Moon rover sped up vs Moon rover as is released by NASA

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

No. That was my point. The original post indicated that they filmed on a stage then slowed the footage down. The camera movements would have been fine regardless. No need to aggressively pan to the left when the rover was mid shot.

On the moon however, with less gravity, I can understand weird camera movements, for obvious reasons

I think this is the clearest explanation for why it wasn't faked...



"If we've built the moon rocket, might it not be easier to just pop to the moon and fake the footage there?"

Ah gotcha

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
I think this is the clearest explanation for why it wasn't faked...

"If we've built the moon rocket, might it not be easier to just pop to the moon and fake the footage there?"

That's just brilliant, thanks for the lolz.

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
Have you watched the lunar rover video (the original one, not the speeded-up)? I don't see why you would have a problem with what we're saying about the video, unless you're just hanging on particular words and phrasing.

The dust kicked up by the rover behaves exactly as it would in vacuum and 1/6th gravity. There is the initial kinetic energy, yes, and it makes the dust fly up, slow down, and then fall back due to gravity. It's just this happens differently to how it would be in our atmosphere. The fine dust doesn't get suspended in the air (because there is no air), so it falls straight back to the ground, with the speed determined by the Moon's gravity. There's nothing in the airless environment of the Moon to make it just hang around above surface. Inertia keeps the things moving, it doesn't make stuff hang around either.

All this is fairly basic stuff kids learn at school, and there's plentiful material on the Internet for those who want to catch up or learn more.



P.S. By the way, here's the culprit (a dark spot annotated as LRV, to the right of the Apollo Descent Stage), spotted by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter: lroc.sese.asu.edu...

Could you explain to me why a black photoshop brush tool has been used on the LM and the LRV ?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
Have you watched the lunar rover video (the original one, not the speeded-up)? I don't see why you would have a problem with what we're saying about the video, unless you're just hanging on particular words and phrasing.

The dust kicked up by the rover behaves exactly as it would in vacuum and 1/6th gravity. There is the initial kinetic energy, yes, and it makes the dust fly up, slow down, and then fall back due to gravity. It's just this happens differently to how it would be in our atmosphere. The fine dust doesn't get suspended in the air (because there is no air), so it falls straight back to the ground, with the speed determined by the Moon's gravity. There's nothing in the airless environment of the Moon to make it just hang around above surface. Inertia keeps the things moving, it doesn't make stuff hang around either.

All this is fairly basic stuff kids learn at school, and there's plentiful material on the Internet for those who want to catch up or learn more.



P.S. By the way, here's the culprit (a dark spot annotated as LRV, to the right of the Apollo Descent Stage), spotted by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter: lroc.sese.asu.edu...

Could you explain to me why a black photoshop brush tool has been used on the LM and the LRV ?

Can YOU explain why you think they are so inept at Photoshop that they just used a black brush toll like that and then released the image anyway?

You guys need to decide. Are nasa amazing at cgi and photoshop or really really rubbish! like,e this?

Or...you know, they went to the moon for real.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
Have you watched the lunar rover video (the original one, not the speeded-up)? I don't see why you would have a problem with what we're saying about the video, unless you're just hanging on particular words and phrasing.

The dust kicked up by the rover behaves exactly as it would in vacuum and 1/6th gravity. There is the initial kinetic energy, yes, and it makes the dust fly up, slow down, and then fall back due to gravity. It's just this happens differently to how it would be in our atmosphere. The fine dust doesn't get suspended in the air (because there is no air), so it falls straight back to the ground, with the speed determined by the Moon's gravity. There's nothing in the airless environment of the Moon to make it just hang around above surface. Inertia keeps the things moving, it doesn't make stuff hang around either.

All this is fairly basic stuff kids learn at school, and there's plentiful material on the Internet for those who want to catch up or learn more.



P.S. By the way, here's the culprit (a dark spot annotated as LRV, to the right of the Apollo Descent Stage), spotted by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter: lroc.sese.asu.edu...

