Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by mockrock

Now I am sure there is some elaborate explanation for this..

Yes, but I'm not sure you will be able to understand it. The Gemini capsules did not have television on board. The technology was not yet advanced enough, so the Gemini footage was shot on film. The black and white images from Apollo, of course, are television. There are 16mm films taken from the LM. I've posted a few on your other thread, so there's no excuse for you not being able to find them.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by mockrock

 

Parallax ! The photo is taken at the same point.. notice the ground to the left!

The size shape and angle of the crater to the left is different. There is a crater missing beyond it. The lay of the ground is different. The lunar rover tracks and footprints are different. Stop making silly assertions that anyone can see are just plain wrong.

www.aulis.com...

Now try that but match the horizons up... next time.

reply to post by mockrock

Now try that but match the horizons up... next time.

No, now you try that. Please exert some effort. You are looking more trollish with each one liner.

reply to post by mockrock


Can't believe someone "starred" this! (oh, well....with this crowd, maybe I can....)

Geeze....as mentioned, IF you'd research, instead of (something else, doesn't begin with an "R"), you'd know this already:

The footage is in color and great quality. This is the quality that was available in 1965.

www.youtube.com...

Now compare with 1969 'moon landing'

www.youtube.com...

Ed White's footage is on FILM! Film...perhaps you may be too young to remember it, but it still exists.

Apollo 11, the video was, well....VIDEO. Not film. And, it used a live TV camera specially built, and unique for its day. There had never been a video camera before, capable of transmitting a TV signal, that was small and light enough to take on the space missions.

Somehow, though.....I have s sneaking suspicion that you already know this......very poor Internet manners.

reply to post by mockrock


The foreground does change as pointed out by my observations of the photo.





Rocks A and B are not found in the bottom photo. Rocks C and D are found in both photos. Mound E is not found in bottom photo. The two craters in each photo are two distinctly different craters and are shown to be at a different distance to the mound indicated with the blue line.

Photos have been debunked.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by mockrock

 

Can't believe someone "starred" this! (oh, well....with this crowd, maybe I can....)

Geeze....as mentioned, IF you'd research, instead of (something else, doesn't begin with an "R"), you'd know this already:

The footage is in color and great quality. This is the quality that was available in 1965.

www.youtube.com...

Now compare with 1969 'moon landing'

www.youtube.com...

Ed White's footage is on FILM! Film...perhaps you may be too young to remember it, but it still exists.

Apollo 11, the video was, well....VIDEO. Not film. And, it used a live TV camera specially built, and unique for its day. There had never been a video camera before, capable of transmitting a TV signal, that was small and light enough to take on the space missions.

Somehow, though.....I have s sneaking suspicion that you already know this......very poor Internet manners.

So you are telling me the didn't use that color video camera because someone back home would be able to record poor quality footage anyway...

Why not use that VIDEO as well.. there was plenty of time for all those photos, why not whip out that video camera it worked so well in 1965, surely this tried and tested success meant it had to be worth recording on VIDEO.. since the broadcast quality was so poor.

So why did they not VIDEO it? Now I suspect you already know why..

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by mockrock

 

The foreground does change as pointed out by my observations of the photo.

Rocks A and B are not found in the bottom photo. Rocks C and D are found in both photos. Mound E is not found in bottom photo. The two craters in each photo are two distinctly different craters and are shown to be at a different distance to the mound indicated with the blue line.

Photos have been debunked.

Funny how you could off the LM in the background of the first photo! oops

That was the point of the photo .. now show everyone the photos complete..

reply to post by mockrock


They used TV transmissions to have live coverage of the event. That is why. Besides, they used 16mm movie cameras as well.

reply to post by mockrock

Funny how you could off the LM in the background of the first photo! oops That was the point of the photo .. now show everyone the photos complete..

I did not do anything to the pictures accept add the lines and letters. I did not not change anything including the size, which is the reason it has a scroll bar. This is the picture found at Aulis

And, I don't have to show anything, the burden is on you to prove your statements.

reply to post by Gibborium


My mistake, where is the video of comparable quality to the 1965 footage then if it was recorded on video?

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by mockrock

 

Funny how you could off the LM in the background of the first photo! oops That was the point of the photo .. now show everyone the photos complete..

I did not do anything to the pictures accept add the lines and letters. I did not not change anything including the size, which is the reason it has a scroll bar.

And, I don't have to show anything, the burden is on you to prove your statements.

Here you go... Oops you seemed to have cropped the LM in the background.. here it is

reply to post by mockrock


Oops, look again, I did not crop the picture, use the scroll bar at the bottom of the picture.

reply to post by mockrock

My mistake, where is the video of comparable quality to the 1965 footage then if it was recorded on video?

Do you honestly believe anyone here thinks that you don't know the difference between video and film?

reply to post by mockrock

So you are telling me the didn't use that color video camera because someone back home would be able to record poor quality footage anyway...

There was NO small color TV video camera available to fly on Apollo 11.

....why not whip out that video camera it worked so well in 1965....

Are you being intentionally obtuse? DO you wish the readers to see this behavior? One last time......there was no "video" camera carried on Gemini in 1965!

It was 16mm movie FILM, in a movie camera. Same as your Daddy might have had, if he had popped for the more expensive home version, instead of the more common 8mm of the era (1960s).

Not that some will bother, but for the sake of history (and future readers), here:

www.myspacemuseum.com...

reply to post by Gibborium

Oops, look again, I did not crop the picture, use the scroll bar at the bottom of the picture.

He knows perfectly well you didn't crop the picture, just as he knows perfectly well the foreground is different. He seems to be getting some sort of pleasure out of asserting blatant contra-factuals.

reply to post by DJW001



The 'live' broadcast was transmitted = poor quality. Recorded to video back on Earth.

The video footage not transmitted = excellent quality as proved by the video footage achieved here

www.youtube.com... 1965 video

So this quality should have been possible to achieve on video in 1969, not for the transmitted footage..

Keep up..

reply to post by mockrock


1969=video
1965=film

reply to post by mockrock


I was just using colloquial language ! The point is the same.. o.k to correct

Why was no '16mm movie FILM, in a movie camera' used during the historic 1969 moon landing..

You are telling me .. it wasn't available on Apollo 11? That makes no sense and since you enjoy logic so much you have reached the end of the road with this argument..

Why did they not use the 16mm movie FILM, in a movie camera! For the Lunar footage, since images were clearly important, due to the painstaking effort to take so many well composed photos..

When16mm movie FILM, in a movie camera.. Would have offered incredible footage and evidence.. not to mention a useful scientific record for later study.

reply to post by DJW001


Haha I guess I kinda got caught up in the personal digs, and I apologize to the others on this thread.

Originally posted by mockrock
reply to post by mockrock

 

I was just using colloquial language ! The point is the same.. o.k to correct

Why was no '16mm movie FILM, in a movie camera' used during the historic 1969 moon landing..

You are telling me .. it wasn't available on Apollo 11? That makes no sense and since you enjoy logic so much you have reached the end of the road with this argument..

Why did they not use the 16mm movie FILM, in a movie camera! For the Lunar footage, since images were clearly important, due to the painstaking effort to take so many well composed photos..

When16mm movie FILM, in a movie camera.. Would have offered incredible footage and evidence.. not to mention a useful scientific record for later study.

When you win an argument like this.. one of the stooges begins writing irrelevant responses to bury the thread.

Why was the 16mm movie FILM, in a movie camera not used for the moon landings, when it had proved so effective previously?