Another Fake Video?

Originally posted by jhotrod
look at the lower grey control box on the right, look at the closing locks and the little black "slit" or whatever it is on the lid. compare to the real thing, its different. so either it is a prop they didnt get quite right, or its footage from a second "vandenberg launch pad" like you seem to believe.
watch what happens, when the "astronaut" bumps his head...
whos that african american teenage engineer wunderkind?
Did "THEY" make "L. Marietta Snyder", the first female astronaut, who was never trained as such, and nobody heard from before or after, disappear like Jimmy Hoffa?
Where was Leonov really at the time when this supposedly happened?

Edit: the width of the room does not match


[edit on 21-6-2007 by jhotrod]

the problem is people are comparing this to the past apollo rooms at the Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex. Apollo 20 was alleged to be launched from Vandenberg so the rooms are bound to be different. In fact if they looked the same i would be screaming fake.

Guys i would like some help in researching the other video i linked of apollo 20 on the launch pad... I have looked at many other photos of apollo launch's and not one has had the same launch tower construction as this footage shows.. that making it possible that the launch complex was indeed Vandenberg.. if its a Hoax this guys spent ALOT of money to re-create these scenes.. Im convinced that this guy is for real..

here is the video agen



Rich

seems to show the mobile service structure and the access arms of the launch structure.

history.nasa.gov...

history.nasa.gov...

The second photo shows the white room in contact with the command module from outside. Note the technician on top.

[edit on 21-6-2007 by jhotrod]

[edit on 21-6-2007 by jhotrod]

[edit on 21-6-2007 by jhotrod]

[edit on 21-6-2007 by jhotrod]

Sorry i only got to page 11, due to all the dumb repeat post and got tired of reading the same things.

I'm no expert on video but i noticed something that i guess nobody else noticed.
In the first post video, pause it at 5:23 then do a frame by frame and pleas tell me WTH that is in the reflection of the craft window there shooting the video from. It looks like the head of one of them old egyption humans with the lizard head and what seems to be a mushroom behind it.


sorry if this has been discussed allready on later pages than p11.

it allso seems to move very slowly, like breathing or something.

Allso could this be there second pass over the object? cause they seem to know there coming up to the said space ship like they knew it was there and went back for a closer look.

Opps, allso i wanted to mention i saw this video before somewhere else and it had the sound track with someone talking... dono why it's not in this video. and i cant seem to find it again, but if i do i will post it up here.

[edit on 21-6-2007 by SpaceBits]

well i went back and read the rest of the pages.... and of course nothing new on the subject, just a waist of reading.

But as for why the user would wait till Sept. is obviouse....

1) If he released any more info, ppl would still claim it to be a hoax, as allot of yous seems to think this guy is one of the best hoaxters.

And he may be one, but the question is why? and if so why not do something better with his tallents?

2) If he is waiting till Sept, it's probly due to the fact that he knows something is going to happend at that time, or hes black mailing NASA to come clean, becasue ppl would belive NASA before this guy.

Why would NASA come clean...? well probly because if this guy has what he claims to have on NASA and users prove this guy to be legit then what will citzens think of NASA after? they'd probly burn NASA to the ground for lieing to the public.

Also allot of yous are thinking like a primitive cave man.... there has been many ritiered US Officers that claim the government had anti-gravity sine the early 60's. As a matter of fact theres even videos on how to make an anti-gravity platform, and it's quite simple to make actually. anyone could probly make one in there basement, with little effort.




[edit on 21-6-2007 by SpaceBits]

just FYI, "I see, therefore I am" in Latin is "EGO animadverto , proinde EGO sum".

Camillo - one other alternative possibility you failed to mention:

"Retired" may be just an aging, tired, lonely man, possibly terminally ill, who has concluded that his life is about over and he has nothing to show for it.

He's not interested in money, he doesn't want to sell books or screenplays, and he could care less about proving his CGI skills to potential movie/video game establishments.

He may be ex-military alright, possibly Air Force-related, maybe even a level or two removed from some "space-affiliate" agency. Perhaps a low-rank NASA gopher of sorts. He had life-long dreams of being an "astronaut", famous astronomer/discoverer, or similar self-actualization career path that never materialized. It didn't happen - not even close - because he is either woefully incompetent, unhealthy, belligerent, or has some other physical or mental condition which precludes his more intimate involvement.

Instead, he spent a lifetime reading Asimov and Bradbury while sweeping the hangar floors, driving the pilot's bus, or 'counting beans' in a small, dark office as he gradually realized he has no hope of ever realizing his singular ambition of touching the vast void above.