Could you explain to me why a black photoshop brush tool has been used on the LM and the LRV ?

Can YOU explain why you think they are so inept at Photoshop that they just used a black brush toll like that and then released the image anyway?

You guys need to decide. Are nasa amazing at cgi and photoshop or really really rubbish! like,e this?

Or...you know, they went to the moon for real.

Who said anything about "NASA" or "they" ?
The image was posted by Mark Robinson lroc.sese.asu.edu...

One good reason to brush it out like that, would be that the vehicle is not the LRV

The LRV should look like this

originally posted by: brace22
The one thing that gets me is the camera movement. There are some very sharp movements that have no place in being there unless you are speeding up a piece of film that is naturally of a slow moving object.

I'm sorry. I think there is something up with the Apollo missions for sure. Not that they were faked. But there was more than just collecting rocks. Just my opinion though.

Either way a good discussion point

Yes you're right, the camera movement at 0:52 - 0:55 gives it away, this part of the video is sped up, just as the first part of the video 0:00 - 0:54 is slowed down.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
Have you watched the lunar rover video (the original one, not the speeded-up)? I don't see why you would have a problem with what we're saying about the video, unless you're just hanging on particular words and phrasing.

The dust kicked up by the rover behaves exactly as it would in vacuum and 1/6th gravity. There is the initial kinetic energy, yes, and it makes the dust fly up, slow down, and then fall back due to gravity. It's just this happens differently to how it would be in our atmosphere. The fine dust doesn't get suspended in the air (because there is no air), so it falls straight back to the ground, with the speed determined by the Moon's gravity. There's nothing in the airless environment of the Moon to make it just hang around above surface. Inertia keeps the things moving, it doesn't make stuff hang around either.

All this is fairly basic stuff kids learn at school, and there's plentiful material on the Internet for those who want to catch up or learn more.



P.S. By the way, here's the culprit (a dark spot annotated as LRV, to the right of the Apollo Descent Stage), spotted by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter: lroc.sese.asu.edu...

Could you explain to me why a black photoshop brush tool has been used on the LM and the LRV ?

Can YOU explain why you think they are so inept at Photoshop that they just used a black brush toll like that and then released the image anyway?

You guys need to decide. Are nasa amazing at cgi and photoshop or really really rubbish! like,e this?

Or...you know, they went to the moon for real.

Who said anything about "NASA" or "they" ?
The image was posted by Mark Robinson lroc.sese.asu.edu...

One good reason to brush it out like that, would be that the vehicle is not the LRV

The LRV should look like this

the link you provided has an image that should be self explainatory to why it appears as a black dot, it has something to do with resolution.

More Apollo 16 hoax in this video. There is no delay in audio visual communication between astronaut on the moon and mission control on earth !

15:05 - 15:12 in the video

astronaut: this one right here
mission control: that's it
astronaut: this one right here
mission control: that it you got it right there

a reply to: Ove38
You know the video is edited, right?
Or didn't you notice the voice overlays and cuts of Houston?


Oh, I see what you're concerned about.
Here's the transcript.

124:07:39 Duke: (Pointing) This one right here?

124:07:41 England: That's it.

124:07:44 Duke: (Pointing with the scoop) This one right here?

124:07:45 England: That's it. (As Charlie touches the top of Big Muley with the scoop) You got it, right there.

124:07:49 Duke: Okay, that's a...

124:07:50 Young: That's a football-size rock.

124:07:52 Duke: It's a "Great Scott" size.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here's the video
youtu.be...

England could see Duke touching the rock and said that, yes, that was the rock he was talking about. It wasn't actually a conversation at that point.

a reply to: Ove38

Why would there be a delay between the astronaut finishing speaking and mission control speaking?.
Why is there a delay between mission control finishing speaking and the astronaut speaking?

Think about it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Ove38
You know the video is edited, right?
Or didn't you notice the voice overlays and cuts of Houston?


Oh, I see what you're concerned about.
Here's the transcript.

124:07:39 Duke: (Pointing) This one right here?

