Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof

reply to post by Panic2k11

See the history books if you take what transpired the Russians at the time said they couldn't do it because of the radiation.

No the Russians didn't Their foremost radiation specialist E. E. Kovalev said that just a few millimeters of aluminum shielding would suffice to protect astronauts passing through the Radiation Belts.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You might want to read the entirety of the above thread before you help Jarrah White with his hoax.

reply to post by DJW001


The soviets were in fact the first to the Moon. Communist turtles got to moon first (reptiles are less susceptible to radiation).

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Pinke

 

That would only a a difference if they used the method that he states works more realistic (film with increased speed) but even so lets say they would do that logic dictates that at 2x speed it would simply double the size. Am I missing something ?

Note that I do not see quality as very relevant, the TVs at the time were pretty awful. (Note that the original film has gone missing only duplicates seem to exist, in what medium ?)

There's also the thing that if you simply speed up the footage to reflect the Earth's gravity, the astronauts' movements will look unnatural and jerky. This supports the claim that it was filmed in a 1/6th gravity environment.

Hiya Panic.

Remember when you said this:

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by ckno1

 

I stopped seeing the video since he loses half the time speaking about other things that the point he states to be making and then he says that there was no high speed cameras.

Go back, and watch the video again all the way through. Sorry to be curt, I've used up all my ATS care factor today haha

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Pinke

 

at 2x speed it would simply double the size. Am I missing something ?

Rewatch video. Google:

- Telecine
- Pulldown
- Characteristics of film stock
- Characteristics of film cameras
- Characteristics of video
- 1960s visual effects
- Westinghouse Video Camera
- Temporal resolution issues in visual effects


Maybe read this, too. Then point out where they went wrong I guess?

Also, DJW001 totally has this great thread for the rest of this stuff! We should totally use that sometime.

reply to post by ckno1


And there will still be people who say this guy is a Zionist Disinfo Agent

reply to post by Panic2k11

The soviets were in fact the first to the Moon. Communist turtles got to moon first (reptiles are less susceptible to radiation).

So why not use their superior technology to fake a landing?

reply to post by DJW001

You might want to read the entirety of the above thread before you help Jarrah White with his hoax.

Sorry I believe the hoax (at least in large part), there is no way back for me now, based in the US reputation and the numerous inconsistencies. Until a second independent source verifies it (stress independent) I will not acknowledge the official version as valid.

In any case the question was about the Russian program not specific to the Moon hoax. The Soviets did not have a "open" program, even if in regards to space issue they behaved with the US as if no Cold War existed (a bit out of character). In any case the source of Jarrah White is stated if you have a better one before the strange shift toward cooperation it may be useful.

reply to post by DJW001


There is one thing that the US never had, that is an historic sense of integrity, most other older nations do have a sense of historic responsibility and decorum that prevents them to act in much of the fashion that is common in US behavior. The only exceptions is when at War.

In war since WW1 anything goes, even so you can look on how the Germans and English treated high patents and even POWs (amongst themselves) to get a glimpse on the type of mentality. This was and still is prevalent in most of Europe from Portugal to Poland, Finland and down to Italy, I think it is an age thing, as nations they have more to preserve. Its probably why the Brits and the French seem so snob to the general US citizen especially in the past, but it is still prevalent in large sense.

This is my theory why nations behave as they do at times. Note that after the fall of Communism in Russia the mentality about national pride is more like the US than "the rest" of Europe or China (there it is even more significant especially the abuses they endured in the hands of other nations).

Originally posted by wildespace
There's also the thing that if you simply speed up the footage to reflect the Earth's gravity, the astronauts' movements will look unnatural and jerky. This supports the claim that it was filmed in a 1/6th gravity environment.

Yes, it's vaguely covered in the video when discussing telecine.

Thing is ... the person will never understand why unless they read about it. For example things like registration errors, T-judder etc ... Until the mass move to digital, VFX artists were still dealing with registration movement from mechanical film gates.

The human eye is quite capable of noticing a 1 or 2 pixel jump in an effects shot, so even a stationary shot had to be stabilized at times.

Most people who haven't had to work with physical film seem to forget how much of a pain in the butt it used to be and simply don't know the difference between film and video formats.

The footage below is good quality ... you couldn't pass it off as video.

reply to post by Pinke


I haven't rematched the OP video but I now think I get the point, in the replies to my 2x speed. But in the same context the TV quality at the time was pretty abysmal, I doubt that anyone would notice the difference between video and film.

Apollo 11 moon landing TV, shots were black and white (the only mission that was so). There was a color TV camera not rated for vacuum inside the craft but images from that were not seen until later (can't locate date).

IMHO, the moon landing videos are fake/edited. There are a lot of things Armstrong saw in the moon that are prohibited from the public eyes, and whatever he saw told him you are not welcome here again.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by DJW001

 

See the history books if you take what transpired the Russians at the time said they couldn't do it because of the radiation.