Now, nearing the end of his life, and with just enough first-hand exposure to the mechanics, procedures, and operations of space flight, he is determined to 'exit this Earth' with some dignity, even if such self-esteem is a fabrication of his imagination which he has now perpetrated upon others.

If this is a hoax, and fairly well done at that, it may not be for financial gain or due to some similar diabolical vendetta whatsoever.

It may simply be a case of an introverted, self-absorbed, yet possibly highly intelligent man who is bitter at the world and at the hand which humanity has dealt him.

We may, all of us, be unwitting and hapless participants in a petty individual's private little Twilight Zone episode (cue theme music, light cigarette...)

[Or, it could be a real ship on the moon... not a bad T-Zone episode itself...]

Ahhhh.... if we only knew the truth....

Carry on!

In my opinion only 3 scenarios are possible:

1. retiredafb is a wealthy hoaxer that can spend as much time on this project as he wants. He is an Apollo program enthusiast. He has at least basic knowledge of traditional animation, computer animation and modeling and has the technical means to produce all. the model of the ship and surrounding is actually excellent, if you watch the clip closely and pay attention to the level of detail. when the camera is almost above the ship, in those few seconds where the color blur is minimal, the illuminated terrain next to the ship is very detailed. It is not amateur work. The ingress clip is good work as well.

2. retiredafb is posting clips from a failed and since forgotten sci-fi movie project.

3. viral marketing for an upcoming sci-fi movie.


I was totally believing in scenario one until he posted the "ingress footage".
If you consider how much time and money the props in that clip would cost to make or to purchase (2 quite accurate space suit replicas, 4 technician suits that seem to be individually made for the guys wearing them, the hosing and cabling, the communication boxes, the construction and painting of the room and hatch area itself, the headsets and portable oxygen canister etc.), it seems to be part of a professional production.

"But what if it is real?" - it can not be real because:

Retiredafbs background story is complete bogus. Vandenberg as launch site for saturn moon rockets, leonov as member of apollo mission, bell labs employees (?) as astronauts (he should have picked Rockwell :cool, female astronaut, communication with misson control while on the far side, no saturn rocket left for such a mission, etc...

"But what if part of it is real?" (Disclosure argument) - it isn't.

1. alien ship - the first part is an optical pan over a poster (maybe its even a digital image pan), the orange and green lens flares are stationary ON THE TERRAIN, changing terrain highlights and overexposures are cleverly added by (manual) digital postprocessing. the ship footage shows color blur that looks totally artificial and digital, and is nonexistant in the first overflight part. the ship part shows ridiculous amounts of postprocessing like lensflares, stray light, blurred number scales etc.
2. the city - is a macro pan over a poster again, the top part is a handpainted giger-ish cityscape. nice naive artwork. ridiculously fake lensflares (watch their radius decrease in steps).
3. the liftoff - cgi or model rocket, with superimposed real exhaust. ridiculously fake lensflares, solid color blue backdrop, no variation, no clouds, no nothing.
4. ingress - probably the most expensive clip so far. it is fake, because there would not be teenagers working as apollo closeout crew technicians. lots of "acting" going on. the room size feels wrong to me, when compared to the real thing. the portable oxygen container looks more like those from early apollo missions.
5. launch pad - this is probably real footage from ksc. i don't know enough to determine which mission. this type of infrastructure is over 100m high and has never been witnessed anywhere else but at KSC. Vandenberg launch or service towers look totally different, because they were never designed for the saturn rockets.
6. alien writing - could be anything, looks a bit like Tolkien elvish writing

I am amazed how much money and time went into this, especially into the alien ship and white room footage. But its hoaxed anyway.

Originally posted by jhotrod
In my opinion only 3 scenarios are possible:

1. retiredafb is a wealthy hoaxer that can spend as much time on this project as he wants. He is an Apollo program enthusiast. He has at least basic knowledge of traditional animation, .....

....ever designed for the saturn rockets.
6. alien writing - could be anything, looks a bit like Tolkien elvish writing

I am amazed how much money and time went into this, especially into the alien ship and white room footage. But its hoaxed anyway.

Sorry but you never mention you were a pro with video editing and processeing nor do you provide anything to back up your thery.

If your going to say for sure it's a fake or real, please provide proof to either, we dont need waisted posts that repeat the same point that its fake because of motion blur.

and explain why the image at 5:25 is behind the camra, this may prove it to be a hoax or real... because that i dont think it was put in there on purpose because you dont see it very well. It's a reflection of something.
I wish i could upload a screen shot i have of it out lined.

