The Apollo 11 Moon Landing Site --Now Seen in Unprecedented Detail

Apollo 15 lunar lift off, they have placed a few token stars on,

www.youtube.com...

Apollo 17 there are none.. So they could see stars or they couldn't ?

www.youtube.com...



REPORTER And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?


ARMSTRONG We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

ALDRIN I don't remember seeing any.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

After Apollo 13 - Does anyone know if there is footage of later Apollo press conferences after Apollo 13 ? Post links please. I think the poor performance of the astronauts during the press conferences put an end to it, easier to use pre-recorded footage.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by magmaiura

 

Here are quite a few good videos (most or all filmed using the Rover's TV camera).
history.nasa.gov...

edit on 3/19/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Thanks for that, but compare the quality with that available in 1965 for the US first space walk? All are incredibly poor.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by magmaiura

 

Myth busters fraud. Watch the whole of this video www.youtube.com...

As usual, Jarrah shoots himself in the foot. They never said it was impossible to bounce a laser off of the Moon's surface, just that the return is much brighter when there is a mirror reflector.

How is evidence of a mirror on the moon any evidence man has been there anyway? The Russians landed a probe on the moon in 1959, it is therefore more probable any mirror on the moon was placed by an unmanned probe.

Originally posted by magmaiura

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by magmaiura

 

Here are quite a few good videos (most or all filmed using the Rover's TV camera).
history.nasa.gov...

edit on 3/19/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Thanks for that, but compare the quality with that available in 1965 for the US first space walk? All are incredibly poor.

I'm only speculating here, but that may have something to do with them not wanting to bring back film canisters (extra weight). They left a lot of stuff on the Moon to save on their weight, and every pound counted. For example, they brought back the Hasselblad still picture exposed film, but they left the actual cameras on the moon.

The still picture exposed film rolls did add a little weight, but I wold think that moving film would weigh a lot more (considering it takes 24 frames for each second of movie. Did you ever see a movie reel compared to a roll of still images?).

Therefore, that could be the reason most of the moving images we see were transmitted back to Earth, rather than carried back to earth.

Again, I'm not sure this is the reason. I'm only speculating.

Since we have lunar meteorites here on earth, wouldn't it have been prudent to bring back a sample of high resolution footage something we can't find here on earth.

reply to post by magmaiura


Well the space walk was FILMED with a 16mm FILM camera it also says its restored to HD quality, now film has greater resolution than your 1080p digital HD Tv that's why old movies shot years ago can be released on blu-ray

You also mention stars can they or can't they see them that all depends on what you talking about, still,film or astronauts.

For the exposure settings for the still shots on the moon surface for the speed of film at the shutter speed and aperture STARS can't show.

For the astronauts eyes to fully dark adapt could have taken up to 45 mins time they could not spare.

This stuff is simple for anyone with an understanding of photography

Originally posted by magmaiura
Since we have lunar meteorites here on earth, wouldn't it have been prudent to bring back a sample of high resolution footage something we can't find here on earth.

Lunar meteorites found on earth do not have the same scientific value as rocks from the moon, because luanr meteorites found on earth have been contaminated by the earth.



Plus, I never said there were NO movie film rolls brought back to earth, I just said there were probably relatively few.

here is one of Armstrong's first excursion away from the relative safety of the LEM:


Here are more. The surface shots are scattered about, buy they start mostly at around the 20:00 mark:


Remember, the DAC had a frame rate of 6, 12, or 24 fps, so not all of these will be 24 fps.

reply to post by wmd_2008

I think he was referring to this video:
www.youtube.com...

I'm not convinced those are stars. I suppose they could be, but it's hard to tell because the camera is stationary.
They could also be spots on the camera's video pick-up sensor, or even dust on the lens -- but I hesitate to say what they "could be", because I don't have enough evidence to know for sure.

However, I can safely say that they may not be stars, because similar kinds of spots (that are definitely not stars) can be seen at the end of this video (below), starting at around the 1:28 mark. You can see them toward the right of the frame in front of the LEM legs. They are especially noticeable when the Rover's video camera zooms in or out at 1:30 and around 1:45.