Absolutely false.

In the late '60s, the Soviets planned Manned circum-lunar missions using a modified Soyuz spacecraft called Zond. There were development problems with the craft, so they sent several unmanned practice flights around the Moon.

Here are the results of the Zond radiation measurements

"The comparison of the dosage evaluations with the permissible values allows the conclusion that, should no solar flare occurs, (sic) seven-day flights along the trajectories of Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from the radiation point of view."

By the time they got the bugs worked out, the Americans had already landed, and the Soviet propaganda line changed to say they were never racing for the Moon, and the Zonds were simply "probes".

See Encyclopedia Astronautica - Why did the Soviet Union lose the Moon Race?

This video is so good, so incredibly brilliant, solid and simple, that you will want to paste it all over your Facebooks and Twitters just to piss off all the IMBECILES who still claim that the Moon landings were faked.* The reason is simple: the technology to fake it didn't exist.

I'm not big on the whole hoax thing, but doesn't his argument break down, when you realize how the broadcasting was done?


According to NASA, the video shown on TV ran slightly delayed of some sort of magnetic tape (which were subsequently famously lost) onto which the live feed's slow-scan television signals were recorded. It then was projected onto a screen, and the image on that screen is the public live feed what was shown around the world


That is, by the way, a huge part of the reason the footage originally shown was of such poor quality. And why it is so heartbreaking that the tapes of humanity's perhaps greatest moments were lost before they were digitized.


Anyway, I don't know why the youtuber doesn't recognize the existence of magnetic tape, but only tell about the plate recorder and I don't know why he doesn't emphasize the distribution method of the Apollo feed, because both seem to negate the point that the wast amount of slowed down footage needed was not practically feasible or technically possible.

I believe America did go to the Moon, but I can't see this particular argument as a proof positive.

As someone who owns a film and media production company, I've never had doubts about the moon landings. Anyone who understand how cameras work and the science behind photography can debunk 9 out if 10 of the conspiracy theories. And someone with a science degree like me also can debunk chemtrails. It hurts me to see people wasting so much time on these stupid conspiracy theories, when there are real ones out there that truly hurt us, like secret societies and government spying.

My brother Andy found a rare book titled 'Handbook of Astronautical Engineering' by Heinz Hermann Koelle copyright 1961 First Edition. Redstone Scientific Information Center Redstone Arsenal Alabama. He bought it from Zubal Books. Has anyone compared this Engineering Handbook with those of today?

reply to post by ckno1


I only watched half, but I think the whole clip is summed up in his own words. " Blah, blah, blah. Etc., etc.."
I have no real opinion on the reality of the moon landings, this is any thing but proof.

I work in film & post production. Many of the points this man brought up, were true.......

However: I'm from the school of thought, that the military has had advanced flash based RAM recorders since the 1950s. Think of gun camera footage, from old wars. Film would have taken too much space, for too little footage. Video transmission would be too un-secure, and resolution would be low. How can we watch half hour dogfights?

If you're in the industry, you'd know that digital signals processed at 1 bit (not our whopping 64 bit of today), at millions of samples per second: are twice as resolute as 2 inch reel 24 track tape, or full chroma film. 1 bit facilitates far less processing power & allows for full redundancy (you can record multiple frames at once, in case a frame is dropped). I know this, because I record audio at 1 bit/2.6 million samples per second. This technology was available to the public via the Sony corporation, since the late 1970s. I'm sure it was in development, prior to Apollo.

I do believe man has gone to, and kept visiting the moon. I don't believe the true footage has ever been shared with us.

reply to post by DJW001


You fail to realize that their is more than one type of radiation. Yes alpha and beta radiation, the least harmful will be stopped by aluminum. But not the harmful stuff. "Gamma rays are the most dangerous form of ionizing radiation. These extremely high energy photons can travel through most forms of matter because they have no mass. It takes several inches of lead -- or several feet of concrete -- to effectively block gamma rays. If you're exposed to gamma rays, they pass through your entire body, affecting all of your tissues from your skin to the marrow of your bones. This causes widespread, systemic damage." how stuff works

reply to post by ckno1


I wish he would have explained how they got that shot of the guy coming down the ladder well lighted while the wall of the spacecraft was in shadow.

I think that the answer is that some of the really early stuff might have been shot in the desert on earth and then when they really did get to the moon that stuff is real. They could have shot film and then streamed it as the live from the moon video. We lost all the original recordings of that stuff by the way. All that is left are bad copies now.

The other video that looked strange to me is the blast off of the luner module. It just kind of floats up, no dust storm, no blast at all. No crater in the sand after.

Good video though.

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
By the way, you do realize that the moon is so close that if there were a road, most cars would be able to drive right to it? Going there was brute force, period. The rockets did exist.

You must be joking, right?
If there was such a 'road', a car steadily traveling at 100 km/h would take 3844 hours (or 160 days) of constant driving to get to the moon. So what the hell are you talking about?