Originally posted by SpaceBits
Sorry but you never mention you were a pro with video editing and processeing nor do you provide anything to back up your thery.

If your going to say for sure it's a fake or real, please provide proof to either, we dont need waisted posts that repeat the same point that its fake because of motion blur.

D'oh. I gave a rational analysis of the footage, and now i have to defend myself because you don't understand what i say, instead of refuting my observations yourself? Wrong approach, man.

and explain why the image at 5:25 is behind the camra, this may prove it to be a hoax or real... because that i dont think it was put in there on purpose because you dont see it very well. It's a reflection of something.
I wish i could upload a screen shot i have of it out lined.

I think you are talking about the hazy white stuff that seems to lie on top of the movie and is constantly moving and warbling about. I do not see any figure, just blooming and random white haze.

My take on this is that the guy who created this clip added another layer on top of the video to simulate one of the following:
- stray light in optics or light reflecting between window glass and that transparent scale
- heavy breathing condensing on the window
- some sort of peculiar effect of the vidicon tube or whatever was used in the apollo cameras of that time

But I may be talking out of my arse and there is really a reflection of an alien on that lander window. whatever.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by jhotrod]

Regarding the markings, the number 50 written on the inside of the ship.

To me this is the weakest part of the clip. In order for the markings to be stationary while the camera is shaking left and right, the only possible explanation would be that the numbers are written on the lens of the camera itself, or on a glass connected to the camera somwehow. But then the numbers would have to be visible at all times, and in the clip, they disappear for 11 seconds and then mysteriously reappear.

Check it out:

3.11 The camera zooms in. No markings visible.
3.36 The markings first appears in zoomed in mode.
5.00 The markings now suddenly DISAPPEAR!
5.11 The markings slowly FADES in again.

My conclusion is that the markings consists of a separate layer added on to the original video, which is probobly of a small scale model.

Is there any other possible explaination for the sudden disappearence and later fade-in of the markings?

Other aspects that indicates a hoax:
the Apollo 20 patch looks ridiculous.
All the videos start and/or end showing the patch, like they are some kind of trailers for an upcoming movie named "Apollo 20".
The guy chose to register on youtube and upload the first clip on April 1st. I mean really...

I would go see the movie though, it's a great story.


[edit on 22-6-2007 by Dantes]

Originally posted by Dantes
Regarding the markings, the number 50 written on the inside of the ship.
To me this is the weakest part of the clip. In order for the markings to be stationary while the camera is shaking left and right, the only possible explanation would be that the numbers are written on the lens of the camera itself, or on a glass connected to the camera somwehow. But then the numbers would have to be visible at all times, and in the clip, they disappear for 11 seconds and then mysteriously reappear.

My conclusion is that the markings consists of a separate layer added on to the original video, which is probobly of a small scale model.

Is there any other possible explaination for the sudden disappearence and later fade-in of the markings?

There are answers and I have outlined some HERE
Read Neils answer to mine because his arguement is valid and at first glance would seem to refute mine but we’ll get to his in a bit.

Regarding the orbit height. I found a statement regarding Apollo 16 and the average orbit height was 110km. When the command module was orbiting, the speed of travel (which eludes me at the moment) gave whoever was supposed to be filiming anything about 1 -2 minutes to capture. They started filiming from one direction and eneded up filming from the other.. this is apparent in this video.
The craft is supposed to be a mile wide. .
Hmm..Let’s add this up.
Height of orbiting camera = 56miles or 300,000 ft
CRAFT = 1 mile wide or 5280ft
Glass from camera = 4 ft max imo
Focal point ”shakes” about 10000ft left and right throughout video (this is amazingly tight btw)
300,000ft focal length / 10,000 shake width = 1/30
divide 5280ft / 4ft = 1320 x 56 miles = 73920 to 1 is the ratio of the shake.
This means the camera looking through the glass from 4ft away would have a 73920 to 1 difference in the amount of visible camera shake on video. In other words, almost imperceptable. BUT.. if you frame by frame it and really scrutinize the video, you CAN see the 50 move in unison with the ship.

