'mon, we fly all kinds of top secret stuff around.... Do you see any of it.

Launching it at night would be even more noticeable, High winds would do nothing except make for a more dangerous launch, nor would extreme overcast do anything to hide it. The light from the rocket would still make the clouds illuminate quite brightly. And on top of that you have the noise. There's a little town just a few miles west of KSC, called Orlando. It would no doubt wake them up.

And what does "top secret stuff" have to do with Apollo and the Saturn V. Very little about the Apollo program was secret. Each stage of the Saturn rocket was built by a different aerospace corporation and then shipped across the Country to the launch site, like this and like this. Not exactly subtle is it now. I'd think people would notice large pieces of a Saturn V rocket being shipped to Florida wouldn't you? Face the facts, you can not launch any kind of rocket in secret.

You people seem convinced too easily. That video is good, and looks like it is through a real apollo window.

Convinced too easily? Most of us aren't convinced at all. I myself am a big Apollo nut and I'm always reading up things about the missions. Believe me, I would love nothing more for their to have been an Apollo 18, 19 and 20 missions to the Moon, but these videos are not convincing to me and contain flaws.

Like I said before, the Apollo 20 launch video looks like a Saturn 1B and not a Saturn V. A Saturn 1B is roughly half the size and cannot get people to the Moon. Also the "director" mentions the Westinghouse Color TV Camera in the write-up on one of the videos. Oops, that camera wasn't used after Apollo 14. Apollo 15 - 17 used the RCA J-Series Ground-Commanded Television Assembly, as it was a better camera. Apollo 18, 19 and 20 would have used it too. And why does this video have an Apollo 11 splash screen saying "view of earth and crew" and the time and date. I know what video that's really from. What's it doing on this one? Was the "director" just grabbing bits of official video of Apollo stuff to put in his to make his stuff look more "official"? Seems like it.

This is all clearly, with out a doubt, a hoax.

Originally posted by government_lies2000
First thing of things have any of you seen a prism, of prism can create an array of colors incluing green and brown. But the reason why the camera made the surface betray the brown color and the lighting and especially the camera isn't modern so only an array of colors are there for the camera to use. Kinda like how black always seem to look olive green under a low res camera. Black lines well if you look real carefully you'll see numbers and I know plenty of you have played FPS and you can't tell me that those line on there isn't but similar to the lines you'd see through the scope of a sniper rifle. The swinging effect well cameras back then didn't exactly weigh 3 oz especially analog ones, and if you keep zooming in and out while look around it would clearly look like there were more than 2 angles but there weren't look again. Another thing guys Nasa never incorporated Apollo so it doesn't entitle this to be a fake, because this mission wasn't Apollo 20 it was 11. Look at this beginning of the video when you the blue hit pause. As for the locations before the site Delporte, Lutke, Izsak, CSM DSKY?. Well anyways this enough for right now.

The author already answered about the Apollo 11 initial screen. This is what he answered at Youtube just minutes ago:

you'r right, wrong title, should not be this one, but compare the video to apollo 11 or other missions, you won't ever ever find this moon flyover , craters lutke and delporte , compare the coordinates given on a lunar map . Only apollo 15 and 17 passed right over these craters before, and this film is not one of these mission. I ll ask to make realize another film on the apollo 15 and 17 flyover, you'll be able to compare.

Originally posted by Cygnific
Lot's of craters and rock formations match the picture, but the NASA picture is not of great quality to see more detail. And also has some lighting differences that doesn't make things easier to interpret. And the picture from "Leonov" is having a higher angle.

yeah. the lightning plus angle i noticed too. this in my eyes also makes it a "tougher" fake (more time consuming).

see if i were to fake it, it would be very much less hassle to build of the original perspective and lightning. in the AS20 image the sun/light seems to be (from the perspective of me looking down on the image) to the top left and on the original more straight above from the top, more intense. and as you said the AS20 seems to have it's camera positioned fairly much like the AS15 albeit a bit higher which gives more of a top-down.

it's just..hard..(by no means impossible) to do this. to like 'adlib' with the lightning and go all 'artistic freedom' with something like this.

i made some new side by sides and so on. this time with markers to interesting points to match the pics off with. i avoided doing this the last time so not to lead the eye and let everyone draw their one conclusions.
-

-

-

-

-

-


It's either a well done hoax or the real deal. As for the "so obviously" fake rocket launch...I don't know. Haven't actually seen one or don't have enough material to compare it with.