124:07:41 England: That's it.

124:07:44 Duke: (Pointing with the scoop) This one right here?

124:07:45 England: That's it. (As Charlie touches the top of Big Muley with the scoop) You got it, right there.

124:07:49 Duke: Okay, that's a...

124:07:50 Young: That's a football-size rock.

124:07:52 Duke: It's a "Great Scott" size.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here's the video
youtu.be...

England could see Duke touching the rock and said that, yes, that was the rock he was talking about. It wasn't actually a conversation at that point.

There's no difference, the conversation lasts 6 seconds in both videos

38:47 - 38:53

astronaut: this one right here
mission control: that's it
astronaut: this one right here
mission control: that it you got it right there

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Ove38

Why would there be a delay between the astronaut finishing speaking and mission control speaking?.
Why is there a delay between mission control finishing speaking and the astronaut speaking?

Think about it.

First, it takes a second and a half before mission control hears what the astronaut says, then it takes a second and a half before the astronaut hears what mission control says, that's why this doesn't add up

a reply to: Ove38

Because it wasn't I suggest you go look at the hi results pjoto again and than realize how far thr camera is away. My god it amazes me how silly people can be.

a reply to: Ove38

First, it takes a second and a half before mission control hears what the astronaut says, then it takes a second and a half before the astronaut hears what mission control says, that's why this doesn't add up

Actually, it's 1.3 seconds.

astronaut: this one right here
mission control: that's it
astronaut: this one right here
mission control: that it you got it right there

Yes. As Duke starts to reach toward the rock England says "That's it. You got it right there." He could see him reaching toward it.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Ove38

Why would there be a delay between the astronaut finishing speaking and mission control speaking?.
Why is there a delay between mission control finishing speaking and the astronaut speaking?

Think about it.

First, it takes a second and a half before mission control hears what the astronaut says, then it takes a second and a half before the astronaut hears what mission control says, that's why this doesn't add up

do you get that the delay is from the astronaut and not from mission control?? (since we are listening on the mission control side)

why would mission control wait one and a half second before answering???????????

if we were listening on the astronaut side it would be more

astronaut: this one right here
pause
mission control: that's it
astronaut: this one right here
pause
mission control: that it you got it right there

but it isnt like this, is it now??

a reply to: Ove38

You didn't pay attention to what I said, or what happens in the video. I asked you to think about it. You didn't.

Astronaut's words heard in Mission Control, Mission Control respond immediately. Time delay. Astronaut responds to Mission Control.

Now actually think about it.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Ove38

Why would there be a delay between the astronaut finishing speaking and mission control speaking?.
Why is there a delay between mission control finishing speaking and the astronaut speaking?

Think about it.

First, it takes a second and a half before mission control hears what the astronaut says, then it takes a second and a half before the astronaut hears what mission control says, that's why this doesn't add up

What we are hearing was recorded at mission control.

Therefore, mission control would reply right away (why wouldn't they?), but their reply would take ~1.3 seconds to get to the moon to be heard by the astronaut. The astronaut would then reply back, which would then take another ~1.3 seconds to be received by mission control.

That's why there is no delay in mission control replying to the astronauts, but a ~3 to ~4 second delay in the astronauts' replies to mission control. It all makes perfect sense.

It's a good thing you weren't the guy in charge of "faking" these conversations recorded at Mission Control for the alleged moon hoax, or else the hoax believers would actually have something.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
I think this is the clearest explanation for why it wasn't faked...

"If we've built the moon rocket, might it not be easier to just pop to the moon and fake the footage there?"

Yes that's the comedy version. This is the more serious version with explanations of not only why it would be easier to do shoot on the moon but also impossible to fake on Earth at the time. He goes into the details of what technology was available to slow down video playback in 1969 and its limitations as applied to slowing down the Apollo footage.

"The US Government lies to you all the time about all kinds of things and if they haven't lied to you yet today maybe they haven't had coffee yet"

4:39 The point: In 1969 it was not yet possible technically to fake what we saw.