Why do the numbers disappear and reappear?
Think about how sensitive the settings on the camera must be.
Read neil slades reply to me , grab a camera, write a 50 on glass, and stick the camera behind and zoom on an object far away.. it disappears. Now write on the camera lens itself. It shows up then eh? (you can save your camera lens from this test by marking on transparency)
Given how close the numbers are to the camera in relation to the ship from the camera, the only reason you see them is the fact of the low light settings and amount of light being let through is largely taken up by black writing in a TIGHT focal path.
If someone were to take a flashlight and highlight the writing during the zoom portion, I bet the numbers would disappear altogether. In other words, the focal “beam” is so tight that anything in front of the lens is going to show if it’s dark and not “out lit”
From one direction it’s harder to see them because the angle the light is being seen by the lens.
I believe the reason the numbers “disappear” is because an internal light of some sort was turned on to wash out the blackness of the writing..
this is not a normal situation and pertains to the environment of the video.

I do action photography/video and have a 500mm lens did some tests to verify what I’m saying is possible.
Similar things happen in this video to what I experience at a sporting event and I have to track moving targets a full 180degrees across a field or track.
Sometimes I can see objects on my lens and then sometimes I can’t.. it depends on a lot of variables.

As far as the “reflection” is concerned, I have no idea what that is and could be the packaging to “Pop tarts” for all I know.

These are just my (always possibly wrong) thoughts and hopefully will be backed up by more amazing videos by retiredafb.

Peace..

B

In addition to Bspiracys post, the numbers are on a transparent scale in front (?) of the window called "Landing Point Designator". It looks like this -NASA photo:

history.nasa.gov...

Bspiracy, since you have experience in cameras and their optics, how do you explain that those green and orange lensflares that are fixed on the terrain? their position should only depend on the position of the sun and how the camera is pointing.
To me its just a pan over a big photo or poster (maybe a large digital image) that has those lens flares on it.
[edit on 23-6-2007 by jhotrod]

[edit on 23-6-2007 by jhotrod]

[edit on 23-6-2007 by jhotrod]

I'm leaving till tomorrow and will answer if you give me a specific video time to check out when I get back. If it's a pan over then it should be apparent as a hoax..

B

the first small green flare appears at 00:19 and the large orange disappears at 01:59. they lie in a straight line like they usually do.

I did some digging and unfortunately have stumbled on evidence that this is all a hoax. I say unfortunately, because it would have been cool if there would be some truth to this story.

This whole deal is sadly made up by some French guy who has worked for many years professionally with photography, and has been doing 3D animation since at least 1993. He also has a special interest in anything that has to do with the moon, and the Apollo flights. He's most likely laughing hysterically at everyone who is taking this crap seriously.

His energy would be put to better use in Hollywood IMHO. Spending countless hours doing this sort of thing for fun is just bad, go make some money instead.


[edit on 23-6-2007 by Dantes]

Another new video:



It looks like it could be a clay model to me. However, I have never seen an alien spaceship on the moon, so I don't have anything to compare it to.

I guess this is where we hear about there never being an Apollo 20...

I noticed that video had just been posted and was about to show it on this topic... however i have also noticed that the video was taken down soon after

Rich

ok the video is back up on youtube and i have been askin the guy some questions about the launch... he has replied with a few so when i get the lot i will put his answers on here

Rich

Originally posted by olegkvasha
i have been askin the guy some questions about the launch... he has replied with a few so when i get the lot i will put his answers on here

Here's the vid:

CSM 16mm footage through the AGC lens, made by Leona Snyder $& lunar orbit revolutions. Camera is fixed on the eyepiece of the telescope, less dropouts or moves than the Tv feed from the LM. Frame transfer is not perfect,speed is faster than actual, 4 different speeds were used on the 16 mm camera. The landing site is visible on the lower right part in the first lunar sequence.
sorry for the first viewers and commenters, i had to upload again with a better codec.

Been doing a little digging into the background of this "program"....

upload.wikimedia.org...

That is a collage of every Saturn 5 launch. If you compare the skys with the sky in the "Apollo 20" launch video, you get only 3 possible match's, Apollo's 6, 11 or 15. If you compare the actual rocket itself, markingswise, it match's none of the launchs. I also did some digging on the launch date/Vandenberg AFB. The closest I found was a Minuteman 1 launch on August 19th, but from old newspaper archives, it's apparent that Vandenberg was tossing up Minuteman missles all over the place that month in '76. As to whether whatever yokels that were living around Vandenberg at the time could tell the difference? Search me.

www.astronautix.com...

Also of note, but not connected, the first Space Shuttle orbiter was rolled out on August 16, 1976, the same day he claims Apollo 20 launched. Hope all of this helps in some way.