It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
SayonaraJupiter
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.
Ove38
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 backwardsedit on 22-12-2013 by Ove38 because: text fix
Ove38
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
onebigmonkeyNo it isn't and no it isn't. Listen to the mission audio or read the transcripts, they are heading back over tracks they have already made.
onebigmonkey
Ove38
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,
They're stiff cables.
neither does the astronaut, look at the astronaut's left arm it's not moving either,
Why would it? You do know how it was operated right?
Ove38
onebigmonkey
Ove38
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,
They're stiff cables.
neither does the astronaut, look at the astronaut's left arm it's not moving either,
Why would it? You do know how it was operated right?
Why would it? Because of a very bumpy ride ! The arm is as stiff as the steel wire used to model the video camera cable and the antenna cable of the toy car in the video.
edit on 23-12-2013 by Ove38 because: text fix
wildespace
reply to post by wmd_2008
I looked at both videos, and SayonaraJupiter is right, it was too separate drives. The dust is kicked up differently, and the rover bumps up and down and turns slightly differently. Still doesn't prove that it wasn't on the Moon, but it's an interesting tidbit to learn.
Stackpot
reply to post by wmd_2008
I don't want to sound simplistic, but isn't the shuttle designed for space travel? I'm wondering why the shuttle couldn't travel to the moon and back, what design features would be needed to do a spin around our satellite? I would be shocked if the set-up NASA used in '69 was in any way more sophisticated or capable than the shuttle for performing a fly-by around the moon and back. I am not attacking, just wondering out loud if that makes any sense to you?
agentscoly
reply to post by smurfy
How come you can't see any stars?
Where is the audio?
WTF worst fake moon landing I have ever seen!
wmd_2008
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.edit on 21-12-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
Fearthedarkforiaminit
wmd_2008
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.edit on 21-12-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
First off, anyone who strives so hard to convince me to accept their version of reality is automatically suspect in my mind. Second, I watched the WHOLE video you sent and he has to adjust the camera to its extremes in order to produce the ghosting effect SIMILAR but not IDENTICAL to the Apollo landing effect and more importantly, I did a search on google to see what camera was used on the Lunar module and its a Westinghouse camera using a Westinghouse WL30691 sensor not a Vidicon sensor. (That was used on the command module camera, you know, the part that stayed in space.) So, guess you need to start over and find some footage from the right camera. Here's a link to wikipedia to get you started. Good luck.
Wiki Link
onebigmonkey
Fearthedarkforiaminit
wmd_2008
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.edit on 21-12-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
First off, anyone who strives so hard to convince me to accept their version of reality is automatically suspect in my mind. Second, I watched the WHOLE video you sent and he has to adjust the camera to its extremes in order to produce the ghosting effect SIMILAR but not IDENTICAL to the Apollo landing effect and more importantly, I did a search on google to see what camera was used on the Lunar module and its a Westinghouse camera using a Westinghouse WL30691 sensor not a Vidicon sensor. (That was used on the command module camera, you know, the part that stayed in space.) So, guess you need to start over and find some footage from the right camera. Here's a link to wikipedia to get you started. Good luck.
Wiki Link
It is appropriate to discuss a vidicon tube, as the ghosting is not a product of the TV camera used on the moon but the scan conversion process back on the ground.
www.hq.nasa.gov...
honeysucklecreek.net...
www.hq.nasa.gov...