So this video may not explain what those spots are, but it does raise a valid reason to think the spots in the Apollo 15 LEM ascent video may be something other than stars.

By the way, not all of the images in this video were taken by the Rover's video camera, Some of the movies were taken with the 16mm DAC:

1.60 mins in look at the dangle effect on the wire, he hops across - keep an eye on the movement.

Great vid !

www.liveleak.com...

Astronauts 'joy'

This makes some interesting viewing www.liveleak.com...

Don't use youtube for videos revealing Apollo hoax, use liveleak.com

Originally posted by magmaiura
1.60 mins in look at the dangle effect on the wire, he hops across - keep an eye on the movement.

Great vid !

...and with this you can explain how they removed the wires and rigs and any trace of them with 70's technology. I'm sure you can at least provide some kind of "alien macintosh computer" explanation to that

Originally posted by magmaiura
1.60 mins in look at the dangle effect on the wire, he hops across - keep an eye on the movement.

Great vid !

edit on 19-3-2012 by magmaiura because: (no reason given)

I'm not sure what you mean by "1.60". Could you please clarify the time for me?

If you mean 1:06, then I don't see anything wrong with their movements (although I think the film speed on the DAC was set at 1 fps for that particular part of the video, which gave the a "strobe-light effect" to their movement).

reply to post by PsykoOps


Yes. by using Kevlar thread invented in 1965 - that combined with low resolution footage and studio lighting strategically placed.

With a movie you don't use the shots that ruin the mystery of how the effects were created.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by magmaiura
1.60 mins in look at the dangle effect on the wire, he hops across - keep an eye on the movement.

Great vid !

edit on 19-3-2012 by magmaiura because: (no reason given)

I'm not sure what you mean by "1.60". Could you please clarify the time for me?

If you mean 1:06, then I don't see anything wrong with their movements (although I think the film speed on the DAC was set at 1 fps for that particular part of the video, which gave the a "strobe-light effect" to their movement).

Yes "1.60" are you looking at the right video? The dangle effect is blatant, it is crazy that we are being held back by a work of fiction.

We need to wake up and accept that it was a hoax and move on, whilst we carry on being fooled by these hoaxes our governments will carry on treating us like idiots.

If the moon landings had not be hoaxed we could be on our way there right now, for real. All humankind has suffered for this crime and it is a disgrace that this ridiculous fable is still being accepted as fact.

Originally posted by magmaiura

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
I'm not sure what you mean by "1.60". Could you please clarify the time for me?

Yes "1.60" are you looking at the right video? The dangle effect is blatant, it is crazy that we are being held back by a work of fiction.

Why don't you tell me which video you mean.

Also, are there different YouTube settings for time stamps? The time stamp format I have when I playback a YouTube video is M:S or minutes:seconds, in a format like this example: 1:06

...which would be 1 minute and 6 seconds

Using that format, 1.60 does not make sense. Is there some sort of "decimal minute" setting on YouTube that I don't know about?

People wake up, we don't have to wait until we actually get to the moon to reveal the hoax. Until we reveal the hoax we will not get to the moon there is simply no appetite for it. The astronauts deserve some peace we need to hear their real story before they pass on.

OK, the moon hoax believers seem to all agree that the astronauts never left low earth orbit.

Doesn't this apollo-history-and-hoax.com... and this www.braeunig.us... prove otherwise?

reply to post by openfire


The problem is there is always a stronger argument that we did not make it there, in balance the hoax seems more likely. This increases with every year that goes by when we fail in space.

We are failing in space because of the hoax.

There is no evidence other than the collective weight that everyone accepts it as reality that could not have been faked.

Originally posted by magmaiura
reply to post by openfire

 

The problem is there is always a stronger argument that we did not make it there, in balance the hoax seems more likely. This increases with every year that goes by when we fail in space....

Not really. The list of hoax evidence I have seen (much of it born out of ignorance) has been thoroughly debunked, point by point.

I'm not exactly sure what you are calling a "strong argument". Specifically, what evidence of a hoax do you see as being the best evidence?