Got an answer from him on youtube stating that filetransfer is tricky since he lives in Rwanda plus the information that everything will be posted plus that a website with PDF files, videos, hasselblad photos and more will be available.

Let's wait and see. I've gotten good at that over the years

Originally posted by Implosion
I can't understand why someone would go to all the trouble of making a decent fake of a wrecked spaceship on the moon, and then post such crappy launch footage. I mean, all other discrepancies aside, the footage of the "ship" looks great to me, even if it does turn out to be fake, it's much better IMO than the standard YouTube UFO video. It had to have taken time and effort. To post such dodgy looking footage of a launch alongside it defies all logic. I wonder if any explanation will be forthcoming.

I've been thinking the exact same thing. The "alien spaceship" flyover video and accompanying photos are simply amazing. If that video is a hoax, then someone sure put a LOT of time into it. But then the launch video looks completely amateurish and ridiculous, as does the video of the "city." Hell, even the video of the Apollo 20 patch looks like a bad CG animation.

So what's the deal? Is the guy posting the videos not the one hoaxing them? Maybe there are multiple hoaxers at work here.

People want attention and they want recognition for things they do well. Where else is a hoaxer going to get kudos for his work than places like this and YouTube? I don't think someone like this is trying to convince anyone, they're more interested in all the arguments they start.

I looked at the city video and it was utterly fake. The city itself looked like a chalk drawing on black art paper and the tone and value of the B&W was different than the tone & value of the surrounding landscape.

As far as the thing in the crater, I'm not buying it either. Since most of my arguments have already been covered, I will just state that one of the subtitles was extremely amateurish, spelling "buried" as "burried." I don't think that an official government film would have such a glaring error. Maybe I'm wrong, but it struck me as very similar to some of the misspelled words in "phishing" emails.

Can anyone who would be smart enough take a guess at how large it could be. Im curious to know if its like mega huge.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

thanks in advance.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by NLDelta9]

Originally posted by NLDelta9
Can anyone who would be smart enough take a guess at how large it could be. Im curious to know if its like mega huge.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Rough estimate according to Izsak krater = 14km/8.6mile and measure the doublecrater left of the 'craft' maybe about 1.5km/0.94mile

Edited to add new movie, photo's of object from Apollo 15-17.



[edit on 6/5/2007 by Cygnific]

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
People want attention and they want recognition for things they do well. Where else is a hoaxer going to get kudos for his work than places like this and YouTube? I don't think someone like this is trying to convince anyone, they're more interested in all the arguments they start.

I looked at the city video and it was utterly fake. The city itself looked like a chalk drawing on black art paper and the tone and value of the B&W was different than the tone & value of the surrounding landscape.

As far as the thing in the crater, I'm not buying it either. Since most of my arguments have already been covered, I will just state that one of the subtitles was extremely amateurish, spelling "buried" as "burried." I don't think that an official government film would have such a glaring error. Maybe I'm wrong, but it struck me as very similar to some of the misspelled words in "phishing" emails.

Hm. Well I certainly don't buy the tone & value argument of the city. First of, unless the city were actually made of moon rocks it makes no sense it should have the same tone and value. I see what you're getting at though but I don't agree that any fair analysis of tone & value can be made of this rather blurry, sometimes "mistakenly" (by the alleged cam) color saturated images can be made.

Subtitles could have been added by anyone? Or have I missed something where the poster states that NASA has done them? I figured that he added them since audio was #ty or N/A. Also makes zero sence, spend a couple of weeks hoaxing material and then mess up on subtitling?

To me, there is simply nothing proving this to be a hoax. Ain't nothing proving it's real either, but the videos sure are interesting enough.

All I'm saying is that it takes more information before being able to succesfully completley bunk this. Well from my point of view atleast.

Edited to add this side note; By far the funniest reason for debunking this I have seen is that "there were no Apollo 20 - End of story". That just cracks me up There were no B2 either until..what..1988?

[edit on 6-5-2007 by lasse]

This first picture is taken from the movie above Delponte and Lukte craters.

The second picture i made from combining 2 pictures taken from the Nasa website, AS15-P-9615 is Delporte crater and Lukte_AS15-P-8995 is Lukte crater..






Edit: the space between both pictures is simply because NASA never made a picture of the whole range, you can verify this on the moon chart and check my numbers of the photo's taken.

[edit on 6/5/2007 by Cygnific]

Here's another problem I have with the video and if any of you are Apollo experts out there, I'd like your thoughts on this too.

In the video, we see the images panning from left to right as if we're looking out a side window. The Lunar Module had no side windows and only two small triangle windows on the front and a small rendezvous window overhead the commander.

In all of the previous Apollo landing videos I've seen, the view scrolls from the bottom of the window to the top. This is because during powered descent initiation, the LM is "flying" face down and feet first into the landing area. At approximately 50,000 ft, the LM rotates 180 degrees and is actually "flying" on its back so that the landing radar located on the back can ping the surface for accurate altitude measurements. At this point, the LM also begins to pitch forward and the view is properly oriented for the final few thousand feet through touch down.

I tried finding a PDI diagram but was unsuccessful. Here is a link to a description from Time Magazine (July 1969) as they covered the flight plan from Apollo 11.

www.time.com...

Another point I'd like to make is that the audio doesn't match with all previous Apollo PDI communications. There are a ton of go-no-go communications at each point during the landing phase. The Commander is usually flying on instruments until the last few minutes and the Lunar Module Pilot is interrogating the computer and entering commands into the DSKY. They're both really really busy and don't have a lot of time to sight see given that their fuel load is so small. They have to get down in a hurry.

Some of the video could have been taken from orbit in the CSM, but even then, you don't have recticular rendezvous grid marks on the side windows.

I know you'll all let me know where I err!!

Respectfully Submitted,

TCU Horned Frog

Originally posted by lasse

I see what you're getting at though but I don't agree that any fair analysis of tone & value can be made of this rather blurry, sometimes "mistakenly" (by the alleged cam) color saturated images can be made.

I beg to differ. Doesn't matter what the materials are, the shadows would have the same value & tone -- all rocks, no matter what kind, cast the same density shadows.

The "city" is clearly a chalk drawing. I've made drawings like that myself. Not of a moon city per se, but I know what chalk on black paper looks like, and that is the real deal. Chalk on paper that is, and not an "alien moon city."

Here you can find a photo to trace the flight showed on that video:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Video starts between Delporte and Lutke craters, going down on that map, before reaching Izsak crater.

The author said this, and I think we should dig on it:

but compare the video to apollo 11 or other missions, you won't ever ever find this moon flyover , craters lutke and delporte, compare the coordinates given on a lunar map . Only apollo 15 and 17 passed right over these craters before, and this film is not one of these mission. I ll ask to make realize another film on the apollo 15 and 17 flyover, you'll be able to compare.

It's correct, at least you can see familiar craters of that region from the start. So, we've 3 choices:

1) Footage from either Apollo 15 or Apollo 17.

2) Footage from another mission not revealed to the public (Apollo 20 according to the source)

3) Reproduction, meaning, fake, staged. But if it's the case, we should pay attention to the level of detail. Look carefully all the video, even before the ship part. Compare with real maps and photos of that region. If it's a model and/or CGI, I must say it's INCREDIBLY detailed.


[edit on 6-5-2007 by JackHill]